On July 25, after a couple of months of debate, the Wikipedia entry “Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza” was changed to “Gaza genocide.” This was done despite the fact that the International Court of Justice in the Hague has not made an official ruling on the matter, in the wake of South Africa’s petition to the court alleging that Israel is committing or facilitating genocide in Gaza.
The Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal, which followed the Wikipedia discussion and vote, wrote that the editors who voted on this change claimed to be relying on an academic consensus based on statements of experts on genocide, human rights, human rights law and Holocaust historians.
Inb4 ‘WIKIPEDIA IS HAMAS!!’ allegations start being thrown
They’ll start a new wiki like conservatives did. Call it Zionedia.
this is perfect though. Because it takes them away from slowing down progress on wikipedia and instead wastes their time on something with shit SEO.
And the nazis will hopefully leave to go there as well
It already exists. Conservapedia
Given enough time, we’re gonna end up with two flavors of absolutely everything: normal, and racism incarnate
And others say we’ll end up with normal and woke.
I’m not on a team and feel like we will indeed end up with just 2 things and it’ll be both extremes. And most people will be stuck in the middle wondering why we have teams.
What the hell is “woke”? Isn’t that just normal?
Oh look, a centrist.
We’ll just have some middle ground between slavery and emancipation. We’ll just have a middle ground between genocide and no genocide. We’ll just have a middle ground between democracy and dictatorship. etc…
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the rational position you seem to think it is.
I don’t feel that we need an ideology middle ground. But I do feel that my having individual positions on individual policies leaves me siding with different preformed “teams” quite often.
Wikipedia headquarters and the editor under school in Gaza?
Haven’t they been doing that since wiki said adl wasn’t a good source?
Next up: a full congressional investigation into Wikipedia
Conservapedia will finally reach the mainstream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forks_of_Wikipedia
A number of content forks of the open-source encyclopedia Wikipedia have been created:
-
Enciclopedia Libre, a 2002 fork of the Spanish Wikipedia created in opposition to perceived plans to add advertising to Wikipedia
-
Conservapedia, a 2006 fork of the English Wikipedia that aims to present a conservative-friendly worldview
-
Qiuwen Baike, a 2023 fork of the Chinese Wikipedia that aims to be compliant with Chinese government policies
-
Ruwiki (Wikipedia fork), a 2023 fork of the Russian Wikipedia that aims to be compliant with Russian government policies
Conservapedia views Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,[9] falsely claims that abortion increases risk of breast cancer, praises Republicanpoliticians, supports celebrities and artistic works it believes represent moral standards in line with Christian family values, and espouses fundamentalist Christian doctrines such as Young Earth creationism.
I couldn’t have made it up, WHAT THE FUCK lmao
That site is good for a laugh - a complete alternate universe devoid of science, evidence, or conscious thought.
Soon to be condemned and superseded by Magapedia
falsely claims that abortion increases risk of breast cancer
Ironically, they were close to a point that might actually support their views. Birth control does increase the risk of breast and cervical cancer. It also lowers ovarian, endometrial, and colon cancer risk, but they’re not presenting complete information either way, so they could just ignore those parts.
deleted by creator
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: Macron married a removed, Obama ‘accompanied by muscular man in wig’. [146]
Fucking hell. This is the shit they take seriously!
Conservapedia, a 2006 fork of the English Wikipedia that aims to present a conservative-friendly worldview
Further evidence that conservatives are snowflake little shitbirds that cant handle reality.
-
By the way this Haertz article is making false claims.
From the wikipedia talk page:
Just fyi that Haaretz just dropped some propaganda about this article claiming that since its name change it “was regularly getting 55,000 views per day,” which is a demonstrably false claim.
Wikipedia is now in the interesting position of having to write an encyclopaedia article about the discussions about their original page, in which I suspect they cannot cite themselves as a source.
Unless their “talk” page is about academics resolving the name change based on acacemic concensus. It’d still be “us confirming us”, but with citations and constructive resources.
Sure, but I assume there will have to be a regular Wikipedia page (or at least section) about the discussion of Wikipedia’s naming of the main article.
Its likely too early (For Wikipedia) just because the ICJ hasn’t made a ruling. The genocide however is pretty plain to see and has been all year. Wikipedia has always done weird and often inconsistent things around the evidence allowed and sufficient to support statements in its articles so its not a new issue.
The ICJ ruling will take years though.
I think the most similar genocide to the Gaza genocide is the Bosnian genocide. The Srebrenica massacre took place in 1995 and the ICJ ruled in 2007.
