8 ms·

Wikipedia has officially added “Gaza genocide” to its “List of Genocides” page

97 points by mostcallmeyt 2y ago

talldayo 2y ago
> 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. Kinda surprising it didn't happen earlier. The ADL ruined their image when they stopped concerning themselves with defamation and started going after political opposition. Once you dip your toes into the nationalist politics cesspool, there really is no going back.
- 725686 2y ago
  Tell that to Elon.
  - nh23423fefe 2y ago
    This non sequitur is indicative of political derangement
- sjsidhdbsjj 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - qohen 2y ago
    From the Leo Frank Wikipedia page [0]: "In modern times, despite strong evidence pointing to Frank's innocence, the case has become a modern focal point for neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. This is partly because it led to the creation of the Anti-Defamation League but also because it fed into anti-semitic conspiracy theories claiming Jewish control of the media. As a consequence, in recent years a number of websites have been established by white supremacists disputing the prevailing consensus of Frank's innocence." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank#Later_consensus:_a_miscarriage_of_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank#Later_consensus:_a_m...
  - tim333 2y ago
    >...turn a blind eye to Jewish ones. I seem to see about twenty stories about Israeli atrocities daily. Maybe they are not regarded as being as heinous as the KKK because if you read the details they actually not as heinous?
- tivert 2y ago
  >> 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. > Kinda surprising it didn't happen earlier. The ADL ruined their image when they stopped concerning themselves with defamation and started going after political opposition. Once you dip your toes into the nationalist politics cesspool, there really is no going back. Wikipedia still considers the ADL reliable for "going after political opposition" in the "nationalist politics cesspool": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Anti-Defamation_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per.... It's super clear that, on Wikipedia, "the rules of the game became the game." Content arguments are won through pretty biased debates behind the scenes on the "reliability" of sources.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    They very much call out the unreliability of the ADL on the topic of modern Zionism and topics concerning the Israel-Palistine conflict. I think that is the proper path of caution to take, unless they prove to be as fickle about world politics as they are holding Israel accountable. Whatever you perceive to be the process for debating these topics, I do not think the ADL (or similar organizations) has any relevant contributions to make on Wikipedia's presentation of world events. Allowing these borderline-lobbyist organizations to claim anything with impunity is how the Internet's encyclopedia becomes nobody's encyclopedia.
cowboylowrez 2y ago
Wikipedia is a good resource, but whether they themselves want to editorialize is up to them. I personally think that the Wikipedias opinions of world events is NOT NOTABLE.
- throawayonthe 2y ago
  [dead]
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Maybe so, but the world often does treat Wikipedia as a reliable source. The editorialization ends up influencing them. This is why you see such heated battles on the talk pages of Wikipedia - there are people actively fighting to take control of this tool. Wikipedia’s founder has been warning the world about increasing bias on Wikipedia for several years now (https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/).
slwvx 2y ago
The title of this HN article is ambiguous; I had to read the article to understand what the article is about. I suggest "Wikipedia adds Gaza to list of genocides".
- ejang0 2y ago
  This is better than my suggestions. It doesn't include the debate aspect though (...?)
howenterprisey 2y ago
The title is utterly unparseable to me. What's the subject of the sentence?
- stavros 2y ago
  Wikipedians were weighing the evidence on whether to call the Gaza thing a genocide or not. They decided to call it a genocide, as the academic evidence/consensus was so far in favor of that, that it wasn't even close.
- ejang0 2y ago
  'British Wikipedian, Stuart Marshall, made the final ruling in September, decisively supporting the [Gaza genocide] 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.”' From this, maybe it is clearer (but not shorter) to say: ‘It’s not close’ - The inclusion of "Gaza genocide" to Wikipedia's "List of genocides" ends editorial debate Alt phrasing: Wikipedia's editorial debate ends with the inclusion of "Gaza genocide" to "List of genocides" page (I'm trying to not repeat "Wikipedia" several times.) Somewhat related Wikipedia article regarding parsing sentences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    [flagged]
- edflsafoiewq 2y ago
  "Israel committing genocide" concludes Wikipedia, ending debate
- tim333 2y ago
  Two sentences. It's not close. Israel is committing genocide concludes Wikipedia, ending debate. First subject 'it' being the debate on genocide or not, second subject Israel. It could have been written more clearly. Also the word genocide seems to suffering a bit from atrocity inflation a bit like grade inflation where everyone gets As. It used to be for wiping out an ethnic group, it now seems to apply to fighting terrorists with heavy civillian casualties.
duendefm 2y ago
United Nations agencies like UNRWA? As for the killing reports, it seems that Israel always kills civilians and particularly kids, they seem to like to spend their money in bombs directed at them because I never see reports of combatants being killed.
- fineman1618 2y ago
  [dead]
- spwa4 2y ago
  You never see reports of ANY kind of military activity in Gaza. Even the blatantly obvious, the constant rocket launches, just never got reported. None of it. And the Hezbollah situation is the same. Constant attacks by Hezbollah on Israeli civilians ... no mention anywhere.
- jfengel 2y ago
  Individual combatants are rarely noteworthy enough to receive news attention. You do hear news articles when some higher-up is killed. The deaths of children are more newsworthy, in themselves. You rarely hear their names, just the fact that it happened, because they are not otherwise notable as individuals. Israel accuses the combatants of hiding among civilians, using them as human shields. If true, it would make the deaths of civilians inevitable. That is why hiding among non-combatants is a war crime.
  - duendefm 2y ago
    I was being ironic. Israel enemies just don't destroy it because they are unable to. Israel is forced to do what they are doing.
dmitrygr 2y ago
[flagged]
- talldayo 2y ago
  [flagged]
dsabanin 2y ago
[flagged]
- krapp 2y ago
  [flagged]
dazzaji 2y ago
[flagged]
- invalidname 2y ago
  And to keep consistency with Wikipedia and the "one right opinion" people downvote this 100% correct comment. When asked later on why Harris lost they claim "the right is stupid"... Ignoring facts and opinions that conflict with your world-view is stupid. People formed a narrative and are forcefully trying to make the bricks fit.
  - g-b-r 2y ago
    > People formed a narrative and are forcefully trying to make the bricks fit It's healthy to wonder, from time to time, if it might be you that's doing such things
    - invalidname 2y ago
      I do a lot. E.g. I was sure Harris would win by a landslide. Shows my news source bias (here, Reddit etc.). This is a post about determining a specific narrative while conveniently ignoring facts that don't fit said narrative. Confirmation bias is a problem for everyone, both of us are subject to it.
      - g-b-r 2y ago
        > Confirmation bias is a problem for everyone, both of us are subject to it. Yeah, of course (personally, some of my own ideas were not confirmed in the last year)
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- g-b-r 2y ago
  If other entries on the list had less scholarly consensus (even such widely accepted ones as the Darfur and Rohingya ones), this deserved to be on the list. I guess that the list title could be considered misleading, if not all the entries are settled to be genocides; but on many widely accepted subjects you can find qualified experts with opposite views; universal consensus seems an excessive criterion. That the conflict is ongoing is immaterial; if the facts already established provide enough evidence to qualify the situation, that's all you need. And we should be glad when a situation is recognized while it's still ongoing, which is when it can still be stopped.

