Even if they wanted to, a lot of PhDs take longer than 4 years. My program averages 5.5 (with 4 being very rare and considered “early”) and someone I know in physics say 6 or 7 is common. Those programs are going to have a large drop in admission. I’m on my way out and will finish at 4.3 years, I’m the first one in my class to graduate
I’d rather not live in a society where theft is necessary to survive
He must have died while carving painting it
The developing news part does complicate things quite a bit. From what I have seen of the discussion, it’s not that they intend to counteract the bias (though perhaps they do and are just hiding behind other arguments), but that they believe there is sufficient reliable sources calling it a genocide and insufficient reputable sources to contest it in the lede (instead saving it for later in the article).
As you say, the Nazis would certainly have contested the relevant genocide claims, but that’s exactly why the editors of Wikipedia have placed less weight on government sources. Whether this bar of “sufficient reliable sources” is in the right place is a separate matter, but these matters are resolved through the RFCs they have. Wales’ statement came directly after such an RFC was held looking to reopen the conversation that was just closed, seemingly in disregard of it. If this statement had been made as part of that RFC, then it probably would have been received more positively.
Thanks for finding that, I’m at the airport so was being a bit lazy, though unless I’m looking at the wrong place it says 34 UN countries have recognized it as of 2025.
After briefly browsing the neutrality policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view), it doesn’t look like stating it is a genocide is a problem except in the case there is no source or there assertion it is a genocide is “seriously contested”. So they can say “the ___ genocide [1]” and aren’t necessarily required to say “____ said ____”. What qualifies as a good source or a seriously contested claim would fall under one or more of the other policy pages I think.
I should also add that while the Gaza genocide page discusses the people who claim it isn’t a genocide, particular attention in the neutrality discussion was placed on the opening sentences of the article which call it a genocide. The first paragraph in an article faces greater scrutiny for compliance with policy because it’s the first thing read and people may not read further.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “international ruling”, but I’ll try to answer a couple of possibilities.
To quote one user from the rather lengthy thread I linked:
Unless you think we should deny the Armenian genocide, too, because only 30 or so countries have formally recognized it.
This would be one example of few nations recognizing a what is generally accepted as a genocide.
Perhaps you mean the UN specifically. Some bodies within the UN have called it a genocide, but the countries within the UN haven’t voted to declare it as such (to my knowledge). However, many argued that governments aren’t necessarily a good authority on this due to political conflicts of interest.
The ICJ has issued some warrants related to the genocide, but I don’t know if any of their language specifically called it a genocide.
I agree that Wikipedia should be neutral, but given the academic consensus and Wales’ conflicts of interest I think their neutral point of view policy is satisfied. To me it seems like an attempt to dress genocide denialism in the form of adhering to their “neutral point of view” policy, but this being my opinion is of course subjective.
EDIT: it does look like they discuss the opponents to calling it a genocide in the Political Discourse section of the wiki page
EDIT2: fixed some formatting in the quote, some of my text was accidentally included
Except less than a month before, Wikipedia concluded an RFC (request for comments) discussing this exact issue where 2/3 voted to call it a genocide. He could’ve argued for it here.
The argument primarily stemmed from governments which claimed it was not a genocide, which would also apply to other accepted genocides. He said that academics should not be considered above other sources for deciding to call it a genocide despite it being established policy on Wikipedia that academic sources are held above other sources. So basically going against well established policy which is applied to the rest of Wikipedia in direct conflict with the community consensus.
Wales also is a self described ally of Israel and has received monetary awards from them which presents a conflict of interest. If you’d like to read the whole exchange (or part of it) you can do so here. When people link to pages in the WP namespace (e.g. WP:NPOV) they are referencing established policy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales
Sudoscience* it’s what sysadmins do
I’m a radiation worker, I’m required to wear a dosimeter whenever I go into parts of the building near the nuclear reactor. This dosimeter is measured 4 times a year for radiation exposure. A few years ago there was a big problem because someone’s dosimeter showed a very large dose. It was found they’d accidentally brought it home and onto a flight. So two flights (a around trip) was enough to cause a bunch of alarms at a facility that actually monitors radiation exposure.