Live data from Hacker News

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

thenational.scot

71–80 of 124 posts

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

#71
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the Holocaust is more ironic in this case. Here's another one: Holodomor is also contested in many places - only 34 countries recognize it. Crazy world.

Holodomor's an interesting example because unlike the Armenian genocide, Holocaust, or genocide in Gaza, there's no explicit evidence of it being intentional, despite mounds and mounds of evidence of Soviet atrocities that were released over the past century. In the cause of the genocide in Gaza, when you take the statements of those in leadership such as Ben-Gvir, you have clearly articulate plans to eradicate an en…

>In the case of the Holodomor, there's no such articulated plans to eradicate a people

You're incorrect. The Holodomor was an implementation of the clearly set policy to subdue peasantry and "clean up" rich peasants (the rich peasant were basically any peasant who wasn't completely destitute) as peasants weren't carriers of proper communist ideology (only dirt poor village laborers who didn't have their own land/horse/etc. were considered to be ideologically close to proletariat).

Where it gets a murky for some people not well knowing history of Russian Empire and USSR is whether Holodomor was a genocide of Ukrainians or genocide of peasants.

As it happens the Ukrainian people and their language were spread far beyond modern Ukraine and well into all those agricultural fertile lands where Holodomor happened: http://iamruss.ru/little-russians-on-the-1897-census/

The peasants in those fertile areas did better because of Nature as well as because of history - those weren't classic Russian territories where peasants had been enslaved for centuries, and thus the peasants there were more close to US/European farmers than to classic Russian poor peasant. Thus they became target.

So while more evidence point to it being genocide of peasants, one can't dismiss that the majority impacted were Ukrainians, and that is especially pronounced in the areas, further from the modern Ukraine, where peasants were mostly Ukrainians while cities, due to cities naturally speaking Imperial language (i.e. Russian in this case) and having recent large influx of Russian speaking population due to industrialization, were mostly Russian.

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

#72

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.

> Another editor responded: “There's also an ‘ongoing controversy’ over whether mRNA vaccines cause ‘turbo cancer’ and whether [Donald] Trump actually won the 2020 Presidential election. Do you want us to be [bold] and go edit those articles as well?”

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

#73

This is very likely character assassination. Wikipedia has been targeted lately as part of a marketing effort for grokipedia. I recommend taking this as a grain of salt.

Also feel like Wikipedia was never the go to platform for unfolding situations.

Almost built against serving that specific need, and trying to avoid it as much as they can, one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Let_the_dust_settle

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

#74
post #47
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for those allegations about their funding?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti...

Which part of this substantiates that description?

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

#75

This is very likely character assassination. Wikipedia has been targeted lately as part of a marketing effort for grokipedia. I recommend taking this as a grain of salt.

Go read the Grokipedia article about the Gaza genocide if you want a laugh. The first sentence is 83 words with multiple nested clauses. It's gibberish.

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

#76
post #70
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We saw what HAMAS does - all the video from Oct 7 - and we have to believe that same HAMAS abuot some mythical "groups that had been carrying out attacks and aid banditry against civilians, at the behest of and with the funding of the Israeli government"

Hamas is not an acronym, it's "Hamas" not "HAMAS" >We saw what HAMAS [sic] does - all the video from Oct 7 Not relevant to this topic, nor is it true (there's no video from Oct 7 that has any bearing on this) >and we have to believe that same HAMAS [sic] abuot some mythical "groups that had been carrying out attacks and aid banditry against civilians, at the behest of and with the funding of the Israeli government" Y…

man, are you kidding? you rationalize extrajudicial killings by a well known terrorist group which has so far performed numerous terrorist acts, war crimes and acts of genocides against civilian population.

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

#77
post #64

This is how the "Wikipedia Row" "Erupted" at Jimmy Wales: > It is a bad faith read of the community when suggesting that among the most read and debated articles on the community is poorly done. there has been dozens of hours of discussion and rfcs galore to reach this version of the article and im certain there will be more. Consensus is always evolving but this article represents the latest consensus. Seems very re…

Ultimately it's a numbers game, and editors with an anti-Israeli agenda have the numbers. Jimbo's post reads as if he's encouraging chances so that the article adheres to NPOV, but I think he understands that's rather futile, and is really just trying to draw attention so that more readers will be aware of Wikipedia's biases.

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

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are dense. If there aren't any high quality sources on mRNA turbo cancer then you don't need to lower your standards to include it.

Yeah but in this case what's a high quality source for "Israel isn't actually commiting genocide"? Israeli government representatives? Why are they high quality, because they went to prestigious universities and have real power? Not trolling, serious question.

There are a number of them mentioned on Wikipedia itself [1]. I hesitate to use Wikipedia as a source given all the anti-Israel bias lately, but that particular section seems okay-ish for now and I'm not aware of a better list.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_and_legal_responses_t...

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

#79

This is very likely character assassination. Wikipedia has been targeted lately as part of a marketing effort for grokipedia. I recommend taking this as a grain of salt.

Also feel like Wikipedia was never the go to platform for unfolding situations.

I know this issue is top-of-mind in the public discourse now, but the issue of Israel/Palestine has been ongoing for decades at this point.

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

#80
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a congressional inquiry, the claim is that the editors are biased against Israel. https://www.commondreams.org/news/house-gop-investigates-wik...

> the editors are biased against Israel But so what? Is that unlawful in the US somehow today? That sounds absolutely bananas to be honest, aren't people supposed to have "true" freedom of speech, including being allowed to be biased against or for Israel?

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

Is a metalaw restricting the laws Congress can set.

Freedom of speech seems to be commonly regarded as having a far wider scope than it actually does. IANAL.

Post reply on HN