On July 25, after a couple of months of debate, the Wikipedia entry “Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza” was changed to “Gaza genocide.” This was done despite the fact that the International Court of Justice in the Hague has not made an official ruling on the matter, in the wake of South Africa’s petition to the court alleging that Israel is committing or facilitating genocide in Gaza.

The Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal, which followed the Wikipedia discussion and vote, wrote that the editors who voted on this change claimed to be relying on an academic consensus based on statements of experts on genocide, human rights, human rights law and Holocaust historians.

  • BrightCandle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    3 months ago

    Its likely too early (For Wikipedia) just because the ICJ hasn’t made a ruling. The genocide however is pretty plain to see and has been all year. Wikipedia has always done weird and often inconsistent things around the evidence allowed and sufficient to support statements in its articles so its not a new issue.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      102
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The ICJ ruling will take years though.

      I think the most similar genocide to the Gaza genocide is the Bosnian genocide. The Srebrenica massacre took place in 1995 and the ICJ ruled in 2007.

      So, the Gaza genocide might take until 2035 before it is all legally settled.

      In the interim, Wikipedia and all of us need to decide what to call it.

      Since it looks like a genocide and the initial findings support the case that genocide is likely being committed, it seems to border on genocide denial to call it anything else.

      Edit to add: I also don’t see people complaining about Wikipedia calling the Rohingya genocide a genocide, even though it is legally in the same phase as the Gaza genocide.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        62
        ·
        3 months ago

        In the interim, Wikipedia and all of us need to decide what to call it.

        Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, shits like a duck. Probably a duck.

        Totally okay with calling it a genocide- and while they dither on what a slow-as-fuck court says, people are dying en masse.

        • floofloof@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          49
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Israel is starving the population, bombing them, shooting them, blockading them, it has destroyed all the medical facilities, educational institutions, all the infrastructure, it has cut off electricity and water and blocks or kills anyone trying to help the people to live. Israeli leaders openly express genocidal intent. There’s no doubt this is genocide.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          shits like a duck.

          In ponds?

          Kidding aside, it’s ABSOLUTELY a genocide. There’s no doubt about it by any credible definition.

          That Wikipedia has started calling it a genocide is a much needed step that removes one of the few remaining straws that Hasbarists and other genocide deniers have left to grasp at.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        In the interim, Wikipedia and all of us need to decide what to call it.

        i mean, we could also just not have started referring to it as a genocide, but uh, we jumped the gun there a little bit.

        It’s always interesting to me how people will latch on to certain words so aggressively and refuse to cede even minor ground if it requires changing wording.

        i mean even referring to it as “likely genocide” would make it like 10x more palatable.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            curious, i’m not jewish, how could i be a zionist?

            ethno-nationalist maybe, but i’m not one of those either, i’m generally opposed to ethnostates.

            also, am i gross? Or did i just say something gross? Weird implication there.

            • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              curious, i’m not jewish, how could i be a zionist?

              Oh wow it’s super fucking rare for someone to just admit that they’ve got no idea what they’re talking about like that.

              If you legitimately think being Jewish is a requirement to be a zionist then you’re so I’ll informed on the topic at hand that it’s actually pathetic.

              also, am i gross?

              Yes. Your views are gross, so I find you gross.

              There’s no implication at all, I directly stated what you are. Work on your understanding of the language, it’s shit.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Oh wow it’s super fucking rare for someone to just admit that they’ve got no idea what they’re talking about like that.

                well considering that zionism is a concept relating specifically to judaism, it seems fair to me to assume that it would be mostly jewish people that primarily care about it.

                My family is historically christian, but i’m not a pastor or anything so any deeper lore is lost on me.

                If you legitimately think being Jewish is a requirement to be a zionist then you’re so I’ll informed on the topic at hand that it’s actually pathetic.

                i don’t think it’s a requirement, probably just a heavy predisposition. As a non religious individual myself i have no reason to care for zionism one way or the other. I also don’t think i mentioned anything specifically about zionism in my original post, so im not even sure why i’m being called a zionist.

                Yes. Your views are gross, so I find you gross.

                all of them? Or just these ones specifically.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Their comment was removed for civility, but to answer your question, many American evangelicals are Zionist because they feel the Holy land has to be in Jewish hands for Jesus to come back.

              It’s not a rational belief, but then, religion is rarely rational.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                yeah, that’s a possibility. I know israel exists under the concept that in order for jews to be safe it has to be it’s own ethnostate with the ability to protect itself militarily, which is definitely one of the answers after the events of the holocaust. Or so i’ve heard.

                appreciate the answer though.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The ICJ ruling will take years though.

        As far as genocide deniers are concerned, that’s the idea.

    • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      3 months ago

      They relied on academics and genocide experts. It’s not weird or inconsistent with reality, regardless of propaganda.

    • The25002@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Yeah. One time I edited the Wikipedia article on the human pancreas to say it was just a worthless organ taking up valuable internal real estate. My edit got redacted pretty quickly.

    • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, they’re inconsistent from article to article, because it depends on how many editors show up.

      The more editors generally means a more consistent result/accurate result.