this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025

236 points (100.0% liked)

World News

50703 readers

2169 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

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

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

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

236

Wikipedia co-founder joins editing conflict over the Gaza genocide page (www.theverge.com)

submitted 2 days ago by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/world@lemmy.world

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“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.

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] merdaverse@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 113 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Hey Jimmy, people who are committing genocide denying that they are committing genocide doesn't make it highly contested.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yeah. But also people who are not are contesting it somewhat. E.g. brit government.

[–] odioLemmy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

source: https://aoav.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/The-UK-Royal-Air-Forces-surveillance-flights-over-the-Occupied-Palestinian-Territory-examined.pdf

There are many more examples but these are the most obvious.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Supplying arms is not actively redrawing borders or starting a conflict. Profiteering might still be bad.

[–] odioLemmy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 34 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[+] Gladaed@feddit.org -32 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] axexrx@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What does the turning of the millennium have to do with it? We're still talking within a single person's lifetime....

[+] Gladaed@feddit.org -14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

The active current genocide started in 23.

You are clearly the mentally-ill one. Displaying it for all to read.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 points 18 hours ago

Their suffering is meaningfully different from pre 23. Claiming nothing started is discounting the substantial portion of dead Palestines.

[–] 9bananas@feddit.org 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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...)

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The British empire would not have existed if the Romans had not colonised England, so technically this is all Italy's fault.

[–] 9bananas@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago

that fucking fish should have stayed in the ocean, where it belongs!!

or, alternatively:

In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made many people very mad and been widely regarded as a bad move.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Placing blame on entities that don't exist anymore is silly. Italy didn't even exist back then, so this makes your statement even more convoluted.

[+] Gladaed@feddit.org -6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] 9bananas@feddit.org 7 points 1 day ago

fucking peace.

no, you dum-dum:

just because YOU, personally, haven't been reading, hearing, or seeing the perpetual violence against Palestinians (and muslims in general) in and around isreal, doesn't mean it just appeared out of thin air, like you are suggesting.

well, not suggesting... you're straight up lying.

you are using your own ignorance as basis of fact.

YOU are unaware of the hostilities happening, so you assume they DIDN'T happen. which is wrong.

this genocide didn't just suddenly happen, it's been going on for decades. it's simply been a much slower process before (except for all the times in-between when it wasn't slow at all, but I'm not about to copy-paste half o wikipedia. look it up if you don't want to be ignorant), which makes no difference.

a genocide, by definition, is not bound to a certain timeframe; when a people is eradicated deliberately, it doesn't matter at all how long that process took.

Palestinians have been under direct attack for almost century now. that entire time is a continuous state of genocide.

[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What a loser comment,

Relative peace to you and your Zionist friends.

they are literally destroying people home, killing their sheep, rape them in prison, and stealing their body parts, and soon death penalty to anyone resists. Along with continuous killing.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org -1 points 1 day ago

I am not in favor of killing the Palestinians. It is factual to say that the rate of death and humans rights violations did sharply change after the terror attack on that concert. So did the amount of tanks in Gaza. You cannot say that nothing changed or started from that.

[–] not_me@piefed.social 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] Lemming6969@lemmy.world -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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'.

[–] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 53 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

People spend two years proving it is a " historical and scientific consensus. "
OP: it is not true!

[–] trougnouf@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago

I'm pretty sure there is an academic consensus.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

giving a murder equal say in his conviction at trial.

You guys don't allow the accused a defence?

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

say in his conviction. the accused does not get to deliberate upon their own guilt

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Sure, then you lock them up for being war criminals.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] ABetterTomorrow@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

The facts are the facts

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Multiple governments [...] have described or rejected the characterization of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.

Which, apart from Israel and the US?

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

US dependencies, island nations, and micronations.

I found this: https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164281

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Fits.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Qwel@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

I'm sure Grokipedia has taken the page and converted it into something that won't offend the boot lickers.

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Qwel@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 days ago

fyi, both of your exemples would fall under wp:fringe

[–] mjr@infosec.pub 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Also seen at https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/57081889

Not sure why this isn't a crosspost.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Looks to me like that link is broken. Must be something going on.