Title gore. What is this headline trying to communicate?
“Wikipedia concludes that Israel is committing genocide, thus ending an editorial debate”
Thank you, I read it over and over and thought I was going crazy.
Tbf I do think it qualifies as title gore and at the very least it is missing a comma before “ending”
Trying to imagine being the human who wrote that headline, sat back, and said “Yeah that’ll do!”
No no no, it’s a “Wikipedia-ending debate”
The IDF just announced that they’ve discovered a Hamas command and control center under Jimmy Wales’ khouse. It’ll be dealt with accordingly.
Just donated to Wikipedia.
Because everyone knows if you say it’s not genocide, it’s not genocide. 🇨🇳🇮🇱🇷🇺🇺🇸
If it doesn’t come from the Armenian region of Türkiye it’s not a genocide, it’s sparkling ethnic cleansing.
Damn it, you came up with a better ‘sparkling’ joke than I was thinking of.
I bow to the master.
I’ve been relistening to the Hardcore History episodes about World War 1, and Dan Carlin makes an interesting observation: Türkiye gets so pissy when you call what the Young Turks did the “Armenian genocide” but genocides are so common throughout history that it would be notable if a country didn’t commit one. Israel is also mad about calling what they’re doing in Gaza as a genocide, insisting that the 40,000 Gazans who have been killed were obviously Hamas, even 70% of which were women and children.
“Genocide” and “Nazi” are now odd words in English- they’re concepts that certain deplorable people have no qualms with idealizing and adhering to, as long as you don’t call them that.
I would also love to hear yours. That line of sparkling comparison is definitely something I’m going to add to my vocabulary
Unfortunately, two hours later, I’ve totally forgotten it. Sorry.
Hi. Did you read the article, by any chance?
I think he might have been commenting about how the opposition is/was fighting to keep the Genocide wording out of the article.
The English speaking Wikipedia community is not the ICJ.
did you read the article?
British Wikipedian, Stuart Marshall, made the final ruling in September, decisively supporting the article’s inclusion. “Based on the strength of the arguments … and it’s not close … I discarded the argument that scholars haven’t reached a conclusion on whether the Gaza genocide is really taking place”, Marshall wrote in his decision. “The matter remains contested, but there’s a metric truckload of scholarly sources linked in this discussion that show a clear predominance of academics who say that it is.”
Marshall concluded his ruling with the straightforward statement: “We follow the scholars.”
On its “Gaza genocide” page, it states that “Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.”
And the German Wikipedia community sees it differently (differently = waiting for an official decision) and does not allow an article called “Gaza Genozid” until now…
The matter remains contested
That could also be the argument for calling the article “Genocide accusations” and waiting for the ICJ…
On its “Gaza genocide” page, it states that “Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.”
Compared to the previous 2 quotes, this is actually a fact: There are accusations.
PS: Just to make it clear: I am not the ICJ either. And I think, it’s fine to share it as an opinion (“I think, there is a genocide happening”), but referencing it as a fact (“The genocide is getting worse”) before it is actually classified as one by the people who are responsible to do so, is just not useful at all. I know, that especially people from the USA see this differently.
Germans are allowed to shove their fingers in their ears and go “lalalala I can’t hear you therefore it’s not genocide”. In fact, all of us are allowed to. It’s just that most of those who aren’t a cunt will choose not to. It seems Germans do not pass that particular filter.
I prefer to not throw words on something based on emotions.
There are usually 3 views on the internet:
- “It’s a genocide!!! I am sure.”
- “It’s not a genocide!!! I am sure.”
- “I was not a virologist during Corona and I’m not an expert on genocides right now, but others are. So, I’ll wait for the experts of ICJ to decide.”
Mine is Nr. 3! If you think, that Nr. 2 and Nr. 3 are the same, the problem is on your side.
That’s a bad comparison. The Wikipedia decision was made specifically because the experts – i.e actual scholars of genocide and war crimes – have a very widely held consensus that a genocide is occurring.
Do you disagree with the experts?
There is the UN with its ICJ. That’s what pretty much the whole world agrees on.
They are the final deciders, but we can agree that it will take time for a decision.
What might be interesting, is what happens and how various people (including the scholars or you) react, if the ICJ decided differently. But that’s just speculation at this point.
