This user talk page might bewatched by friendlytalk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Emanuel Maiberg (21 August 2025)."Jimmy Wales Says Wikipedia Could Use AI. Editors Call It the 'Antithesis of Wikipedia'".404 Media. Retrieved22 August 2025.The ongoing debate about incorporating AI into Wikipedia in various forms bubbled up again in July, when Wales posted an idea to his Wikipedia User Talk Page about how the platform could use a large language model as part of its article creation process.
Hi Larry, and others, I would like to respond at some point but I'm very much swamped with preparations for my book launch next week, and will be doing a lot for about 2 weeks after. And Larry spent months working on his theses and it wouldn't be appropriate to dash off a quick response. The main thing I can say is that I don't find most of his proposals persuasive, but I think there are elements that are worth considering. For me, the important thing is what I said many many years ago: NPOV is non-negotiable. Many of Larry's proposals would make the situation worse and not better, and it's worthwhile to explore why I think so. I do think that, without a doubt, there are areas where we have a lot of room to improve - as has always been true and I presume always will be true.--Jimbo Wales (talk)18:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In theNY Times piece you were quoted as saying, "In many cases, what’s happened is a real lack of understanding by politicians and leaders of how Wikipedia works." I think Larry addressed this head on with a clear and detailed proposal which would benefit from the two of you working together in my opinion. I hope that Larry and you can find common ground on some of these things and really move towards implementing some improvements to Wikipedia. Some of them seem more obvious than others, such as "Repeal Ignore All Rules", as this tends to empower the powerful with even greater authority and acts as a "power for me, but not for thee" sort of "rule". Curious about your thoughts on that one, and on other areas where you and Larry might agree. Personally, I'm less interested in what you disagree on, because that leads us nowhere as an encyclopedia, and as a community. What you agree on though can be really interesting. I listened to your podcast interview withLex Fridman from a couple years ago (2023 I think?), and I was intrigued with what you had to say, but it struck me also as perhaps very naive compared to the real approaches to reform that Larry Sanger has proposed, which, if accepted, I think might actually result in the higher trust in Wikipedia which it seems is your priority Mr. Wales. I grew up with Wikipedia, and I hope my kids can too. They won't though unless proposals like those Mr. Sanger, who clearly spent a great deal of time and careful thought considering, are taken under consideration by the community. Your joint leadership on this would be amazing and could shake the world to its foundations. It would be like the Pope and Martin Luther deciding to set aside petty differences, to cast away indulgences, and to make the church truly reformed, without the need for senseless bloodshed for centuries to follow. Now wouldn't that be great? How rare such things are though... how rare. Wish you both the best.Iljhgtn (talk)04:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if Lex Fridman would take you both on and mediate a healthy and important conversation between you both about the future of Wikipedia? Here's to hoping!Iljhgtn (talk)05:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh no, the book was done months ago. But there may be some relevance to some extent, but nothing would directly respond. I speak highly of Larry in the book.Jimbo Wales (talk)13:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there going to be an audiobook too? I might buy that as well if you read it. I like audiobooks only when the author reads their own book.
Also, any thoughts on a joint session with Larry Sanger? I think that would be really great to have the two of you in a room talking about the past two decades. I think it would really be some of the healing that the world needs right now. Especially with a good host. My vote (or !vote haha) would be for Lex Fridman, but I'm sure you two could find someone that would host this on neutral territory. What is the Wikipedia Switzerland, maybeRichard Branson would host this onNecker Island or something? Would be a conversation for the ages!Iljhgtn (talk)22:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the audiobook, which was a very fun process!
