89
Wikipedia row erupts as founder Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' article
(www.thenational.scot)
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
89 points (96.8% liked)
World News
50735 readers
1687 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
Can you give me an example where despite lots of evidence of genocide, there's not been an international ruling declaring genocide yet Wikipedia still says it's a genocide?
To me, that would be the smoking gun that this was a biased move.
But what he is saying now is how it should always be. Throw all the evidence and sources up there, and make it clear that it hasn't been ruled a genocide yet officially, maybe even have a section on how that process has been going and who's opposing it.
That would be how to do it right.
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:
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
Since you couldn't find a link I did
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide_recognition
30 is more than twice 14...
But that's the gist of it.
Wikipedia can't say Bob committed a genocide, they can't "say" anything except "____ said ____"
Like that link, that lists every country who has said Israel is commiting a genocide...
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 think a big part of this, is how Wikipedia was never meant to be a source for developing news...
Like, 1943 the nazis would have seriously contested any of the multiple genocides that were committed. Or US/Canadian treatment of their Indigenous populations at the time.
But it's "logic" like in actual logic classes in college.
They could have 37 different examples of how what Israel is doing meets a definition of genocide, with video evidence, and a list of everyone who says it's a genocide...
But their job isn't to draw the conclusion, it never was.
And I get wanting Wikipedia to say it is, because it undeniably is.
But the opposite of biased reporting isn't biasing it the other way. It's counterintuitive, but it's easier to hold onto a nonbiased organization than one biased in your direction. The pendulum swings faster the higher up it is. You can't push it the way you want it to go, you have to hold it as still as possible.
Wikipedia's job is not to draw conclusions, but it does have a responsibility to present the consensus of primary and secondary sources, give those views appropriate weight and avoid presenting a false balance (WP:FALSEBALANCE). It also has no requirement to present all statements in text as attributed to a specific source when they are not contentious.
Considering the UN and most academic sources - all ostensibly neutral and authoritative bodies - agree that there is a genocide in Gaza, I would say there is more than enough reason to present this point of view as the primary interpretation in the article (with dissent posed as opposition). Indeed, if you read the two previous RFCs (1, 2), the discussion is not about which POV should be presented as dominant, but whether the the lede sentence should be in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ("x said y") or the more authoritative WP:WIKIVOICE ("y"). To be clear, that means the question is whether there is enough contention such that each perspective needs attribution in the very first sentence of the article, rather than later on in the body.
I wasn't involved in either of these RFCs, but I was an active and somewhat prolific Wikipedia editor at one point, but to throw in my two cents I think that it was the right choice in this case to present it as a genocide in the lede without attribution. Stylistically, it is preferable to present the initial sentence(s) in the more factual wikivoice unless absolutely necessitated otherwise by significant credible contention. The alternate wordings read as weasel-y and, I think, presents a false balance about how strong the consensus is. As it currently stands, with the wikivoice lead, the following sentences attribute positions accurately without detracting from this impression.
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.