4 ms·

> Systematic rape, torture, murder, of non-Jews has been their policy for decades now. I'd like some evidence for each of these three. I'm aware of the policy

by dash2 1y ago

> Systematic rape, torture, murder, of non-Jews has been their policy for decades now. I'd like some evidence for each of these three. I'm aware of the policy of interrogation which might count as "a policy of systematic torture". Can you do systematic rape and murder?

churchill 1y ago
[flagged]
- incrudible 1y ago
  There is an abundance of allegations and testimony from not exactly neutral sources and a few isolated cases that have actual evidence going for them - which have been investigated and prosecuted by authorities.
- dlubarov 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Kim_Bruning 1y ago
    > Jewish sources like Jewish Chronicle, ADL and JVL are largely banned, as well as all the major conservative news sources. Source? My personal rule-of-thumb is that an international news source is likely to be fairly reliable so long as it's not reporting on something that they have a conflict of interest in (eg home country/demographic).
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      The source ratings (for sources that have been discussed substantially) are on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
      - monocasa 1y ago
        > Most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest. > Al Jazeera's live blogs should be treated with caution, per the policy on news blogs.
        dlubarov 1y ago
        The note about bias does nothing to prevent it from being used. Wikipedia doesn't really have any policy of avoiding biased sources; see WP:BIASED. The live blog warning is mostly ignored in practice, even though it reflects a broader policy (WP:NEWSBLOG). Al Jazeera's live blog alone is probably used more than any other source in the topic area.
        TimorousBestie 1y ago
        > The note about bias does nothing to prevent it from being used. If you actually edit in this topic area, you should know that its bias comes up all the time. Almost every talk page on I/P is littered with endless debate over whether Al Jazeera covered this or that accurately.
        dlubarov 1y ago
        Not really. There's no particular policy basis for objecting to biased sources, so this only comes up when - An occasional newcomer tries to raise concerns, before being informed that it's pointless because Al Jazeera has been deemed reliable. - Occasionally other reliable sources contradict Al Jazeera. Both are quite rare compared to the vast number of Al Jazeera references.
        emmelaich 1y ago
        And AlJazeera is not even biased enough sometimes. They were suspended from operating in Gaza for a while by Gazans/PA.
  - TimorousBestie 1y ago
    > From a very particular pool of sources. Jewish sources like Jewish Chronicle, ADL and JVL are largely banned, as well as most of the major conservative news sources. This is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. In particular the ADL is still considered a reliable source outside of a few narrow circumstances. Unreliable sources may still be cited as a reliable source of the source’s author’s opinion of a matter. So they are not, in any real sense, “banned.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources > Meanwhile Al Jazeera has the highest status, and is the top source for most articles in the topic area. . . This is incorrect. Wikipedia’s list of perennial sources contains the following disclaimer: > Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-funded news organization and in the 2024 RfC there was consensus that it is generally reliable. Most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/P...
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      > This is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. It's not a policy, it's a summary of past community discussions. > In particular the ADL is still considered a reliable source outside of a few narrow circumstances. They're not narrow at all, they're essentially the only areas that are relevant to the ADL. It's like "narrowly" banning CNN, but only for news. Al-Manar (Hezbollah's propaganda arm) has a similar carve-out for example. It doesn't really matter; even deprecated sources are generally useful for basic uncontroversial information about themselves and what not. > This is incorrect. Wikipedia’s list of perennial sources contains the following disclaimer: Which part do you think is incorrect? If it's the RSP part, GREL is indeed the highest status, and the note about bias is inconsequential since there's no particular policy basis for avoiding biased sources (see WP:BIASED).
  - linehedonist 1y ago
    How would you define Zionism?
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      I would say most definitions are fine. Here's the Oxford Languages one for example, > a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel Every "real" encyclopedia likewise has a reasonable definition without overt bias. Wikipedia is really the exception here.

by dash2 1y ago

churchill 1y ago

[flagged]

incrudible 1y ago
There is an abundance of allegations and testimony from not exactly neutral sources and a few isolated cases that have actual evidence going for them - which have been investigated and prosecuted by authorities.
dlubarov 1y ago
[flagged]
- Kim_Bruning 1y ago
  > Jewish sources like Jewish Chronicle, ADL and JVL are largely banned, as well as all the major conservative news sources. Source? My personal rule-of-thumb is that an international news source is likely to be fairly reliable so long as it's not reporting on something that they have a conflict of interest in (eg home country/demographic).
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    The source ratings (for sources that have been discussed substantially) are on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
    - monocasa 1y ago
      > Most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest. > Al Jazeera's live blogs should be treated with caution, per the policy on news blogs.
      - dlubarov 1y ago
        The note about bias does nothing to prevent it from being used. Wikipedia doesn't really have any policy of avoiding biased sources; see WP:BIASED. The live blog warning is mostly ignored in practice, even though it reflects a broader policy (WP:NEWSBLOG). Al Jazeera's live blog alone is probably used more than any other source in the topic area.
        TimorousBestie 1y ago
        > The note about bias does nothing to prevent it from being used. If you actually edit in this topic area, you should know that its bias comes up all the time. Almost every talk page on I/P is littered with endless debate over whether Al Jazeera covered this or that accurately.
        dlubarov 1y ago
        Not really. There's no particular policy basis for objecting to biased sources, so this only comes up when - An occasional newcomer tries to raise concerns, before being informed that it's pointless because Al Jazeera has been deemed reliable. - Occasionally other reliable sources contradict Al Jazeera. Both are quite rare compared to the vast number of Al Jazeera references.
        emmelaich 1y ago
        And AlJazeera is not even biased enough sometimes. They were suspended from operating in Gaza for a while by Gazans/PA.
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  > From a very particular pool of sources. Jewish sources like Jewish Chronicle, ADL and JVL are largely banned, as well as most of the major conservative news sources. This is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. In particular the ADL is still considered a reliable source outside of a few narrow circumstances. Unreliable sources may still be cited as a reliable source of the source’s author’s opinion of a matter. So they are not, in any real sense, “banned.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources > Meanwhile Al Jazeera has the highest status, and is the top source for most articles in the topic area. . . This is incorrect. Wikipedia’s list of perennial sources contains the following disclaimer: > Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-funded news organization and in the 2024 RfC there was consensus that it is generally reliable. Most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/P...
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    > This is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. It's not a policy, it's a summary of past community discussions. > In particular the ADL is still considered a reliable source outside of a few narrow circumstances. They're not narrow at all, they're essentially the only areas that are relevant to the ADL. It's like "narrowly" banning CNN, but only for news. Al-Manar (Hezbollah's propaganda arm) has a similar carve-out for example. It doesn't really matter; even deprecated sources are generally useful for basic uncontroversial information about themselves and what not. > This is incorrect. Wikipedia’s list of perennial sources contains the following disclaimer: Which part do you think is incorrect? If it's the RSP part, GREL is indeed the highest status, and the note about bias is inconsequential since there's no particular policy basis for avoiding biased sources (see WP:BIASED).
- linehedonist 1y ago
  How would you define Zionism?
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    I would say most definitions are fine. Here's the Oxford Languages one for example, > a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel Every "real" encyclopedia likewise has a reasonable definition without overt bias. Wikipedia is really the exception here.