ISRAEL-HAMAS SIMCHAT TORAH WAR NEWS AND DISCUSSION

[mevinyavin]

"Allegations of genocide in Gaza" has been changed to "Gaza genocide" on Wikipedia... Subtitle still says it is about allegations, but still.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide

[avromie7]

"Allegations of genocide in Gaza" has been changed to "Gaza genocide" on Wikipedia... Subtitle still says it is about allegations, but still.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide

They've been doing this throughout wikipedia

[Savingsbeast]

"Allegations of genocide in Gaza" has been changed to "Gaza genocide" on Wikipedia... Subtitle still says it is about allegations, but still.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide

The challenge is that Wikipedia operates on a crowdsourced model where decisions are based on the consensus of the majority. As a result, changes that align with the majority's viewpoint are often accepted. Since we are in the minority, this majority rule can be difficult to address or counteract. So, while the decision may be biased, I don’t think it is malicious.

Here is why the decision was made to change the title:

The result of the move request was: moved to Gaza genocide.

This was a lengthy but actually quite straightforward discussion. There was a clear consensus from the beginning that the former title was not acceptable. From several suggestions, three plausible alternatives emerged:

• Option 1 Gaza genocide question
• Option 2 Gaza genocide accusation
• Option 3 Gaza genocide

The discussion ran for several weeks and was well-attended after being centrally advertised to all editors. The rough headcount in favour of each option was 23 for Option 1, 26 for Option 2, and 32 for Option 3. Few editors in favour of option 1 were strongly opposed to option 2 and vice-versa; amongst those that indicated support for both, the preference was generally for option 2. A fair number of comments in favour of options 1 and 2, but generally not option 3, were not policy-based (i.e. along the lines of "there is no Gaza genocide") and the headcounts for those options should be down-weighted accordingly.

The main argument in favour of option 3 was that 'Gaza genocide' is reflective of the wording used by available reliable sources, and several editors presented detailed source analyses in support of this. This argument was contested but not convincingly rebutted. The main argument in favour of options 1 and 2 were that the unqualified use of the word 'genocide' in an article title, when the existence of a genocide is disputed, would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, and specifically the principle that titles should be non-judgmentally descriptive. Editors in favour of option 3 countered that the source analysis supported 'genocide' as a neutral descriptor (and conversely that 'accusation' is non-neutral), and/or that the presence of a statement in an article title does not imply that the statement is factual.

Considering that option 3 had the most support by a clear margin, that the arguments in favour of this title generally had a stronger grounding in reliable sources, and that neither side achieved a consensus on the question of which title is favoured by WP:POVTITLE, I see a rough consensus that the title of this article should be Gaza genocide.

[jj1000]

The challenge is that Wikipedia operates on a crowdsourced model where decisions are based on the consensus of the majority. As a result, changes that align with the majority's viewpoint are often accepted. Since we are in the minority, this majority rule can be difficult to address or counteract. So, while the decision may be biased, I don’t think it is malicious.

Here is why the decision was made to change the title:

I don't follow.

23 for Option 1, 26 for Option 2, and 32 for Option 3

Option 1 was in favor of shifting their votes to option 2 over 3.

So now we have 49 for Option 2 and 32 for Option 3.

So how does that lead to "option 3 had the most support by a clear margin"

[iwlw2]

I don't follow.

23 for Option 1, 26 for Option 2, and 32 for Option 3

Option 1 was in favor of shifting their votes to option 2 over 3.

So now we have 49 for Option 2 and 32 for Option 3.

So how does that lead to "option 3 had the most support by a clear margin"

Feelings and left leaning sensibilities dont care about your math....

[dovy2]

I don't follow.

23 for Option 1, 26 for Option 2, and 32 for Option 3

Option 1 was in favor of shifting their votes to option 2 over 3.

So now we have 49 for Option 2 and 32 for Option 3.

So how does that lead to "option 3 had the most support by a clear margin"

I've seen that same pattern on many pages pages in regard to Israel/palestine.. votes don't really matter

[Kobe Bryant]

The rat is appointed as head of Hamas political bureau. The end is near.