So, the Gaza genocide might take until 2035 before it is all legally settled.
In the interim, Wikipedia and all of us need to decide what to call it.
Since it looks like a genocide and the initial findings support the case that genocide is likely being committed, it seems to border on genocide denial to call it anything else.
Edit to add: I also don’t see people complaining about Wikipedia calling the Rohingya genocide a genocide, even though it is legally in the same phase as the Gaza genocide.
In the interim, Wikipedia and all of us need to decide what to call it.
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, shits like a duck. Probably a duck.
Totally okay with calling it a genocide- and while they dither on what a slow-as-fuck court says, people are dying en masse.
Israel is starving the population, bombing them, shooting them, blockading them, it has destroyed all the medical facilities, educational institutions, all the infrastructure, it has cut off electricity and water and blocks or kills anyone trying to help the people to live. Israeli leaders openly express genocidal intent. There’s no doubt this is genocide.
shits like a duck.
In ponds?
Kidding aside, it’s ABSOLUTELY a genocide. There’s no doubt about it by any credible definition.
That Wikipedia has started calling it a genocide is a much needed step that removes one of the few remaining straws that Hasbarists and other genocide deniers have left to grasp at.
The ICJ ruling will take years though.
As far as genocide deniers are concerned, that’s the idea.
In the interim, Wikipedia and all of us need to decide what to call it.
i mean, we could also just not have started referring to it as a genocide, but uh, we jumped the gun there a little bit.
It’s always interesting to me how people will latch on to certain words so aggressively and refuse to cede even minor ground if it requires changing wording.
i mean even referring to it as “likely genocide” would make it like 10x more palatable.
Removed by mod
Removed, civility.
curious, i’m not jewish, how could i be a zionist?
ethno-nationalist maybe, but i’m not one of those either, i’m generally opposed to ethnostates.
also, am i gross? Or did i just say something gross? Weird implication there.
curious, i’m not jewish, how could i be a zionist?
Oh wow it’s super fucking rare for someone to just admit that they’ve got no idea what they’re talking about like that.
If you legitimately think being Jewish is a requirement to be a zionist then you’re so I’ll informed on the topic at hand that it’s actually pathetic.
also, am i gross?
Yes. Your views are gross, so I find you gross.
There’s no implication at all, I directly stated what you are. Work on your understanding of the language, it’s shit.
Oh wow it’s super fucking rare for someone to just admit that they’ve got no idea what they’re talking about like that.
well considering that zionism is a concept relating specifically to judaism, it seems fair to me to assume that it would be mostly jewish people that primarily care about it.
My family is historically christian, but i’m not a pastor or anything so any deeper lore is lost on me.
If you legitimately think being Jewish is a requirement to be a zionist then you’re so I’ll informed on the topic at hand that it’s actually pathetic.
i don’t think it’s a requirement, probably just a heavy predisposition. As a non religious individual myself i have no reason to care for zionism one way or the other. I also don’t think i mentioned anything specifically about zionism in my original post, so im not even sure why i’m being called a zionist.
Yes. Your views are gross, so I find you gross.
all of them? Or just these ones specifically.
Their comment was removed for civility, but to answer your question, many American evangelicals are Zionist because they feel the Holy land has to be in Jewish hands for Jesus to come back.
It’s not a rational belief, but then, religion is rarely rational.
yeah, that’s a possibility. I know israel exists under the concept that in order for jews to be safe it has to be it’s own ethnostate with the ability to protect itself militarily, which is definitely one of the answers after the events of the holocaust. Or so i’ve heard.
appreciate the answer though.
They relied on academics and genocide experts. It’s not weird or inconsistent with reality, regardless of propaganda.
Yeah, they’re inconsistent from article to article, because it depends on how many editors show up.
The more editors generally means a more consistent result/accurate result.
Yeah. One time I edited the Wikipedia article on the human pancreas to say it was just a worthless organ taking up valuable internal real estate. My edit got redacted pretty quickly.
It has never been an organ of distinction
deleted by creator
You know what will fix the world? Debating semantics.
I don’t think anybody is expecting Wikipedia admins and contributors to directly affect the outcome of conflict in the middle east, but deliberative discussions of how the events are documented can only be a good thing.
The site acts as much of our ‘record’ in the modern age - and is ideally less eager to throw out hyperbole or speculate too readily.