You both might not like the idea I bet, but I think it would be an important and healing event for the entire world, and all those that care about this great project of providing Free Access to the full sum of human knowledge. If that required two personalities to hold their noses and have a potentially awkward or uncomfortable conversation, I say that is something you both really ought to suffer through for our collective benefit. Though of course Larry might refuse even if you were to agree. I'll mention it on his talk page too.Iljhgtn (talk)14:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...healing event for the entire world.... What an utterly absurd claim to make. Neither the spat between Jimbo and Larry, nor the underlying dispute about Wikipedia's approaches to 'neutrality' etc, are even remotely amongst the things that most of humanity will consider the slightest of priorities, if they have even heard of them at all.AndyTheGrump (talk)14:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is why Jimbo saying we need more "kind and thoughtful" editors of all ideological and cultural backgrounds is sorely needed. I for one would truly love to see them discuss this. If it means that Jimbo sweeps the floor with Larry too by the way, then so be it. Though I really would love to see the two of them just come together and find agreement on some areas that Wikipedia could improve. At least from what I've read, listened to, and watched, I find them both to be the sort of men that might be open to such a possibility.Iljhgtn (talk)15:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is "mainstream" in the same sense theNew York Times today is "mainstream": it reflects the views of the Establishment. But if the Establishment is radicalized relative to views common just twenty years ago; so much for "mainstream."Larry Sanger (talk)16:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making your alignment with right-wing US political making-stuff-up ideology (and vacuous labelling) so utterly clear, Larry. Now maybe we can get back to discussing a Wikipedia written for the broader English-speaking world (as a first language or otherwise), rather than the one this particular ignore-the-evidence minority opinion from a minority of the readership is attempting to foist upon us.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a discussion would be better than a debate which implies a winner and loser and adversarial "battleground" approach. That's not really useful!Jimbo Wales (talk)09:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see the fallout from the latest Jung & Naiv podcast which has gone completely viral on all corners of the internet. It occurs to me that people seem to look at things like this for the same reason that people look at car crashes. Just a dark form of human nature. Anyway, if ever there was a time to extend and olive branch, I think your book taught me that we should always give second chances and assume good faith. Like the girl that started out as a troll and then became some amazing editor.Iljhgtn (talk)20:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting with current and former members of the Arbitration Committee
Yesterday, Jimmy hosted a meeting with members of the Arbitration Committee and some former arbitrators to discuss Jimmy'srecent post at Talk:Gaza genocide and the response to it, and to give Jimmy the opportunity to ask questions and seek advice from some experienced community members with experience in contentious topic areas and challenging disputes. The members, with Jimmy's permission, are disclosing that the call occurred for the sake of transparency. Jimmy was encouraged to work with the community and engage substantively in community processes. Jimmy, I appreciate that you took the time to listen to the feedback we offered.GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk)23:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good sign. Jimmy, I hope you take the advice the arbs gave you. The community processes are important, and engaging with them is a much better method of making changes than trying to bypass them.QuicoleJR (talk)23:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not ever tried to bypass community processes, nor would I. If someone considers opening a discussion is considered a bypass of community processes, then they need to think again.Jimbo Wales (talk)09:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if that came off too harshly, but the statement you put could easily be interpreted as asking editors to BOLDly ignore the results of a well-attended RFC. That is what I meant by that. Again, I wasn't trying to imply any severe misconduct, just the fact that your statement seemed to ask editors to ignore the preexisting consensus for that article. If I was wrong in that interpretation, please let me know. Thanks,QuicoleJR (talk)14:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did. You barged in saying "I'm the founder of Wikipedia, this is what's wrong and this is what I want you do about it." You did this after giving a media interview in which you expressed a very strong position on the article.Skrelk (talk)21:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you are willing to follow the usual process of dispute resolution, but honestly what angered me and many others initially was your attitude on the Gaza genocide talk page. While you're entitled to your own opinion, labelling the then lede as "egregious" did not leave any good impression on anyone who accepted the previous RfC result. It just made us feel that you only want to helicopter us and override the existing consensus because you didn't like it (which I believe you still genuinely dislike it for good reasons, even if we cannot quite agree with that). --Sameboat - 同舟 (talk ·contri.)01:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy, could you summarize the advice you were given by the elders? Your initial post in that thread seemed like good advice -- a summary of relevant policies. An unsolved problem on Wikipedia is how to defend against POV pushing involving a large number of editors. One strategy is to clear all the editors from the venue so that non-POV pushers can write a quality article, but this is very hard to do. An RFC does nothing useful in such a situation because it's just another venue for ideological warfare. Even ArbCom struggles to resolve these disputes, which is why we get numbered cases such asWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. If the first four cases didn't resolve the dispute, why do we think case five will be different?JehochmanTalk12:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going on a blocking-spree against only all the people on one side of a disagreement, regardless that they are good editors who strictly stick to policy when editing, and also represent the view of the majority of the people of the world and the consensus among expert scholars on the issue, would be a witchhunt per definition and clear the way for the other side of the disagreement to do whatever they want to the pages without any arguments, since everybody else have been silenced.David A (talk)17:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But how do you figure out which ones are POV pushers and which ones are good-faith editors working towards neutrality? We already remove some POV pushers, but it takes a lot of drama for each one.QuicoleJR (talk)17:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, in the context of this discussion about the articleGaza Genocide, you seem to be arguing that it's been written by"POV pushing involving a large number of editors." The article currently reflects the views of international human rights organizations, relevant United Nations bodies, and many legal scholars. It's also been written by many experienced editors, in a topic area where our policies favor longstanding editors viaWP:ARBPIA. If you do view this as"POV pushing involving a large number of editors", you seem to be advocating a major reworking of core policies includingWP:NPOV andWP:RS in order to fit your particular view of neutrality. That in itself would be considered POV-pushing by the community.
