Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

thenational.scot

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 124 posts

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#111

Post by mmooss »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #109
spwa4 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how someone can make a claim like this in good faith. READ the page on the Gaza genocide. I'll give you the link again. READ it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide This page represents ONE viewpoint and, read the "Talk" page, strongly fights against that any other viewpoint is represented at all. That, by itself, is directly against the stated goals and policy of wikipedia. A page is to ha…

The page represents the consensus view among academics who study genocide, including the leading Israeli academics who study the subject. Wikipedia has policies around what constitutes a reliable source, and academics who study a particular subject and publish in peer-reviewed journals are generally considered among the highest-quality sources. In this case, they nearly unanimously agree that what Israel has been doi…

> There was a very long process of discussion and debate on the talk page

Could you link to it? It's seems key to the issue. Many refer to it - including in the discussion with Wales - but nobody seems to link to, refer to, or analyse it.

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#112

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

puppycodes wrote: post #11

Seems pretty important to require a neutral tone regardless of how egregious the acts are described in the entry. This is what makes Wikipedia good.

Jimmy Wales is not asking for a neutral tone. He's asking for a change in the content of the article: specifically, it must no longer state that Israel is committing a genocide.

The "problem" is that almost all of the sources that Wikipedia typically considers reliable now say that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza. Wikipedia editors discussed the sources ad nauseam and came to this conclusion.

Jimmy Wales wants them to just reverse that decision, regardless of what high-quality sources say. He's saying that Wikipedia should treat denials by various governments as being of equal reliability as academic journal articles studying the issue. So if Marco Rubio goes in front of a microphone and says, "There's no genocide in Gaza," that should be treated as an equally valid source as a dozen academics who study genocide publishing peer-reviewed articles.

Needless to say, what Jimmy Wales is demanding goes against Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and neutrality. "Both sides" is not always neutral.

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#113

Post by pcthrowaway »

spwa4 wrote: post #103
mmooss wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That understates the situation significantly. Wales posted a long comment under the headline, Statement from Jimbo Wales : This message is from me, Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia That's not just another comment; it's an official statement from the most powerful person on Wikipedia. Wales goes on to say, "As many of you will know, I have been leading an NPOV working group and studying the issue of neutrality in Wik…

I don't understand how someone can make a claim like this in good faith. READ the page on the Gaza genocide. I'll give you the link again. READ it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide This page represents ONE viewpoint and, read the "Talk" page, strongly fights against that any other viewpoint is represented at all. That, by itself, is directly against the stated goals and policy of wikipedia. A page is to ha…

And when you go to the page about the Holocaust, it doesn't mentioned alternative opinions either, and barely mentions that holocaust denial is a thing (instead, "Holocaust denial" has its own article)

Do you believe Wikipedia should "both sides" the holocaust? Or do you not hold the genocide of Palestinians to the same standard?

Any ongoing genocide will have its deniers, its minimizers, and its apologists. Those people will even persist after the "dust is settled". That doesn't mean an article needs to give the same attention to the beliefs of people who are not experts, who are misled, or who are intentionally dishonest.

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#114

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

mmooss wrote: post #111
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The page represents the consensus view among academics who study genocide, including the leading Israeli academics who study the subject. Wikipedia has policies around what constitutes a reliable source, and academics who study a particular subject and publish in peer-reviewed journals are generally considered among the highest-quality sources. In this case, they nearly unanimously agree that what Israel has been doi…

> There was a very long process of discussion and debate on the talk page Could you link to it? It's seems key to the issue. Many refer to it - including in the discussion with Wales - but nobody seems to link to, refer to, or analyse it.

This is the discussion that led to the opening sentence of the article being changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_12#...

As you can see, it wasn't just a few editors saying, "lol, let's just say it's a genocide." Hundreds of people weighed in on the proposal. They looked at lists of recent sources.

There were previous discussions like this that came to a different conclusion. But as more and more sources started calling it a genocide, Wikipedia editors eventually decided the opening sentence had to be changed.