Arriving at that title and nomenclature needs to be seen as a reasoned approach, and not “crying wolf” so that the impartiality of the articles can be upheld - by being careful about their decision, it is a better outcome for everyone.
“This article is about the genocide accusations against Israel”
Doesn’t mean the Wikipedia editors agree it is.
And I’m not saying it isn’t.
But OP is not being honest.
You are not being honest. This is a news article and the Wikipedia editors voted for the name.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Looks like they think the earth is flat too.
Good. Because it is a genocide. Fuck Zionism
World News = 4,259 articles announcing that Israel is committing genocide and 1,865 articles claiming there isn’t enough coverage that Israel is committing genocide.
Look. I get it. Israel be bad. But there is other stuff happening in the world that I’d like to know about. I don’t need to be told the exact same thing over and over and over and over and over again.
Haaretz - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Haaretz:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - Israel
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
Why can’t we just ask mods to finally end this bot? It’s not good at all.
Wikis are unsuitable for contentious topics. Wikis are there to crowdsource objective facts about the world (all it takes is one person to add any given fact, so they will relatively quickly contain lots of facts). They were not invented as a tool, and should never have started to be used as such, to determine one single truth about contentious issues.
Israel committing genocide is not a contested subject among human rights organisations.
well i mean, most human rights orgs dont like war or people dying, so im not really sure why that’s a surprise.
Designating something as a genocide is not a matter of opinion – it’s a legal definition.
An homicide is an homicide before the court case for it is done. Just because some words also have legal definitions it doesn’t mean that they’re incorrectly used before the judge concluded them and the guilty party.
Maybe easier to visualise with assault. Assault happened from the moment the aggression happened, not from the moment the aggressor got convicted of it
Right, that’s why the ICJ exists
yup, and the court hasn’t deliberated just yet, so there is no actual determination as to what’s going on.
Several genocide scholars seem to be convinced on the matter, though:
the NPR article itself quotes a block about how experts believe there is “grounds for genocidal acts to be committed” which is a bit of a far shoot from “experts believe there is active genocide” happening.
And just so we’re on the same page here, i’m inclined to agree with the assessment that there is significant potential for genocide to occur in this environment. My problem is the explicit nature and totality of the usage of the term which i find to be irresponsible.
But they don’t call all such events genocides.
they don’t and that is true, but there is a relative predisposition there in that regard.
Playing the devil’s advocate here: the existence of hell is not a contested subject among abrahamitic clerical organizations.
Don’t play devils advocate with genocide because of the damage denial can do. Also religious faith can’t be solved or contested through evidence, unlike legal determinations through a court or scientific findings. Giving the same weight or importance to any opinion is post modernism. And if only opinion matters and not truth or facts, then only strength matters.
I think it’s hard to compare the bias of organizations that have an anti-war stance and organizations that literally believe in mythical beings.
This is a false equivalent argument but also for the record the existence of hell is absolutely contested among Abrahamic clerical organizations.
I don’t know if you’ve ever read through a debate on a contentious and well attended topic on Wikipedia, but they tend to differ to experts, academics, and reliable sources, as it’s a Wikipedia policy (the easiest policy to appeal to in fact).
Sounds like this was more than one ‘point of fact’ or on lone editor at play. Perhaps we read to different things here:
The Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal, which followed the Wikipedia discussion and vote, wrote that the editors who voted on this change claimed to be relying on an academic consensus based on statements of experts on genocide, human rights, human rights law and Holocaust historians.
Sounds like they used high quality reliable sources to define the characterisation of the events. Which is a very Wikipedia approach to take.
well, yea, Wikipedia is not a court, but the ICJ would take a decade to decide and we need awareness/action now rather than when they are all dead, so
The court issued its interim ruling on Jan. 26 with six legally binding provisions, including those ordering the Israeli army to: prevent acts that might be considered genocide in the besieged enclave; allow humanitarian aid into the strip; punish incitement to genocide; submit monthly reports; and take measures to protect Palestinians.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/09/un-court-has-ruled-on-gaza-genocide-case-heres-what-happens-now.html
(if the above link acts fucky, this is the official document, the legally binding recommendations are on pages 24/25:)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/26/world/middleeast/icj-gaza-provisional-ruling.html
Is Israel following at least one of these?
You should listen to the podcast “Stuff you Should Know” episode on Wikipedia called “The Big Episode on Wikipedia”.
Wikipedia doesn’t really quite work like you stated, and especially the huge topics like this, they tend to be more factual, detailed, accurate, and researched than even long established encyclopedias.