I don't want to misrepresent your views but if this isn't your intention, your words are unclear. Can you clarify what you mean? -Darouet (talk)18:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't clarify what JHochman says, nor do I agree with it. But I think there is a POV problem, and it is in addressing the legal POV. (I think Jimmy's intervention was too vague to be of much use, and poorly or confusingly worded, but those can be have been discussed elsewhere). I think the lead has basically excluded treating it as a legal matter (thus excluding the legal POV), when it is not just an academic issue nor just a UN issue. (Perhaps editors don't want to think about it as a legal matter, or they are not really aware that it is a legal matter, or aware of why it matters that it is a legal matter, too.) Including treatment as a legal matter also has the benefit recognizing that there are sides, and explaining the different positions you find in countries, who theoretically must act on a legal finding of genocide under the convention. Also, one must recognize that legal matters are decided by the court, not by academics nor UN working groups (nor by Wikipedia editors), so await final judgement but address preliminary findings.Alanscottwalker (talk)18:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Um, by definition,good editors who strictly stick to policy when editing, and also represent the view of the majority of the people of the world and the consensus among expert scholars on the issue are not POV pushers.Black Kite (talk)18:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even more simply,editors who strictly stick to policy when editing are always going to be fine. The problem is distinguishing those from all the rest. Some POV pushers are inexperienced and need guidance. Some are experienced, but still don't follow policy, and need to be removed. It's a persistent problem in high-conflict areas that we've seen for a couple of decades. We (Wikipedia) still haven't figured out how to control this problem. It undermines the public trust in Wikipedia, which I understood to be the thing that Jimmy is trying to address. It's a hard problem that requires a lot of thought and probably some further innovation.JehochmanTalk19:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if I misunderstood. I have problems with catching nuances in what people are saying sometimes, and I have seen several other editors in this topic area repeatedly demand mass-bans of absolutely everybody who disagree with them. Anyway the issue is that the article as it is currently stands actually has been written according to scholarly consensus and by following Wikipedia's policies and procedures as far as I am aware. Said scholarly consensus just heavily favours one interpretation over the other. However, there is obviously always room for improvements of the article by including other reliable sources of course.David A (talk)20:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not beating around the bush and read that simply as a polite way of saying, "because the system favors the article direction which I don't like, the whole system should be crushed to the ground and rebuilt to fit my own vision". The system is not perfect, but it neither needs a rebuild from the ground up. --Sameboat - 同舟 (talk ·contri.)00:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "I'd like to push my own POV, so I'm asking if we can topic ban hundreds of editors and completely rework core policies in my favor." This discussion isn't productive. -Darouet (talk)02:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, Jimmy's involvement would be more helpful if it would be more focused. The articleGaza genocide has a biased title that violates core Wikipedia policy, includingWP:BLP:
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction.