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#115

Post by mmooss »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #113
spwa4 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how someone can make a claim like this in good faith. READ the page on the Gaza genocide. I'll give you the link again. READ it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide This page represents ONE viewpoint and, read the "Talk" page, strongly fights against that any other viewpoint is represented at all. That, by itself, is directly against the stated goals and policy of wikipedia. A page is to ha…

And when you go to the page about the Holocaust, it doesn't mentioned alternative opinions either, and barely mentions that holocaust denial is a thing (instead, "Holocaust denial" has its own article) Do you believe Wikipedia should "both sides" the holocaust? Or do you not hold the genocide of Palestinians to the same standard? Any ongoing genocide will have its deniers, its minimizers, and its apologists. Those pe…

That becomes circular: if it's a genocide then deniers shouldn't be given much weight. It also doesn't address the other core issue: How does Wikipedia handle controversial issues?

I think Wales is full of it - he's giving orders in an official capacity and threatening them with action if they don't comply, and he's brazenly lying about it - a demonstration of power and a threat. Still, I think your comment is more inflammatory than helpful because it doesn't address the core issues, it just throws a rock.

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#116

Post by tim333 »

grammarxcore wrote: post #82

Surprisingly I don’t see Wales commenting on the Armenian Genocide talk page. I don’t see the difference between the two. What am I missing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide

The Armenian genocide killed approx 1 million out of 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey in an attempt to wipe them out which is kind of where the term genocide originated. I don't think the Armenians attacked the Turks or took hostages or anything like that.

In Gaza maybe 3% of the population has been killed, partly as a side effect to fighting back against Hamas after they attacked and took hostages.

I guess it depends how you define the terms. Maybe we need some new term for trying to wipe out a people as opposed to causing casualties in war against people who attacked you?

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#117

Post by pcthrowaway »

mmooss wrote: post #115
pcthrowaway wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when you go to the page about the Holocaust, it doesn't mentioned alternative opinions either, and barely mentions that holocaust denial is a thing (instead, "Holocaust denial" has its own article) Do you believe Wikipedia should "both sides" the holocaust? Or do you not hold the genocide of Palestinians to the same standard? Any ongoing genocide will have its deniers, its minimizers, and its apologists. Those pe…

That becomes circular: if it's a genocide then deniers shouldn't be given much weight. It also doesn't address the other core issue: How does Wikipedia handle controversial issues? I think Wales is full of it - he's giving orders in an official capacity and threatening them with action if they don't comply, and he's brazenly lying about it - a demonstration of power and a threat. Still, I think your comment is more i…

I'm pointing out the absurdity of saying an article lacks "balance", or claiming "neutrality" lies somewhere between "there is a genocide" and "there is no genocide"

If Jimmy Wales believes there are compelling claims that Israel is not committing genocide, then rather than expressing this as necessary for a NPOV (neutral point of view) he should just admit that this is bias on his part. This doesn't address the consensus among people who actually study genocide that Israel is committing genocide. The UN has announced that Israel has committed genocide. Doctors without Borders, Oxfam, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and the International Association of Genocide scholars have called it genocide.

Siding with the experts is standard for Wikipedia's editorial standards; if it wasn't, the Holocaust article would also seek "neutrality" by using much less decisive language about the validity of that genocide.

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#118

Post by spwa4 »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #114
mmooss wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was a very long process of discussion and debate on the talk page Could you link to it? It's seems key to the issue. Many refer to it - including in the discussion with Wales - but nobody seems to link to, refer to, or analyse it.

This is the discussion that led to the opening sentence of the article being changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_12#... As you can see, it wasn't just a few editors saying, "lol, let's just say it's a genocide." Hundreds of people weighed in on the proposal. They looked at lists of recent sources. There were previous discussions like this that came to a different conclusion. But as more…

My complaint was not at all about the first sentence but about the total absense in the entire article of any alternative viewpoint, or even references to the conflict or the totally different treatment of scholarly consensus (because there is a scholarly consensus that hamas committed genocide too, in fact, there is consensus about multiple hamas genocides, and about many genocides committed by other palestinian factions including the PA). And as I pointed out even the beginning of the conflict, Hamas' attack, which is a genocide without any discussion about it, is barely mentioned at all, and only as an "attack".

