Talk:Gaza genocide - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org

Quote from him:

I assume good faith of everyone who has worked on this Gaza “genocide” article. At present, the lede and the overall presentation state, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Israel is committing genocide, although that claim is highly contested.

A neutral approach would begin with a formulation such as: “Multiple governments, NGOs, and legal bodies have described or rejected the characterization of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.”

Respect for Jimmy Wales 📉📉

  • GlacialTurtle@lemmy.mlEnglish
    23·
    8 days ago

    So if you’re just repeating the claim, there is no point. Say something new?

    So if you’re not going to say anything of substance, there is no point. Say something that doesn’t waste peoples time?

    So the statements of the Israeli government would not have much weight in this, as they have obvious incentive to lie. The government of Russia should not have much weight, because it wants to whitewash its war crimes in Ukraine. The government of the US should not have much weight, because it has been eviscerated of everyone of any intellectual capacity.

    Good to know we’ve dealt with all 3 governments.

    They are not neutral observers, but (some of them) make serious statements and are capable of responding to facts even when it concerns an ally. We don’t see that with the US. We do see it with the UK, so even though it is not neutral, it forms part of the lack of consensus.

    Going on the basis of consensus means that sometimes Wikipedia will not state as fact something that is a fact. And that’s fine. It’s better than the alternative.

    Somehow you’ve managed to be both inane and absurd. We can’t state facts because there’s no consensus, there’s no consensus because there are material and idealogical incentives to deny facts, so therefore liars and and co-conspirators get to pre-empt statements of fact, and this is better than the alternative to stating facts, because it might offend those who want to deny them. And the basis of this allowance of self censorship for alignment with the guilty is that some are “serious”, and they are “serious” entirely because they are “capable of responding to facts even when it concerns an ally”. This is despite the UK (a “serious” country) being directly complicit, having hidden its own legal advice on the sale of arms to Israel, having been in near lockstep with the US on policy, having declared Israel “does have that right” to deny power and water to Palestinians as collective punishment, having cracked down on domestic protests and made Palestine Action a proscribed organisation for mere trespassing and maybe criminal damage (of spraying paint on a plane), I could go on.

    • FishFace@lemmy.worldEnglish
      22·
      8 days ago

      Good to know we’ve dealt with all 3 governments.

      If you are not able to extrapolate, I’m not going to give an opinion on all ~200 governments in the world, or any significant fraction of them.

      and this is better than the alternative to stating facts, because it might offend those who want to deny them.

      Fundamental error. Wales and the wikipedia ethos is not about “not offending” people; it’s about creating a resource that can be trusted by as many people as possible.

      • GlacialTurtle@lemmy.mlEnglish
        21·
        8 days ago

        If you are not able to extrapolate, I’m not going to give an opinion on all ~200 governments in the world, or any significant fraction of them.

        Only that there’s apparently enough “serious” ones to be OK to deny genocide in an encyclopedia.

        Fundamental error. Wales and the wikipedia ethos is not about “not offending” people; it’s about creating a resource that can be trusted by as many people as possible.

        And how you get trust is by denying inconvenient facts that are only controversial to morons and complicit governments and politicians according to you, because they’re “serious” in your stupid, shallow and meaningless criteria. Moron.

        • FishFace@lemmy.worldEnglish
          22·
          7 days ago

          I’ve never said Wikipedia should deny the genocide in Gaza and you know it.

          You are not a serious commenter; goodbye.

          • GlacialTurtle@lemmy.mlEnglish
            21·
            7 days ago

            You just defended claiming objections should be taken seriously from “serious” (lmao) countries in the specific context of someone trying to get the article rewritten to downplay claims of genocide by invoking the claims of interested governments that are the ones doing the downplaying for their own cynical reasons.

            You’re an idiot who can’t follow the topic and context of conversation. Goodbye.