User talk:Cdjp1

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Better late…

I think I might find some time to finally add the missing German law professors to the genocide article. That would be Ambos, Goldmann, Hartwig and Müller, Khan, Sassoli and Diggelmann as well as Walter, right?

However, there is a minor problem regarding this: I have a COI for one of them, but I’m not really looking to dox myself. Personally, I would probably just write it up and post it on the talk page, disclosing it as “COI for all of them”; do you think that would be in line with the relevant policy, or is this likely to get me in trouble? FortunateSons (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring the COI like that, and giving it to the talk page to consider, should be ok, though I'm not well read on policies. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? Any objections?

In December 2023, Kai Ambos, a professor of international and criminal law at the University of Göttingen and judge at the Kosovo Special Tribunal, warned that potentially genocidal statements by politicians, while potentially beneficial for proving specific intent, could not necessarily be applied to the evaluation of military decisions. [1] In January 2024, Christian Walter, a Professor of Public Law and Public International Law at the LMU in Munich, argued in the Verfassungsblog that the extend of harm to both civilians and infrastructure weren’t conclusive, and that attempts to evacuate civilians were an indication against genocidal intent. [2]. Matthias Goldmann, a professor of international law at the EBS University, stated in April that there a conviction before the ICJ was uncertain and that there was no “smoking gun” proving the special intent. [3]

Marco Sassoli and Oliver Diggelmann, professors of international law in Gevena and Zurich, argued in May that while some statements by politicians may be genocidal, the same did not apply to the actions of the Israeli military; Diggelmann believes that a conviction for genocide is unlikely.[4] Andreas Müller, a professor of international law at the University of Basel, stated the the term genocide was being used as a term of criticism instead of according to its legal definition, and added that “there was no sufficient ground of genocide if one takes the legal term seriously”.[5] Daniel-Erasmus Khan, professor of international law at the university of the Bundeswehr in Munich, stated in June that there was no clear evidence of a special intent among Israeli leadership.[6] FortunateSons (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally ok, my only suggestion is you don't need to list the university each is based at. Posting this to the article talk page will have others go over it as well of course. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good idea, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not permitted to make an update, but would you mind adding a new entry for this to the list? I would suggest the the text: In der Tat ist die Hürde für die Feststellung eines Genozids sehr hoch. Die Vernichtungsabsicht lässt sich nicht leicht nachweisen. Sofern wie hier keine direkten Vernichtungsbefehle vorliegen, setzt der Internationale Gerichtshof den Nachweis eines “pattern of conduct” voraus, das sich nicht anders als ein Vernichtungsplan lesen lässt. Die Lage im Gazastreifen bleibt schwierig zu beurteilen. Aber: Die Anzeichen für einen Genozid verdichten sich. Zumindest das Risiko eines Genozids, von dem auch der IGH spricht, würde ich hier als gegeben ansehen. Die Menschen im Gazastreifen sind auf humanitäre Hilfe angewiesen und aus meiner Sicht kann man die Hilfe in der vorgesehenen Übergangsfrist von drei Monaten nicht effektiv neu regeln., logged as maybe. FortunateSons (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that it's a COI matter. I've not read the article fully, but skim doesn't flag any concerns of it being a bad source, the guy looks to have work that is of note for this sort of stuff, and being associated with a Max Planck outfit is a good sign. I'll read it properly later, and look at adding it with a couple of other pieces that I need to add to the list. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a COI issue (acquired after I wrote the wiki article, just for the sake of clarity). There is an old entry to the list ("smoking gun"), but this is newer and more detailed, so I thought an update would be beneficial; however, there is a good reason that our policy dictates that I'm not allowed to decide that. Thank you very much for the assistance, no matter which decision you make :) FortunateSons (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Sheikh

Hello @Cdjp1 I hope this message finds you well. I would like to bring to your attention the need to avoid including current affairs topics in certain India-based articles. Due to the frequent controversies in India, we should avoid overloading our content with a 'Controversy' section based solely on individual remarks. I hope this helps. Thank you.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 18:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Hello, I'm SoyokoAnis. I noticed that you recently removed content from Antisemitism without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. (You blanked the whole page.) SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 14:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SoyokoAnis that was a technical error trying to edit via the app. My apologies. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're good! Happy editing! SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 14:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antisemitism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages SBS and Palgrave.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Genocide navbox