Because once again, your comparisons just doesn't work.

Wikipedia title for an article that 90% of scholars (WITH academic credentials) agree hamas and palestinians committed genocide on Jews:

"Allegations of genocide in the October 7 attacks"

Wikipedia title for an article that 90% of scholars (who paid 20 euros to be considered scholars, the IAGS) agree Israel committed genocide against Gazans:

"Gaza genocide"

(IAGS does not require academic credentials to be a member, and many members have none)

Here is the link to the page about Hamas' (and random Palestinians) committing genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the...

Note that the scholars alleging Hamas' committed genocide in the October 7 attacks are largely the same as the in the "Gaza genocide" article. In ONE of those articles both genocides are represented ... in the other they aren't (except in the non-user-editable part).

Of course, on the page describing the hamas' genocide, none of the your arguments apply. The various viewpoints are represented (frankly ad nauseam), including arguments by individual scholars denying the genocide. On that page Wikipedia seriously makes the argument that "a massacre with genocidal intent" does not constitute a genocide. On that page scholarly consensus that a genocide occurred is described as "allegations of genocide". It continues like that, with for every scholar mentioned every tiny caveat they put anywhere in their paper repeated. For example that information sources may not be reliable as to intent.

On that page it is extensively mentioned that there are accusations against Israel committing genocide in Gaza, whereas on the "Gaza genocide" page it is not mentioned at all that hamas' committed genocide (except in that consensus is that hamas' definitely committed genocide against Israeli too ... oh and of course, there's the title.

I could keep going, pointing out that even in this article it is not mentioned that hamas' has in fact committed multiple genocides, including against Palestinians (in Al-Shifa hospital, among other places), and that the Palestinian Authority has done so as well, including against Palestinians, Jordans, Lebanese, ...

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#119

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

spwa4 wrote: post #118
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the discussion that led to the opening sentence of the article being changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_12#... As you can see, it wasn't just a few editors saying, "lol, let's just say it's a genocide." Hundreds of people weighed in on the proposal. They looked at lists of recent sources. There were previous discussions like this that came to a different conclusion. But as more…

My complaint was not at all about the first sentence but about the total absense in the entire article of any alternative viewpoint, or even references to the conflict or the totally different treatment of scholarly consensus (because there is a scholarly consensus that hamas committed genocide too, in fact, there is consensus about multiple hamas genocides, and about many genocides committed by other palestinian fac…

You really need someone to explain to you why the systematic destruction of all of Gaza, murder of tens of thousands of civilians, and intentional blockade of food, water and electricity by Israel, a country with overwhelming military superiority over the Palestinians, is viewed as a genocide, while the Hamas raid on Israel on October 7th, 2023 isn't? There are some people - primarily Israeli propagandists trying to distract from Gaza - who have called the latter a genocide, but the former is being called a genocide by huge numbers of scholars of genocide and human rights organizations.

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#120

Post by spwa4 »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #119
spwa4 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My complaint was not at all about the first sentence but about the total absense in the entire article of any alternative viewpoint, or even references to the conflict or the totally different treatment of scholarly consensus (because there is a scholarly consensus that hamas committed genocide too, in fact, there is consensus about multiple hamas genocides, and about many genocides committed by other palestinian fac…

You really need someone to explain to you why the systematic destruction of all of Gaza, murder of tens of thousands of civilians, and intentional blockade of food, water and electricity by Israel, a country with overwhelming military superiority over the Palestinians, is viewed as a genocide, while the Hamas raid on Israel on October 7th, 2023 isn't? There are some people - primarily Israeli propagandists trying to…

You really need someone to explain to you why "if your group is 'weak' you get to commit genocide without punishment" is an incredibly, incredibly bad principle?

And no, the UN has called hamas' actions genocide, as I pointed out, are mostly the same people as for the "Gaza genocide".

Post reply on HN