5 ms·
Arabic Wikipedia Blackout
- local_crmdgeon 3y agoNot a fan. Wikipedia should be a truly neutral actor - regardless of situation. Once this starts, it won't stop, and it will start to burn the NPOV.
- sc68cal 3y ago[flagged]
- otabdeveloper4 3y ago> genocide Citation, as they say, needed.
- some_random 3y agoProviding an up to date, high quality article on an ongoing genocide that reports the best known information from a variety of sources while maintaining credibility with neutrality seems like the best Wikipedia can do not just now but for other future conflicts.
- networkchad 3y ago[dead]
- davidguetta 3y agoin the face of 'two groups wanting to genocide themselves'. FTFY
- blitz_skull 3y agoYou’re correct, but we’re discussing the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not a genocide. While it may feel good to use evocative words to spark emotion in others, you’re going to have to cite sources and provide an argument if you want us to earnestly consider your point of view.
- skyyler 3y agoInterestingly, wikipedia has a pretty neutral article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusatio...
- sc68cal 3y agoThe ICJ is having hearings over the genocide in Gaza. https://www.reuters.com/world/icj-slates-hearings-gaza-genocide-case-jan-11-12-2024-01-03/ https://www.reuters.com/world/icj-slates-hearings-gaza-genoc...
- blitz_skull 3y ago[flagged]
- candiodari 3y agoThe ICJ is also anything but neutral. The UN General Assembly elects the judges. The UN general assembly that has 164 resolutions against Israel, and ... https://unwatch.org/un-general-assembly-rejects-motion-to-condemn-hamas-calls-for-ceasefire/ https://unwatch.org/un-general-assembly-rejects-motion-to-co... Names aside an organisation whatever you want, but this organisation is anything but neutral. If Israel does not get fair treatment from the people assigning the judges here. And while Israel will go there, they will not accept the judgement of the court (which is the right of any country). And ... the complaint submitted by South Africa is full of factual inaccuracies and, frankly, reads like a rant. Read for yourself here: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192 It is a total rant, for example, it directly accuses the U.S. of genocidal acts in Gaza for "failing to use it's influence". It contains outright lies about statements made by officials.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- davidguetta 3y agoOh god, every one using their miligram of power for virtue signaling or taking side in something that is nothing else than a basic territorial war led by religious extremists. 'oh but my side is more moral than the other because of atrocity X, Y years ago. And also we have more deaths' 'but it was written in this book ZZZZ years ago' People who pretend that this conflict is more complex that this are just trying to find an angle to promote their side. It's not the first conflict in the history.
- blitz_skull 3y agoI think that’s pretty obvious though. At least in my circles, the main talking point is the fact that this war goes back literally to the dawn of human civilization in this area. People who think this sparked in the last 100 years aren’t paying attention.
- blindstitch 3y ago100 years ago is when western powers became involved and created the conditions for the current situation. So any comparison between the pre-british and period and everything that has happened since is quite harebrained.
- blitz_skull 3y agoFalse. The conflict in the Middle East between Israel and every other Arab nation has literally been present since biblical times. The names have changed, but the game remains the same. We’re just witnessing the current iteration of this same conflict.
- tzarko 3y agoNothing about this or any other conflict is simple. Regardless, what’s your point?
- davidguetta 3y agoMy point is that a lot of people are try to frame it as 'my side is holier than yours' (no pun on the holier), leading to such action on wikipedia supposedly taking its roots on a moral superiority of the losing side. Whereas it's just two group fighting for some absurd reason (religion / race / language pick one) and territory and the losing side would do the same to the winning side if it was capable of. It's no different that any war in the past in europe or africa. 'Complexity' is an illusion.
- some_random 3y agoNPOV is obviously a lie, it's literally impossible to truly be neutral and you don't almost certainly don't want that. That said, it strikes me as extremely important that Wikipedia strives towards NPOV and I wonder if Wikimedia will intervene. Given that they're willing to lie to readers to get donations to funnel into the "progressive" aligned portion of the non-profit-industrial-complex, I suspect not.
- george-in-sd 3y agoSeems very much against wikipedia's principles. Taking a neutral point of view is considered non-negotiable and is a fundamental principle of wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...
- gcau 3y agoThis is bizarre, totally unnecessary and not something Wikipedia should be doing. The statements in it are misleading and not based in any sourced facts, either.
- skyyler 3y agoThis has been done before, just for a different conflict that you likely have different feelings about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_and_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Georgian_Wikipedia_Main_Page_screenshot_with_Ukraine_flag_logo.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_and_the_Russian_inva...
- kar5pt 3y agoThe irony of this is that it only affects the Arabic speaking population, which for the most part already supports the Palestinian side.