Hey Jimmy, people who are committing genocide denying that they are committing genocide doesn't make it highly contested.
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
226 points (100.0% liked)
World News
50723 readers
1628 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
Yeah. But also people who are not are contesting it somewhat. E.g. brit government.
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.
load more comments
(17 replies)
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
I'm pretty sure there is an academic consensus.
- People spend two years proving it is a " historical and scientific consensus. "
- OP: it is not true!
I want to be clear.
I know it's a genocide, and I agree that this is the consensus of academic scholars. The only real dispute is coming from donors who can manipulate the editorial process.
This is the crux of the dispute within Wikipedia: when the system works correctly, scholars write; their institutions publish; Wikipedia summarizes. But if bad actors interrupt the execution of step 2, should Wikipedia break protocol further to circumvent the attack? Or effectively allow it to be successful to maintain process?
I think the argument for the former is compelling, but I think Wales recognizes the downstream consequences, and I think I very reluctantly agree.
The bad actors do need to be countered. I just don't think Wikipedia is an effective tool to do so.
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?
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
Sure, then you lock them up for being war criminals.
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.
Can you specify which alternatives you're talking about?
Also, I don't know what's specifically questionable about any of this. I haven't disputed or justified anything. I've just expressed a contrary opinion on tactics.
https://blog.reputationx.com/wikipedia-alternatives
Edit: I will give you some feedback as to what I thought was ill conceived in your statement.
First, I think beginning with “wrong” and making a subjective statement that is not what Wikipedia or Wikimedia actually have as their mission started you off on the wrong foot.
Second, a minority of actors has not prevented consensus.
Third, the UN does not have to allow war criminals a platform.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The facts are the facts
I'm sure Grokipedia has taken the page and converted it into something that won't offend the boot lickers.
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.
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.
view more: next ›