Hi, I am writing you with regards to your edit here [7]. I have removed certain entries for one simple reason: not every massacre is a genocide. My opinion is that an article needs to have at least two reliable sources describing it as genocide if it merits to be included in the Genocide navbox. For instance, Asiatic Vespers has no sources claiming it is a genocide. The Japanese colonization of Hokkaido|Ainu has no article at all, and needs to be written first before it can be included at all. Osage Indian murders has a too small number of killed people to be considered a genocide. Khmelnytsky Uprising has no claim in the article that it is genocide. 1740 Batavia massacre has no sources claiming it is a genocide. Kantō Massacre has no sources claiming it is a genocide. Napalpí massacre has no sources claiming it is a genocide. Do you agree that, at a minimum, these crimes should not be included in the Genocide navbox because they have no source defining it as a genocide in the article?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need only your claim of has a too small number of killed people to be considered a genocide to disregard your argument. Such a claim is at odds with the entire field of genocide studies, whether coming from the UN convention in a legal framework or coming from sociological or historical frameworks. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arctic Circle System: pinging you as you mainly manage the navbox. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can disregard the argument about Osage Indian murders, but it wasn't the only argument made here, since you further ignore that four other cases, Khmelnytsky Uprising, 1740 Batavia massacre, Kantō Massacre and Napalpí massacre, were also mentioned as articles which have no reliable sources describing them as genocides. Either you find these sources and include them in these articles, or we cannot insert these articles in the Genocide navbox. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cdjp1: @3E1I5S8B9RF7: For some of the entries removed, notably those on the list of genocides in history, that discussion is best taken up on the aforementioned page. As for the Asiatic Vespers, it explicitly states "They were planned, with Mithridates writing secretly to regional satraps and leaders to kill all Italian residents (along with wives, children, and freedmen of Italian birth) thirty days after the day of writing." I do not think I need to elaborate further on that front. Arctic Circle System (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources claiming it is a genocide? This is WP:OR. You can infer conclusions from such statement, but we cannot have in the article Asiatic Vespers something like "it is genocide, source: Arctic Circle System". You need to find reliable sources describing it as such.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So if it literally describes the event explicitly as something that falls so much within the definition of genocide as killing every member of an ethnic group within a region but doesn't use the word itself it doesn't count? That's absurd. Arctic Circle System (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genocides in history (before World War I)#Asiatic Vespers - [46] -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arctic Circle System: I explained it to you, there needs to be a reliable source for a claim. Your own opinion just doesn't count. Even the article Armenian genocide, which has the word "genocide" in its title, has sources for the claim that it is a genocide. Instead of guessing which massacre is or is not a genocide, cut to the chase and find reliable sources, and then insert them into articles. A quick Google search already shows a source that describes Asiatic Vespers as a genocide [8], so try to do this with other articles missing such important description.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also that. Quite frankly, I think a lot of this discussion is misplaced and should be discussed in the talk page of articles like that, not the talk page of a user who sometimes edits a navbox related to it. Arctic Circle System (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, previously you were making bold claims that no such sources existed... -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cdjp1: practice your comprehension skills. I did not claim that sources describing said events as genocide by historians or scholars did not exist, but rather that no such source existed in these articles. And that this should be corrected to have at least two such sources if a crime should be included in the Genocide navbox. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "guessing"? In the case of the Asiatic Vespers, the source specifically stated intent to kill all Italian residents. Unless you want to claim that attempting to kill every member of an ethnic group in a region isn't genocide, the conclusion even from that source is clear. Arctic Circle System (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't about your private conclusions and thoughts, but about reliable sources. Leave that to historians or scholars. Your task is then to find such sources and include them in these articles.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a private conclusion, I- forget it. I guess even if a source describes an event as verbatim the definition of genocide but they don't use the word itself it's not enough. Cool. Arctic Circle System (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antisemitism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortune.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined harvnp reference in Gaza genocide

HI, in this edit to Gaza genocide you use {{harvnb|The Palestinian Chronicle|2024a}} but the source is not defined. This means that nobody can look the reference up, and hte article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply the missing source it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that should have been The Palestine Chronicle in the ref, not The Palestinian Chronicle. I've now corrected it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on South Schleswig Voters' Association

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page South Schleswig Voters' Association, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

hello - any particular reason for this revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1280224031 ? Astropulse (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Astropulse mainly it is personal preference as it seems overly gratuitous. More generally, a broad range of images, spread out through the article seems better design, so trying not to cluster as many images in single sections (the reason for my other reversion and adjustment) I think would be better. As a note, have you contacted the VRT at Commons with evidence that the images you uploaded are fine copyright wise per the description you provided? If not, it would be a good idea to do so, so that they aren't deleted. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Oct 7 attack articles - there are graphic and violent images and videos of murdered people. I haven’t found such images to balance for Palestinians. That’s one reason I selected this picture. I blurred the penis - as it may be inappropriate. I can open up talk discussion if you disagree. And yes - we can spread it out.