Genocide is a crime, and there is a case pending at theInternational Court of Justice as to that criminal accusation against Israel. Many countries and many scholars are deliberately withholding judgment about that genocide accusation and characterization because of the pending criminal case at the ICJ. It is not enough for this article to say that Israel denies the accusation, the article title should be neutral about guilt or innocence. Some countries do not recognize or accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ, but many do so. Anythingyouwant (talk)16:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except this article is not some typical trial for a petty crime. It is of extraordinary circumstances, so it is treated less likeJudge Judy and more like, well, how it is being treated now.BarntToust17:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to remind everyone that we are still on Jimbo's talk page, and this is decidedlynot the correct place to discuss the content dispute. Please move any discussion as to what the article should say tothe article's talk page. Thanks,QuicoleJR (talk)17:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are trying toconvince Jimbo to agree with your reasoning, that already happened even before the opening of this topic ("the current lede isegregious"), but no one is going to sit idly by and accept any helicoptering from a co-founder, no matter how "focused" his input would be. --Sameboat - 同舟 (talk ·contri.)22:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I've been an A-tier hater on Jimbo for his recent actions but even I don't understand how you can "focus" a viewpoint/mandate.BarntToust23:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jimmy's instinct here is that something is amiss or awry with the article in question, so if he wants to participate like any other editor then I have suggested a way to possibly do it more productively. Anyway, I appreciate being able to toss in my two cents here. Thanks to all. Anythingyouwant (talk)00:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Jimbo wasn't Jimbo, his grand declarations about the article would be probably reverted or shut down like all other editors who do something like that. Unfortunately, he wants to use his platform to have his inherently "meh" declarations be seriously considered, but doesn't want that power to imply he is trying to supervote on the article. But remember, it's totally only him sharing opinions even though he has made very definitive claims about the article being trash. But remember, he's Jimbo Wales, but he's not actually saying this asJimbo Wales, so even though his declarations arethe fact-of-the-matter, he's not actually trying to supervote.BarntToust00:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A country is not a small group or an organization. Wikipedia treats potentially defamatory material about living individuals or identifiable groups very seriously. However, if reliable sources state that Israel has committed genocide, Wikipedia can reflect that. There is no need to soften the wording or wait for an ICJ ruling, as long as the claim is supported by high-quality sources.Cinaroot (talk)17:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, many countries and many scholars are deliberately withholding judgment about the genocide accusation and the genocide arrest warrants because of the pending criminal case, and because of the presumption of innocence. Those who do declare that the Israeli leadership are guilty of genocide should not become the voice of Wikipedia, merely because the majority of scholars are silently awaiting the outcome and reasoning of the ICJ case, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk)19:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{... the majority of scholars are silently awaiting the outcome and reasoning of the ICJ case? Really? If they are silent about it, how can we know what they are doing, and why?AndyTheGrump (talk)12:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump, the presumption of innocence in criminal cases is an important civilizational value, and an important value that ourBLP policy ostensibly recognizes. A good indicator that this critical principle is currently in play comes from many of the world's governments. Click on "show" to see some key statements in this regard (cites can be found atGaza genocide recognition):
Statements invoking a presumption of innocence and/or deference to the ICJ re. alleged Gaza genocide
Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said that "Israel will be judged in the international courts" and that "the position we've always taken as a country is that questions relating to genocide are matters where we respect the independence of international courts and tribunals and their role in upholding international law".
Austrian Foreign minister Beate Meinl-Reisinger said in July 2025 that she "think[s] one should be very careful with the term 'genocide' and it will ultimately be the [International Court of Justice] that has to judge it".
Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said that the claim of genocide was "something for the International Court of Justice to determine".
FormerCanadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Minister Melanie Joly neither endorsed nor rejected South Africa's genocide case against Israel. Joly said she would watch the case "very closely" and Global Affairs Canada promised to abide by any decision the court reaches.
Danish Foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen refrained from accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, saying that it was a matter for courts to decide.
When asked why theFinnish government doesn't officially say whether there was a genocide in Gaza, Foreign Minister Valtonen responded that they would leave the final judgments to the ICJ.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot responded to a direct question on France's position on whether a genocide is happening in Gaza by stating that the government "has no position to take on the legal description of the facts," and that it is "up to the international courts" to do so.
Iceland's Foreign Affairs Minister, Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir stated in September 2025 that ultimately "it is for the International Court of Justice to decide this."
In January 2024,Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Xavier Bettel said the country would remain neutral and wait for the results of the proceedings in the case.
Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel said that the Netherlands would not support the UN report that described the situation in the Gaza Strip as genocide and would instead wait for the ICJ's decision.
New Zealand's Foreign Minister Winston Peters said: "We're interested in what the international courts might say, and that's what we would wait for."
On 2 September 2024,Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said, "We welcome the use of the ICJ, but leave to the court to assess whether the accusation of genocide is correct."
In a statement published on 22 September 2025,Singapore's Minister of Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan and Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Sim Ann acknowledged that the matter was being investigated by the ICJ, which they referred to as "the appropriate forum to adjudicate such grave concerns."
Sweden's Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard commented in September 2025 that the Swedish government would "await the assessments from an international court before we establish that it is a matter of genocide."
These are statements by politicians who are bound neither by fact nor legal or academic rigor of any kind. The statements represent foreign policies and not even the personal views of the people who articulate them.
