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.”
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.
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.
Germans are allowed to shove their fingers in their ears and go “lalalala I can’t hear you therefore it’s not genocide”. In fact, all of us are allowed to. It’s just that most of those who aren’t a cunt will choose not to. It seems Germans do not pass that particular filter.
That’s a bad comparison. The Wikipedia decision was made specifically because the experts – i.e actual scholars of genocide and war crimes – have a very widely held consensus that a genocide is occurring.
There is the UN with its ICJ. That’s what pretty much the whole world agrees on.
They are the final deciders, but we can agree that it will take time for a decision.
What might be interesting, is what happens and how various people (including the scholars or you) react, if the ICJ decided differently. But that’s just speculation at this point.
Be careful with the words here. The ICJ is the final decider about one specific definition of genocide. However, there is nothing that says that is the sole valid definition of genocide. In fact:
According to Ernesto Verdeja, associate professor of political science and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, there are three ways to conceptualise genocide other than the legal definition: in academic social science, in international politics and policy, and in colloquial public usage.
The academic social science approach does not require proof of intent,[11] and social scientists often define genocide more broadly.[12]
The international politics and policy definition centres around prevention policy and intervention and may actually mean “large-scale violence against civilians” when used by governments and international organisations.
Lastly, Verdeja says the way the general public colloquially uses “genocide” is usually “as a stand-in term for the greatest evils”.[11] This is supported by political scientist Kurt Mundorff who highlights how to the general public genocide is “simply mass murder carried out on a grand scale”.[13]
The definition you insist on is not the only one with consequences. Arguably, in the Trump-Netanyahu era, the legal one might be the one with the least amount of consequences…
It also not the one used for the English Wikipedia. I told you to be careful with words because you were using the legal definition to argue against the scholarly one. Sticking to the legal definition doesn’t make you careful per se. And I’m not sure I understand what “throwing around” is happening here. This is not the Lord’s name to not be taken in vain.
“It wasn’t or isn’t ‘genocide,’ because …” They may enter definitional or rhetorical argumentation.
Also given that the americans threatened to invade de haag if they indicted Netanyahu, the ICJ independence is deeply flawed in the first place. They should not be the final authority anymore.
Like, sorry, I’d rather accuse a country of genocide too soon than being a fucking denialist. What are you afraid off? Less people dying?
“They should not be the final authority anymore.”
And who should be? Creating something new that the whole world agrees on seems like a hard task right now.
I’d rather accuse a country of genocide too soon than being a fucking denialist.
It’s not that we agree on whether it’s a war or whether children die. It’s a Genocide accusation, which is pretty much the hardest accusation possible. My view: I don’t want to accuse a country too soon.
I’d rather get called a denialist for now reason (just, because I don’t throw the hardest accusation on the target) than potentially having to back-pedal later. I think, that our language(s) has/have a lot of potential to describe the terrible things that happened in Israel on Oct 7th and in Gaza since then (which is the opposite of denial) without using the word “Genocide” like there was already a decision by the ICJ.
What are you afraid off? Less people dying?
What is your hope by using the word before there is a ICJ decision? Less people dying? Because I don’t see a causal connection there.
did you read the article?
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…
That could also be the argument for calling the article “Genocide accusations” and waiting for the ICJ…
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.
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
I agree that that’s probably the difference.
Germans are allowed to shove their fingers in their ears and go “lalalala I can’t hear you therefore it’s not genocide”. In fact, all of us are allowed to. It’s just that most of those who aren’t a cunt will choose not to. It seems Germans do not pass that particular filter.
I prefer to not throw words on something based on emotions.
There are usually 3 views on the internet:
Mine is Nr. 3! If you think, that Nr. 2 and Nr. 3 are the same, the problem is on your side.
That’s a bad comparison. The Wikipedia decision was made specifically because the experts – i.e actual scholars of genocide and war crimes – have a very widely held consensus that a genocide is occurring.
Do you disagree with the experts?
There is the UN with its ICJ. That’s what pretty much the whole world agrees on.
They are the final deciders, but we can agree that it will take time for a decision.
What might be interesting, is what happens and how various people (including the scholars or you) react, if the ICJ decided differently. But that’s just speculation at this point.
Be careful with the words here. The ICJ is the final decider about one specific definition of genocide. However, there is nothing that says that is the sole valid definition of genocide. In fact:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
You are saying “Be careful with the words here” and that there a different definitions…
I am the one here who is careful with the G-word. Others just throw that word in (of course without mentioning which definition they refer to)…
Let’s be honest: In the end, the legal definition (and therefore the legal decision) is the one that has actual consequences.
The definition you insist on is not the only one with consequences. Arguably, in the Trump-Netanyahu era, the legal one might be the one with the least amount of consequences…
It also not the one used for the English Wikipedia. I told you to be careful with words because you were using the legal definition to argue against the scholarly one. Sticking to the legal definition doesn’t make you careful per se. And I’m not sure I understand what “throwing around” is happening here. This is not the Lord’s name to not be taken in vain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_denial
“It wasn’t or isn’t ‘genocide,’ because …” They may enter definitional or rhetorical argumentation.
Also given that the americans threatened to invade de haag if they indicted Netanyahu, the ICJ independence is deeply flawed in the first place. They should not be the final authority anymore.
Like, sorry, I’d rather accuse a country of genocide too soon than being a fucking denialist. What are you afraid off? Less people dying?
“They should not be the final authority anymore.” And who should be? Creating something new that the whole world agrees on seems like a hard task right now.
It’s not that we agree on whether it’s a war or whether children die. It’s a Genocide accusation, which is pretty much the hardest accusation possible. My view: I don’t want to accuse a country too soon.
I’d rather get called a denialist for now reason (just, because I don’t throw the hardest accusation on the target) than potentially having to back-pedal later. I think, that our language(s) has/have a lot of potential to describe the terrible things that happened in Israel on Oct 7th and in Gaza since then (which is the opposite of denial) without using the word “Genocide” like there was already a decision by the ICJ.
What is your hope by using the word before there is a ICJ decision? Less people dying? Because I don’t see a causal connection there.