“At present, the lede and the overall presentation state, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Israel is committing genocide, although that claim is highly contested,” Wales said. He added that 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.’” Currently, the article bases its position that a genocide exists on conclusions from United Nations investigations, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and “multiple human rights groups,” among others.
The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict…[an individual] who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it – Martin Luther King J
I’m sure that neutrality and both side arguments are perfectly acceptable for articles on the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, Native American genocide, flat earth and climate denialism, right? The article already cites 500 sources, mostly in favor of the genocide label, but we should give more credit to the Israeli government and the Western colonial powers that created it?? Fuck neutrality, and fuck anyone who supports it.
The facts are the facts
Hey Jimmy, people who are committing genocide denying that they are committing genocide doesn’t make it highly contested.
Yeah. But also people who are not are contesting it somewhat. E.g. brit government.
Brit gov is part of it:
The government granted 108 licences for military and non-military controlled goods to Israel between 7 October 2023 and 31 May 2024, according to data released in June 2024.
source: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9964/
The Royal Air Force (RAF) has conducted at least 519 surveillance flights around Gaza since December 2023, an investigation by Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) for Declassified UK has found.
There are many more examples but these are the most obvious.
Supplying arms is not actively redrawing borders or starting a conflict. Profiteering might still be bad.
Providing intelligence is taking ACTIVE part in the genocide. Your comment claimed that UK government does not. Profiteering IS bad, you should remove the “might”.
I haven’t talked about borders or the start of the conflict, you are confusing threads/users. But if you mention it to me, you should read about The Balfour Declaration
The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British Government in 1917 during the First World War announcing its support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population.
The UK started the fucking genocide by giving away land that was not theirs to an entire religion/ethnic group who hadn’t been more than a minority in the region in all of recorded history.
Everyone denying the genocide is complicit or bought.
Britain did conquer the region, historically that’s how it’s changed hands between empires. The Ottoman’s took the land by conquest in the 16th century, taking it from the Mamluks who conquered it in the 13th century, taking it from the crusaders who conquered the area two hundred years before, who took it from the Rashidun Caliphate who conquered it in the 7th century, and on and on.
You are mental.
The UK did not redistribute land to Jerusalem this millennium. Claiming borders and deeds of old to justify (military) action is a book out of a warmongers playbook.
What does the turning of the millennium have to do with it? We’re still talking within a single person’s lifetime…
The active current genocide started in 23. The UK did not redraw borders to trigger it. It was triggered by a terror attack. Some have considered the attack inevitable due to continued oppression and border fences. Public opinion in Israel also does not appear to be influenced by the British.
Public opinion in Israel also does not appear to be influenced by the British.
let’s start with the easy one: this is completely irrelevant. public opinion is largely worthless and means nothing.
The active current genocide started in 23.
it started in the 1940s, arguably earlier.
the very first thing that happened in the region was Palestinians being expelled from their own land in order to make way for the zionist regime.
that’s how Palestinian oppression started, and it’s the reason the situation got so bad in the first place.
it got much, much worse in '23, but that’s not the start at all.
It was triggered by a terror attack.
no, it was the other way around; ongoing genocide triggered the terrorist attack.
and more importantly:
is this supposed to mean that genocide can be justified? is that what you’re saying?
Some have considered the attack inevitable due to continued oppression and border fences.
gee, i wonder how that oppression started in the first place… certainly couldn’t have been the british! they’d never meddle in the middle east for colonialist reasons!
well…except in afghanistan…and iraq…and syria…and egypt…wait, how long is this list anyway?
could the british empire be responsible for most of the clusterfuck that is the current middle east, by having drawn completely arbitrary lines on maps more than a century ago, which were deliberately designed to fence in diverse ethnic communities, with the explicit goal of suppressing the local populations by putting them in a constant state of unresolvable armed conflict in order to ensure instability in the region and as a result keeping education and living standards low, thus guaranteeing cheap oil for the foreseeable future by making it trivial to install dictatorships across the region?
…are you for fucking real?
(hawara, du saufst den lack aber auch im liter pack…)
The British empire would not have existed if the Romans had not colonised England, so technically this is all Italy’s fault.
The current invasion of Gaza was preceded by relative peace. You not liking Israel has been made to exist is fine. Does not change the facts, that Jewish people live in in Israel, policy changed substantially at that point, and so did public opinion in Israel.
A trigger is not a justification. A trigger does not justify genocide. A trigger is just a trigger. You read too much between the lines. Sometimes a sunrise is just a sunrise.
It isIch vermute, dass die Geschichtsbücher in Ihrem Land Ihnen ein falsches Bild von der Entstehung des Staates Israel vermittelt haben. Nach dem Selbstmord von 88 und der Kapitulation Deutschlands wurden die vertriebenen Juden von Europa nach dort verschifft, England und ein Lord sind die Hauptursache für die Probleme, die seit 1946 entstanden sind
Removed by mod
English is my 4 language ,so screw yourself
In what way does this force you to use bad German? And why does this mean you must self censor?
To play devil’s advocate, due to the formulation of his edit suggestion, he may have meant how to depict the claims is being highly contested (on wiki) and should be more neutral and specific as per who is claiming what… And said it badly.
