cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/22335522
Wikipedia has officially added “Gaza genocide” to its “List of Genocides” page, marking a major shift in how Israel’s aggression on the besieged enclave is being documented on the world’s largest online encyclopaedia.
The addition, which now appears as the first entry due to the list’s reverse chronological order, comes after months of extensive debate among the platform’s editors. 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.”
The entry for “List of genocides,” Wikipedia states that “Israel has been accused by experts, governments, UN agencies and non-governmental organisations of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian population during its invasion and bombing of Gaza during the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.” The page goes on to list the death toll in Gaza while mentioning that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians killed are civilians.
Checked out that page and it looks pretty alright.
Had stuff like Holodomor listed but at the very least it did note whether it's intentional or not is disputed. And if it's unintentional, it doesn't constitute as a genocide.
Didn't see any bullcrap like Uyghur genocide on there. I guess it would be really embarrassing to write "0" in "Estimated Killings" and have it placed next to events where millions died.
(Nevermind, went to the Talk page for fun and libs were mad Tibetan and Uyghur "genocide" was removed. Some guy reminded them literally everything else had death tolls listed but these don't. At least seeing the Hasbara bots using the usual arguments "They are not trying to destroy Gaza, they are trying to destroy Hamas, which are terrorists!" getting shut down was fun)
Yep, I saw that on the talk page and it actually was listed there, but they had to remove it since it "was the only entry that did not have a death toll."
It should be noted that one of the reasons for removing it was a lack of death toll. Every single entry in the article's list has a death toll. The Uyghur genocide, when it was listed here, was the only entry that did not have a death toll. Given that the article Uyghur genocide itself had its title changed to Persecution of Uyghurs in China, you should first go there and argue for a restoration of that article's title. But you should familiarize yourself with the subject matter and the discussion behind the decision here. JasonMacker (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
(I wrote this comment before you edited yours and saw you did the same thing lol)
Headlines tomorrow: Computers owned by several Wikipedia editors mysteriously exploded today killing their owners.
Articles all read: It's believed to be a coincidence and also suicide.
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.
Nice.
We were way ahead of them 😎 but it's a good move nonetheless
Nice lol reading wiki talk pages is one my favourite salt mines
The genocide by Israel is highly controversial even among the Pax Americana elites, so the recognition of the genocide does not say anything about the continued concealment of ongoing genocides by the British emigrants against Indigenous people through land thief to create 'natural parks', plagiarism, child sex slaves in fake schools, federal reserve concentration camps, planned starvation, planned chemical attacks, or planned assaults by whiteremoveds.
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.”
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm glad they did it even if it took a while, but this being their reasoning sounds so ridiculous. Gonna need an academic to tell me that it rained here today. Guess a ton of primary sources don't matter? Gotta have the scholars weigh in first. But who gets allowed to be the scholars, hmm? Who gets the positions at the institutions and the funding and so on. Science and history are not supposed to have a special interest group that warps or buries important truths, but they sure as hell can be captured by such an interest group. Failing to account for that in how you present information is a failure to be scientist or historian. The west's fetishism of neutrality makes even well-intentioned analytical people into blind agents of imperialism. It took them this long to break through it for what is probably the most documented in real-time and proliferated of that documentation genocide in human history.
