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.
[flagged]
[deleted]
Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page
81–90 of 124 posts
Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page
#82Surprisingly 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?
Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page
#83Earlier 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...
Another thing to reaize is ... In war the first casualty is truth. I always think of what was claimed to happened in video "collateral murder" Where US killed several people , because a reporters telephoto lens was mistaked of a rocket launcher, when viewed from a few KM away - OR so we are told.
Ascertaining the truth isn't made easier when one side massacres journalists and forbids free domestic reporting.
Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page
#84This 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.
I agree. Wikipedia is not for debate though. It’s good at settled facts.
Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page
#85[flagged]
Per Wiki's own article, there are many countries ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide#/media/File:Inte... ) that disagree with the genocide distinction. Those countries are not just the US - they are large and small nations from all parts of the world. Is that not the definition of highly contested?
The point of the editors is that it is long standing precedent on Wikipedia that the statements of politicians have little factual relevance except for the statement itself, so they are normally not taken into account.
Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page
#86[flagged]
Per Wiki's own article, there are many countries ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide#/media/File:Inte... ) that disagree with the genocide distinction. Those countries are not just the US - they are large and small nations from all parts of the world. Is that not the definition of highly contested?
There's also this big list of various professional opinions on the matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Expert_opinions_in_th...
Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's not extrajudicial if it's done by the governing body of that state.
As far as being a terrorist group, there's not a single definition of "terrorism" that includes them but not the US and Israel.
I'm not a fan of Hamas, most due to how they treat their people rather than how their military behaves, but you seem to be operating under the impression that they're similar to Al Qaeda when in reality that's just the name of the party that governs the Gaza Strip.
>acts of genocides against civilian population
Also not true and something you just made up.
Again, really weak propaganda. This stuff doesn't work on people anymore now. It's not 2022, people don't just assume "Hamas" and "ISIS" and "Al Qaeda" are all just the same scary Muslim groups anymore.
Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/hors…
Can you provide a concrete piece of evidence that the USSR government set out to accomplish this? For example, I can easily pull up correspondence that shows the intent of top brass in the regimes responsible for other 20th century genocides. For example, you can easily find evidence that Lenin and others sought to discipline kulaks, but nowhere are the Holodomor's famines mentioned there.
Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page
#89I mostly agree with Jimmy's statement [1] which is far more neutral than this article. I have concerns, though. It is difficult to find good sources without a large political bent. If we look at the following article "Casualties of the Gaza war" [2]. If you read link (108) you see a Guardian article "Revealed: Israeli military’s own data indicates civilian death rate of 83% in Gaza war" [3], which says: > Fighters na…
Often when people talk about bias, they assume it must be bias against their interests. They don't realize that, if there is room for bias, it's just as easily bias in their favor. The article could overstate either side - or both at different times.
> When we look back at any conflict in history, we see the inflated deaths of civilians, the deflated number of military persons killed - it's propaganda.
That's false. In each event, one side tends to inflate claims like civilian deaths and the other tends to minimize them.
Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page
#90[flagged]
It is mentioned in the article, but buried pretty deep: > The Israeli government ... denying that their military operations constitute genocide. You have to scroll pretty far to find it. I think Jimbo is saying, NPOV would have that assertion much higher, even in the lede.
Does NPOV mean emphasizing biased voices on all sides as a sort of balance, like much of journalism? Or is it emphasizing NPOV voices?