[yshad]

The rat is appointed as head of Hamas political bureau. The end is near.

He should meet the same fate as his predecessor.
Then, Hamas will have two slots to fill.

[Savingsbeast]

I don't follow.

23 for Option 1, 26 for Option 2, and 32 for Option 3

Option 1 was in favor of shifting their votes to option 2 over 3.

So now we have 49 for Option 2 and 32 for Option 3.

So how does that lead to "option 3 had the most support by a clear margin"

It seems that this is not based on a simple majority but rather a weighted decision.

Here's how understand it.

Option 3 was favored by the majority. While many where in favor of either option 1 OR 2 it is not clear to me how many. It only says that "amongst those that indicated support for both, the preference was generally for option 2" but no mention of the vote count.
Additionally, they concluded that many comments supporting Options 1 and 2 were not based on Wikipedia's policy instead they were more about personal opinions and should therefore be 'down-weighted'.

The key argument for "Gaza genocide" was based on what reliable sources are saying. While this was debated, they concluded that it wasn't strongly refuted.

On the other hand, the key argument against it was that using the word "genocide" in the title might not be neutral and could violate Wikipedia's policy on neutral presentation. The counter argument against that was that using "genocide" is actually the neutral position because it reflects what reliable sources say. They also pointed out that having a term like "genocide" in the title does not necessarily mean that the statement is definitively true or established. It’s more about reflecting how sources describe the topic, not asserting the statement as an absolute fact.

In summary, this is to a degree based on circular confirmation bias. Many 'expert' around the world call it genocide, or potential genocide. The media reports 'a genocide' citing those 'experts'. Then, Wikipedia, based on 'reliable source' calls it that. Echo chamber @CountValentine?

Hence why I said that while this may be biased, I don’t think it is malicious.

[jj1000]

While many where in favor of either option 1 OR 2 it is not clear to me how many.

"The rough headcount in favour of each option was 23 for Option 1, 26 for Option 2, and 32 for Option 3."

"Few editors in favour of option 1 were strongly opposed to option 2 and vice-versa; amongst those that indicated support for both, the preference was generally for option 2."

[AsherO]

Why does Israel get the F35 with its own customization?

So they can soup it up and develop and install technology that no one else has.

[yelped]

https://x.com/Aizenberg55/status/1820817402386403730

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1820817402386403730.html

[AsherO]

https://x.com/israelwarroom/status/1820883314573447609

HY”D

[ExGingi]

I have a few questions:

1. Who does the selection/appointment?
2. What changed? It has been rumored for months that Sinwar acts independently of Hamas leadership in Doha.
3. Who does the "negotiations" now?

https://x.com/MadaMasr/status/1820889982464037002

[MHP]

I have a few questions:

1. Who does the selection/appointment?
2. What changed? It has been rumored for months that Sinwar acts independently of Hamas leadership in Doha.
3. Who does the "negotiations" now?

https://x.com/MadaMasr/status/1820889982464037002

1. Shura council

[yelped]

They've been doing this for months and have now escalated and finally some arrests were made. Let's see if they get charged or if this another PA style revolving door arrest.

https://x.com/HeidiBachram/status/1820914594723836413

[Jkhein]

So they can soup it up and develop and install technology that no one else has.

I have a connection with a weapons manufacturer in the US (we do some contracted work at their secured facility) he showed me a part that every Israeli F16 or F35 has in it that they make for Israel, he said that they outfit their aircrafts better then the US ones. Interesting.

[ExGingi]

I have a connection with a weapons manufacturer in the US (we do some contracted work at their secured facility) he showed me a part that every Israeli F16 or F35 has in it that they make for Israel, he said that they outfit their aircrafts better then the US ones. Interesting.

I recall seeing a recent video about the IAF where claims were made that the Israeli version of the F35 includes Israeli technology and is superior to the American version.

[jj1000]

I recall seeing a recent video about the IAF where claims were made that the Israeli version of the F35 includes Israeli technology and is superior to the American version.

They probably read DDF.

[Yehuda57]

They probably read DDF.

Zman Magazine