Why assume when he has had plenty of time to clarify if that is what he meant?
His exact phrasing is the same as saying climate change is contested. No, that kind of thing does not deserve to be in an article any more than the including denial about the Nazi genocide as an example of being highly cobtested because some shitty people and organizations still deny that one too. That kind of thing deserves to be ina section called genocide denial, no lt a note that ‘it is contested’.
Ends up in semantics though… Contested only requires 1, and highly or widely is not defined, and who is a qualifying contributor is not qualified, and who is a qualifying arbiter is not defined.
Depending on how invested he is in the feedback, he may not even realize currently it’s being read outside the context of the wiki editing neutrality issue he was talking about for the article.
I know nothing about his politics, and can only talk about the semantic concepts.
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think Wales is correct.
I understand this seems irrational, because of course Israel committed genocide in Gaza. And Wikipedia’s job is to describe reality, right?
Wrong. Wikipedia’s job is to describe historical and scientific consensus. It is fundamental to their mission that they do all they can to avoid arbitrating disputes. I know that’s painful, but it’s a matter of roles: academics and media organizations arbitrate, and Wikipedia’s role is to catalog and communicate the consensus these organizations reach.
It’s terrible that a minority of biased actors have managed to prevent media and academic institutions from reaching consensus when the subject is so straightforward and obvious. But until that is addressed, unfortunately Wikipedia is hampered from describing the consensus reality by the needs of their core mission. They are designed to be downstream of these organizations, and they have to be to remain effective to their core mission. It’s like how the UN lets war criminals like Netanyahu visit and speak. As much as we’d all like them to kick him the hell out, doing so undermines the core purpose of the institution. It’s uncomfortable, but it’s the job description.
I think one solution is that their should be more than one crowd-sourced encyclopedia for the world. Wikipedia will always suffer from a Western, English-speaking bias.
There is a lot wrong with this statement. The reason Israel can commit these war crimes with impunity is because of tolerance such as giving them a stage in the UN. It is not our job or Wikipedias to give a platform to enablers of massive human suffering. In fact, it is just the opposite.
You last point is also extremely questionable because there are numerous Wikipedia clones and competitors.
This the exact rationale used by climate deniers. Because you can state that there is “controversy” over an issue, you can dismiss it entirely.
The consensus is that Isreal is committing a genocide. Those who are disagree are a tiny minority, and should be considered nothing more than outliers. It doesn’t matter that some of the disagreement comes from nations like the US. They’re not more right just because they have a big economy and military.
As you said, “Wikipedia’s job is to describe historical and scientific consensus”, and that’s exactly the responsibility that they’re shirking here, choosing instead to gesture at a barely existent “controversy” that basically consists of “Isreal and their allies refute the claim.” By the same token we shouldn’t call Trump a felon because he still insists he’s innocent.
- People spend two years proving it is a " historical and scientific consensus. "
- OP: it is not true!
I’m pretty sure there is an academic consensus.
is consensus even a thing? and considering the groups that make up the group saying it’s not a genocide, it would be like giving a murder equal say in his conviction at trial.
genocide has a definition, isreal far exceeded all criteria, israel has and is currently committing genocide.
unless there is a new definition that excludes israel but also doesn’t exclude the holocaust without naming the parties i don’t know of
giving a murder equal say in his conviction at trial.
You guys don’t allow the accused a defence?
Sure, then you lock them up for being war criminals.
When the accused has been repeatedly recorded murdering and raping people in plain view of the public while cackling maniacally and yelling “and I’ll do it again!”…?
…sure, but we’ll still call a spade a spade, and a genocide a genocide.
say in his conviction. the accused does not get to deliberate upon their own guilt
Multiple governments […] have described or rejected the characterization of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.
Which, apart from Israel and the US?
US dependencies, island nations, and micronations.
I found this: https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164281
Fits.
I’m sure Grokipedia has taken the page and converted it into something that won’t offend the boot lickers.
Honestly I kinda feel like “Multiple governments, NGOs, and legal bodies have described or rejected the characterization of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide” sounds more damning than just “Israel perpetrated a genocide.”
Still, Jimbo, you should probably stay out of this. Wikipedia’s whole thing is that no one person is in charge.
He is discussing a page’s content, not “being in charge” of the page. I actually think it would be a good thing if board members spent more time as “normal” editors, maybe they would be less disconnected from the community
I think it’s the fact that he has a recognizable username that gives me pause on that, though. For a lot of people, his position is naturally going to afford him some level of deference and authority.
If the people making decisions spent time as normal editors anonymously, I agree definitely that that would be a good way to get to know the community more.
So that means…
The moon landing is highly contested.
The shape of the Earth is highly contested.
Shit like this is why I had to leave Wikipedia. Trolls and paid shills can lock up any meaningful edit/argument forever if they want to. And the people running Wikipedia are no different.
fyi, both of your exemples would fall under wp:fringe
Also seen at https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/57081889
Not sure why this isn’t a crosspost.
Looks to me like that link is broken. Must be something going on.