97 points by mostcallmeyt 2y ago

> 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. Kinda surprising it didn't happen earlier. The ADL ruined their image when they stopped concerning themselves with defamation and started going after political opposition. Once you dip your toes into the nationalist politics cesspool, there really is no going back.

725686 2y ago
Tell that to Elon.
- nh23423fefe 2y ago
  This non sequitur is indicative of political derangement
sjsidhdbsjj 2y ago
[flagged]
- qohen 2y ago
  From the Leo Frank Wikipedia page [0]: "In modern times, despite strong evidence pointing to Frank's innocence, the case has become a modern focal point for neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. This is partly because it led to the creation of the Anti-Defamation League but also because it fed into anti-semitic conspiracy theories claiming Jewish control of the media. As a consequence, in recent years a number of websites have been established by white supremacists disputing the prevailing consensus of Frank's innocence." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank#Later_consensus:_a_miscarriage_of_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank#Later_consensus:_a_m...
- tim333 2y ago
  >...turn a blind eye to Jewish ones. I seem to see about twenty stories about Israeli atrocities daily. Maybe they are not regarded as being as heinous as the KKK because if you read the details they actually not as heinous?
tivert 2y ago
>> 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. > Kinda surprising it didn't happen earlier. The ADL ruined their image when they stopped concerning themselves with defamation and started going after political opposition. Once you dip your toes into the nationalist politics cesspool, there really is no going back. Wikipedia still considers the ADL reliable for "going after political opposition" in the "nationalist politics cesspool": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Anti-Defamation_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per.... It's super clear that, on Wikipedia, "the rules of the game became the game." Content arguments are won through pretty biased debates behind the scenes on the "reliability" of sources.
- talldayo 2y ago
  They very much call out the unreliability of the ADL on the topic of modern Zionism and topics concerning the Israel-Palistine conflict. I think that is the proper path of caution to take, unless they prove to be as fickle about world politics as they are holding Israel accountable. Whatever you perceive to be the process for debating these topics, I do not think the ADL (or similar organizations) has any relevant contributions to make on Wikipedia's presentation of world events. Allowing these borderline-lobbyist organizations to claim anything with impunity is how the Internet's encyclopedia becomes nobody's encyclopedia.

cowboylowrez 2y ago

Wikipedia is a good resource, but whether they themselves want to editorialize is up to them. I personally think that the Wikipedias opinions of world events is NOT NOTABLE.

