• affiliate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    did you read the article?

    British Wikipedian, Stuart Marshall, made the final ruling in September, decisively supporting the article’s inclusion. “Based on the strength of the arguments … and it’s not close … I discarded the argument that scholars haven’t reached a conclusion on whether the Gaza genocide is really taking place”, Marshall wrote in his decision. “The matter remains contested, but there’s a metric truckload of scholarly sources linked in this discussion that show a clear predominance of academics who say that it is.”

    Marshall concluded his ruling with the straightforward statement: “We follow the scholars.”

    On its “Gaza genocide” page, it states that “Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.”

    • lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      6 days ago

      And the German Wikipedia community sees it differently (differently = waiting for an official decision) and does not allow an article called “Gaza Genozid” until now…

      The matter remains contested

      That could also be the argument for calling the article “Genocide accusations” and waiting for the ICJ…

      On its “Gaza genocide” page, it states that “Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.”

      Compared to the previous 2 quotes, this is actually a fact: There are accusations.


      PS: Just to make it clear: I am not the ICJ either. And I think, it’s fine to share it as an opinion (“I think, there is a genocide happening”), but referencing it as a fact (“The genocide is getting worse”) before it is actually classified as one by the people who are responsible to do so, is just not useful at all. I know, that especially people from the USA see this differently.

      • acargitz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        The German wikipedia can make its own editorial decisions. They also don’t have a Rohingya genocide article, only an article about the Rohingya genocide case at the ICJ. The English Wikipedia has two articles. It would seem the crux of the matter is that the Germans treat the word genocide as a purely legal term and therefore wait for the ICJ decision, whereas the English treat the word as a topic on which a scholarly academic consensus can be pronounced, in addition to the legal proceedings. One can argue back and forth about which approach has more or less merit, but they are both valid.

        Edit: grammar