“At present, the lede and the overall presentation state, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Israel is committing genocide, although that claim is highly contested,” Wales said. He added that a “neutral approach would begin with a formulation such as: ‘Multiple governments, NGOs, and legal bodies have described or rejected the characterization of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.’” Currently, the article bases its position that a genocide exists on conclusions from United Nations investigations, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and “multiple human rights groups,” among others.
Hey Jimmy, people who are committing genocide denying that they are committing genocide doesn’t make it highly contested.
Yeah. But also people who are not are contesting it somewhat. E.g. brit government.
The UK started the fucking genocide by giving away land that was not theirs to an entire religion/ethnic group who hadn’t been more than a minority in the region in all of recorded history.
Everyone denying the genocide is complicit or bought.
You are mental.
The UK did not redistribute land to Jerusalem this millennium. Claiming borders and deeds of old to justify (military) action is a book out of a warmongers playbook.
What does the turning of the millennium have to do with it? We’re still talking within a single person’s lifetime…
The active current genocide started in 23. The UK did not redraw borders to trigger it. It was triggered by a terror attack. Some have considered the attack inevitable due to continued oppression and border fences. Public opinion in Israel also does not appear to be influenced by the British.
Public opinion in Israel also does not appear to be influenced by the British.
let’s start with the easy one: this is completely irrelevant. public opinion is largely worthless and means nothing.
The active current genocide started in 23.
it started in the 1940s, arguably earlier.
the very first thing that happened in the region was Palestinians being expelled from their own land in order to make way for the zionist regime.
that’s how Palestinian oppression started, and it’s the reason the situation got so bad in the first place.
it got much, much worse in '23, but that’s not the start at all.
It was triggered by a terror attack.
no, it was the other way around; ongoing genocide triggered the terrorist attack.
and more importantly:
is this supposed to mean that genocide can be justified? is that what you’re saying?
Some have considered the attack inevitable due to continued oppression and border fences.
gee, i wonder how that oppression started in the first place… certainly couldn’t have been the british! they’d never meddle in the middle east for colonialist reasons!
well…except in afghanistan…and iraq…and syria…and egypt…wait, how long is this list anyway?
could the british empire be responsible for most of the clusterfuck that is the current middle east, by having drawn completely arbitrary lines on maps more than a century ago, which were deliberately designed to fence in diverse ethnic communities, with the explicit goal of suppressing the local populations by putting them in a constant state of unresolvable armed conflict in order to ensure instability in the region and as a result keeping education and living standards low, thus guaranteeing cheap oil for the foreseeable future by making it trivial to install dictatorships across the region?
…are you for fucking real?
(hawara, du saufst den lack aber auch im liter pack…)
The current invasion of Gaza was preceded by relative peace. You not liking Israel has been made to exist is fine. Does not change the facts, that Jewish people live in in Israel, policy changed substantially at that point, and so did public opinion in Israel.
A trigger is not a justification. A trigger does not justify genocide. A trigger is just a trigger. You read too much between the lines. Sometimes a sunrise is just a sunrise.
The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict…[an individual] who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it – Martin Luther King J
I’m sure that neutrality and both side arguments are perfectly acceptable for articles on the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, Native American genocide, flat earth and climate denialism, right? The article already cites 500 sources, mostly in favor of the genocide label, but we should give more credit to the Israeli government and the Western colonial powers that created it?? Fuck neutrality, and fuck anyone who supports it.
I’m sure Grokipedia has taken the page and converted it into something that won’t offend the boot lickers.
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think Wales is correct.
I understand this seems irrational, because of course Israel committed genocide in Gaza. And Wikipedia’s job is to describe reality, right?
Wrong. Wikipedia’s job is to describe historical and scientific consensus. It is fundamental to their mission that they do all they can to avoid arbitrating disputes. I know that’s painful, but it’s a matter of roles: academics and media organizations arbitrate, and Wikipedia’s role is to catalog and communicate the consensus these organizations reach.
It’s terrible that a minority of biased actors have managed to prevent media and academic institutions from reaching consensus when the subject is so straightforward and obvious. But until that is addressed, unfortunately Wikipedia is hampered from describing the consensus reality by the needs of their core mission. They are designed to be downstream of these organizations, and they have to be to remain effective to their core mission. It’s like how the UN lets war criminals like Netanyahu visit and speak. As much as we’d all like them to kick him the hell out, doing so undermines the core purpose of the institution. It’s uncomfortable, but it’s the job description.
I think one solution is that their should be more than one crowd-sourced encyclopedia for the world. Wikipedia will always suffer from a Western, English-speaking bias.
I’m pretty sure there is an academic consensus.
There is a lot wrong with this statement. The reason Israel can commit these war crimes with impunity is because of tolerance such as giving them a stage in the UN. It is not our job or Wikipedias to give a platform to enablers of massive human suffering. In fact, it is just the opposite.
You last point is also extremely questionable because there are numerous Wikipedia clones and competitors.
Can you specify which alternatives you’re talking about?
Also, I don’t know what’s specifically questionable about any of this. I haven’t disputed or justified anything. I’ve just expressed a contrary opinion on tactics.
https://blog.reputationx.com/wikipedia-alternatives
Edit: I will give you some feedback as to what I thought was ill conceived in your statement.
First, I think beginning with “wrong” and making a subjective statement that is not what Wikipedia or Wikimedia actually have as their mission started you off on the wrong foot.
Second, a minority of actors has not prevented consensus.
Third, the UN does not have to allow war criminals a platform.
- People spend two years proving it is a " historical and scientific consensus. "
- OP: it is not true!
I want to be clear.
I know it’s a genocide, and I agree that this is the consensus of academic scholars. The only real dispute is coming from donors who can manipulate the editorial process.
This is the crux of the dispute within Wikipedia: when the system works correctly, scholars write; their institutions publish; Wikipedia summarizes. But if bad actors interrupt the execution of step 2, should Wikipedia break protocol further to circumvent the attack? Or effectively allow it to be successful to maintain process?
I think the argument for the former is compelling, but I think Wales recognizes the downstream consequences, and I think I very reluctantly agree.
The bad actors do need to be countered. I just don’t think Wikipedia is an effective tool to do so.
This the exact rationale used by climate deniers. Because you can state that there is “controversy” over an issue, you can dismiss it entirely.
The consensus is that Isreal is committing a genocide. Those who are disagree are a tiny minority, and should be considered nothing more than outliers. It doesn’t matter that some of the disagreement comes from nations like the US. They’re not more right just because they have a big economy and military.
As you said, “Wikipedia’s job is to describe historical and scientific consensus”, and that’s exactly the responsibility that they’re shirking here, choosing instead to gesture at a barely existent “controversy” that basically consists of “Isreal and their allies refute the claim.” By the same token we shouldn’t call Trump a felon because he still insists he’s innocent.
I addressed this in several other responses.
I’m aware that there is a strong consensus among the actual scholars who study this. The issue is that a consensus is being obstructed throug editorial control by elites. The question being debated, imo, isn’t whether Israel committed genocide (we all know they have). It’s whether Wikipedia breaking standard procedures is a sound strategy to circumvent the suppression of truth by elites.
I think the case in both directions is strong. It’s very appealing in the short term.
is consensus even a thing? and considering the groups that make up the group saying it’s not a genocide, it would be like giving a murder equal say in his conviction at trial.
genocide has a definition, isreal far exceeded all criteria, israel has and is currently committing genocide.
unless there is a new definition that excludes israel but also doesn’t exclude the holocaust without naming the parties i don’t know of
The facts are the facts
Also seen at https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/57081889
Not sure why this isn’t a crosspost.