throawayonthe 2y ago
[dead]
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Maybe so, but the world often does treat Wikipedia as a reliable source. The editorialization ends up influencing them. This is why you see such heated battles on the talk pages of Wikipedia - there are people actively fighting to take control of this tool. Wikipedia’s founder has been warning the world about increasing bias on Wikipedia for several years now (https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/).

slwvx 2y ago

The title of this HN article is ambiguous; I had to read the article to understand what the article is about. I suggest "Wikipedia adds Gaza to list of genocides".

ejang0 2y ago
This is better than my suggestions. It doesn't include the debate aspect though (...?)

howenterprisey 2y ago

The title is utterly unparseable to me. What's the subject of the sentence?

stavros 2y ago
Wikipedians were weighing the evidence on whether to call the Gaza thing a genocide or not. They decided to call it a genocide, as the academic evidence/consensus was so far in favor of that, that it wasn't even close.
ejang0 2y ago
'British Wikipedian, Stuart Marshall, made the final ruling in September, decisively supporting the [Gaza genocide] 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.”' From this, maybe it is clearer (but not shorter) to say: ‘It’s not close’ - The inclusion of "Gaza genocide" to Wikipedia's "List of genocides" ends editorial debate Alt phrasing: Wikipedia's editorial debate ends with the inclusion of "Gaza genocide" to "List of genocides" page (I'm trying to not repeat "Wikipedia" several times.) Somewhat related Wikipedia article regarding parsing sentences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  [flagged]
edflsafoiewq 2y ago
"Israel committing genocide" concludes Wikipedia, ending debate
tim333 2y ago
Two sentences. It's not close. Israel is committing genocide concludes Wikipedia, ending debate. First subject 'it' being the debate on genocide or not, second subject Israel. It could have been written more clearly. Also the word genocide seems to suffering a bit from atrocity inflation a bit like grade inflation where everyone gets As. It used to be for wiping out an ethnic group, it now seems to apply to fighting terrorists with heavy civillian casualties.

duendefm 2y ago

United Nations agencies like UNRWA? As for the killing reports, it seems that Israel always kills civilians and particularly kids, they seem to like to spend their money in bombs directed at them because I never see reports of combatants being killed.

fineman1618 2y ago
[dead]
spwa4 2y ago
You never see reports of ANY kind of military activity in Gaza. Even the blatantly obvious, the constant rocket launches, just never got reported. None of it. And the Hezbollah situation is the same. Constant attacks by Hezbollah on Israeli civilians ... no mention anywhere.
jfengel 2y ago
Individual combatants are rarely noteworthy enough to receive news attention. You do hear news articles when some higher-up is killed. The deaths of children are more newsworthy, in themselves. You rarely hear their names, just the fact that it happened, because they are not otherwise notable as individuals. Israel accuses the combatants of hiding among civilians, using them as human shields. If true, it would make the deaths of civilians inevitable. That is why hiding among non-combatants is a war crime.
- duendefm 2y ago
  I was being ironic. Israel enemies just don't destroy it because they are unable to. Israel is forced to do what they are doing.

dmitrygr 2y ago

[flagged]

talldayo 2y ago
[flagged]

dsabanin 2y ago

[flagged]

krapp 2y ago
[flagged]

dazzaji 2y ago

[flagged]

invalidname 2y ago
And to keep consistency with Wikipedia and the "one right opinion" people downvote this 100% correct comment. When asked later on why Harris lost they claim "the right is stupid"... Ignoring facts and opinions that conflict with your world-view is stupid. People formed a narrative and are forcefully trying to make the bricks fit.
- g-b-r 2y ago
  > People formed a narrative and are forcefully trying to make the bricks fit It's healthy to wonder, from time to time, if it might be you that's doing such things
  - invalidname 2y ago
    I do a lot. E.g. I was sure Harris would win by a landslide. Shows my news source bias (here, Reddit etc.). This is a post about determining a specific narrative while conveniently ignoring facts that don't fit said narrative. Confirmation bias is a problem for everyone, both of us are subject to it.
    - g-b-r 2y ago
      > Confirmation bias is a problem for everyone, both of us are subject to it. Yeah, of course (personally, some of my own ideas were not confirmed in the last year)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
g-b-r 2y ago
If other entries on the list had less scholarly consensus (even such widely accepted ones as the Darfur and Rohingya ones), this deserved to be on the list. I guess that the list title could be considered misleading, if not all the entries are settled to be genocides; but on many widely accepted subjects you can find qualified experts with opposite views; universal consensus seems an excessive criterion. That the conflict is ongoing is immaterial; if the facts already established provide enough evidence to qualify the situation, that's all you need. And we should be glad when a situation is recognized while it's still ongoing, which is when it can still be stopped.