Be careful with the words here. The ICJ is the final decider about one specific definition of genocide. However, there is nothing that says that is the sole valid definition of genocide. In fact:
According to Ernesto Verdeja, associate professor of political science and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, there are three ways to conceptualise genocide other than the legal definition: in academic social science, in international politics and policy, and in colloquial public usage.
- The academic social science approach does not require proof of intent,[11] and social scientists often define genocide more broadly.[12]
- The international politics and policy definition centres around prevention policy and intervention and may actually mean “large-scale violence against civilians” when used by governments and international organisations.
- Lastly, Verdeja says the way the general public colloquially uses “genocide” is usually “as a stand-in term for the greatest evils”.[11] This is supported by political scientist Kurt Mundorff who highlights how to the general public genocide is “simply mass murder carried out on a grand scale”.[13]
The German wikipedia can make its own editorial decisions. They also don’t have a Rohingya genocide article, only an article about the Rohingya genocide case at the ICJ. The English Wikipedia has two articles. It would seem the crux of the matter is that the Germans treat the word genocide as a purely legal term and therefore wait for the ICJ decision, whereas the English treat the word as a topic on which a scholarly academic consensus can be pronounced, in addition to the legal proceedings. One can argue back and forth about which approach has more or less merit, but they are both valid.
Edit: grammar
I agree that that’s probably the difference.
British Wikipedian, Stuart Marshall, made the final ruling in September, decisively supporting the article’s inclusion. “Based on the strength of the arguments … and it’s not close … I discarded the argument that scholars haven’t reached a conclusion on whether the Gaza genocide is really taking place”, Marshall wrote in his decision. “The matter remains contested, but there’s a metric truckload of scholarly sources linked in this discussion that show a clear predominance of academics who say that it is.”
“Stu, you can’t say metric fuckton”
It is what it is.
“I’m not publishing that.”
Fine! A metric truckton.
I didn’t actually realize that he didn’t say “metric fuckton” until I saw your comment and went back to reread it.
In a related move, the platform’s editors recently voted to declare the Anti-Defamation League “generally unreliable” on the subject, adding it to their list of banned and partially banned sources.
ADL is now a banned source. Good move.
Someone should tell MBFC about this finding so they can adjust the report.
No they cant change it, those are arrived at by a completly objective scientific method and so there is no posibility of error or systematic bias.
Funded by / Ownership
The Anti-Defamation League is a nonprofit that is funded through donations. They do not disclose donors.
Weird, usually that knocks down organizations. Amazing how it’s fine here
Is this just for the English Wikipedia? What about the Hebrew list of genocides?
Yes but what is Wikipedia going to actually do about it? Just create another article? We should dismantle Wikipedia!
What the fuck are you talking about
Might have needed the \s here
It’s not really me that needs it.
Keep fighting the good fight against the unnecessary \s. I appreciate you.
The people who disagree probably can’t reconcile that who they consider the good guys can do very evil things. That’s in addition to those who actually consider Palestinians subhuman or worse.
In the past I have donated to wikipedia this made sure I will keep donating.
I have too. Thank you for the reminder.
ICJ so slow Wikipedia writes down the conclusion in advance.
Unfortunately they can’t quote Wikipedia directly in their work, but they can use the sources in the article.
Academic here - it’s 100% genocide. More so, it’s the worst kind of genocide, it’s sanctioned genocide built upon conflating a people with their government.
built upon conflating a people with their government.
Which makes those people in other parts of the world (myself included) inherently less safe.
In fact, if I could point to one single factor that has made Jews less safe in this world post-WWII, it would be Israel.
Yup, most people of the Jewish faith are not the state of Israel. Much as most people of the Islamic faith are not terrorists. People mostly just want to lead comfortable lives.
It’s a great case of A->B being misunderstood as A<->B to justify incredible shittiness.
I do sometimes wonder if I should write a paper full of examples suggesting that this really simple misunderstanding of logic is what drives the enshittification of humanity _
deleted by creator
Probably playing off of this part of the article:
"[…] I discarded the argument that scholars haven’t reached a conclusion on whether the Gaza genocide is really taking place”, Marshall wrote in his decision.
