this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024

678 points (95.9% liked)

World News

39001 readers

3230 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

678

‘It’s not close’ - Israel committing genocide concludes Wikipedia ending editorial debate (www.middleeastmonitor.com)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/world

86 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -25 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (14 children)

The English speaking Wikipedia community is not the ICJ.

[–] affiliate 28 points 3 days ago (12 children)

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.”

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] jaek 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You are saying "Be careful with the words here" and that there a different definitions...

I am the one here who is careful with the G-word. Others just throw that word in (of course without mentioning which definition they refer to)...

Let's be honest: In the end, the legal definition (and therefore the legal decision) is the one that has actual consequences.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

The definition you insist on is not the only one with consequences. Arguably, in the Trump-Netanyahu era, the legal one might be the one with the least amount of consequences...

It also not the one used for the English Wikipedia. I told you to be careful with words because you were using the legal definition to argue against the scholarly one. Sticking to the legal definition doesn't make you careful per se. And I'm not sure I understand what "throwing around" is happening here. This is not the Lord's name to not be taken in vain.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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.