Looking at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_VRT? im not seeing the situation where the creator has released or published their work under a free license. is there a forum you can ask questions about it? Astropulse (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the VRT, I was going off of not being able to find information saying that the photos were released under a permissable licence on UNRWA's website, though I could have simply missed it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the image I can raise it on talk page later, unless you want to do it now. If others think the image is fine, then we can add it back in. This means we stay within the process of BRD. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Comparative gendarmerie enlisted ranks of Francophone countries for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparative gendarmerie enlisted ranks of Francophone countries is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative gendarmerie enlisted ranks of Francophone countries until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International reactions to the persecution of Uyghurs in China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Diplomat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be of (general) interest

Episode 334 of F.A.Z. Einspruch, from about minute 25 to minute 50, is rather interesting from a civil rights and law perspective, about language (and speech) restrictions during German demonstrations. The guest also technically makes a statement about genocide in Gaza, but it’s pretty peripheral, so I’m not sure if that’s significant enough for the list. FortunateSons (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may get round to it, can't promise though, but thanks for the heads up. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course :) FortunateSons (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

A large fraction of the edits you are marking as "minor" are not minor. Please read Help:Minor edit, which explains that the meaning of "minor" is much more limited than you are assuming. Please conform to the standard. Zero^talk 13:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to specify examples. As most of my recent minor edits have been moving/formatting references in articles, which per the standard of minor, seem to fall under "What to mark as minor changes". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realise those large edits were gnomish stuff. Keep up the good work. Zero^talk 06:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Zionism edit breaking a citation

Greetings. I think this edit may have broken a citation but I'm not certain. Rockfang (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockfang: thanks for catching that, yeah, I shouldn't have deleted the post-script element. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Braunstein

We ec'd as I was about to just cut him. I looked at La PHILOSOPHIE DEVENUE FOLLE -LA: Le genre, l'animal, la mort and it was just a remarkably poorly informed piece of work. "If Humans aren't different from animals why don't we have sex with dogs?" levels of "just asking questions. Anyway I left your version up for now but I do want to ask - is this guy due inclusion at all? He honestly just looks like a crank who wrote a crank book. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: Oh yeah, I'm not gonna stop that ridiculous scholar from being cut, his academic credentials are used to bring him as an "authority" in discussions who should be given consideration, but much of his work is, as I wrote, wrong on the history of whatever he chooses to discuss and boils down to the usual right-wing conspiracism of (to put it bluntly) minorities being a supposed threat to society.

I chose not to cut him, as I don't need the headache of fighting the battle that could cause. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Maybe the best choice is to leave your version up for the moment and then look for reviews of his books, find some third parties who call him a crank. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only found two reviews and one was from a Spanish religious journal. LOL I'm going to delete as undue. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting - BAD

Please undo the reference "formatting" that you did on Breadloaf idol. The original format was much better since it let readers go from the entry in the reference list directly to the place in the text where that reference is mentioned. Also the new format with two separate lists wastes space. And moreover the "cite" tags are terrible for editors, bring no advantage whatsoever, and are bad for readers (since the cryptic notation "20 (10)" is only understandable by academics, not to general readers. All the best, Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, based on the standards and policies we have for WP, formatted references are preferred in every case over unformatted references. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you restore the image of Francoist supporters marching?

Francisco Franco's regime is widely regarded by scholars on fascism as a para-fascist regime, that means emulating fascism but not having the full characteristics to be considered fascist. So showing Francoist supporters marching does not represent fascism. BlueberryA96 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that is not a consensus view. A variety of specialist historians and political scientists support it's description as fascist. Though, regardless of that, we have images throughout the article, and discuss the regimes, of para-fascists due to their intimate similarity and relation to the topic of fascism. So the precedent, until an editor consensus states otherwise, is that such an image would be fine in the article regardless of whether Spain was fascist or para-fascist. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that that there are historians and political scientists who describe it as fascist. Though a number of prominent historians on fascism do not identify the regime as fully fascist they do recognize that it has significant fascist traits plus there are historians especially those with a left-wing or Marxist outlook who regard Franco's regime as fascist. Para-fascist definitely relates to fascism as it effectively means partially fascist. Alright, I accept your stance on having the image there. BlueberryA96 (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]