To quote from Israel's leading human rights organizationB'tselem in their report,OUR GENOCIDE[1]:
The routine killing and destruction in the Gaza Strip and the forced displacement of tens of thousands in the West Bank would not have been possible without international inaction in the face of the unfathomable scale and severity of these crimes. Most of these crimes have been extensively documented and made public throughout almost two years of war. Yetmany state leaders, particularly in Europe and the United States, have not only refrained from effective action to stop the genocide but enabled it – through statements affirming Israel's "right to self-defense" or active support, including the shipment of weapons and ammunition.
You argue that we should rely on these states and their representatives, instead of legal and genocide scholars, and human rights organizations, though several of the governments are themselves implicated in enabling the killing.
More generally, to quote from the Nuremberg trials, it is not reasonable to demand that an encyclopedia protect the Israeli state or its leaders, or other states and leaders under similar circumstances, as if the actions we are discussing were merely "the plotting of petty crimes." -Darouet (talk)04:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hijacking of So Many People's Hard Work
What is this "own voice" that asserts what Wikipedia asserts "in its own voice"? This voice is the solid reputation built on the hard work of many contributors over many years. Using this voice to take sides in an ongoing war is unfair... and, in the end, will benefit no one. It will only damage the said reputation. In any case, "not in my name." Perhaps that was Jimbo Wales's message.Pldx1 (talk)09:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 'solid reputation', in as much as it exists, is built around the application of policies created by those same contributors, over many years. And given that the debate over Gaza and the way Wikipedia discusses claims of genocide is essentially one over whether, and how, Wikipedia may be followingWP:RS,WP:DUE etc in regard to what under more normal circumstances, would (at least according to the majority of contributors commenting e.g. at the recent RfC) be considered entirely appropriate sources in order to make one specific statement 'in its own voice' on this topic (something it, and everything remotely describable as an encyclopaedia, does routinely for almost all topics, in almost all of its content), it is somewhat of a stretch to suggest that damage to the 'reputation', is occurring due to anything but the same community acting as it normally aspires to, or at least, acting in the same way that built the 'reputation'. And frankly, given that more or less everyone seems to have already made up their minds before entering the discussion, I suspect that the number of people who's opinion of Wikipedia has actually been changed by this single dispute is bordering on negligible.AndyTheGrump (talk)11:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump, I'm just curious if you would support the inclusion of the usual "The neutrality of this article is disputed" banner on the article since, quite clearly, the neutrality of this article has been disputed, by many Wikipedians in good standing. If not, I wonder if you could articulate your reasons why not. It is, after all, clearly within policy to do so, as far as I can see. Am I mistaken?Jimbo Wales (talk)13:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Funny enough, I rarely hear any praise for Wikipedia's neutrality. Wikipedia is more about providing an online encyclopedia for anyone free of charge or ads. When it touches on sensitive topics like the Gaza genocide or the false flat earth conspiracy, there will always be a group of people bound to dislike the way Wikipedia presents them (the "Wikivoice"). Both examples are supported by a large number of scholarly sources, but haters gonna hate. --Sameboat - 同舟 (talk ·contri.)17:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I rarely take much notice of comments about 'neutrality' from the average external critic of Wikipedia - or a good few internal ones for that matter - since they frame the whole thing according to some abstract (and philosophically untenable) definition of 'neutrality of which they are in possession, but can't (or won't) adequately explain. Or if they do attempt to explain it, it turns out to be something as bland, indefensible, and ultimately unmeasurable, as 'half-way across the US political spectrum'. As if the US readership, in it's heavily right-skewed political context (yeah, that's opinion too, but defensible by evidence) was somehow representative of (or entitled to hegemony over) the English-language Wikipedia's global readership more broadly. Given that I can't recallever seeing someone complaining that Wikipedia gets its 'neutrality' wrong, and skews article contentin favour of their own opinion, it seems reasonable to surmise that most complaints about neutrality aren't neutral. Not that one should expect them to be, but context matters when assessing such things. As does the level of thought that has gone into the complaint. So yes, there may be legitimate complaints (and possibly should be more of them, in topics currently getting less attention) regarding Wikipedia getting things wrong, but the idea that all one needs to do is yell 'not neutral' to win an argument is absurd.AndyTheGrump (talk)12:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, Andy, the number of times I have seen people stamping their feet that something actually is neutral, even though there is no consensus that it is neutral, is alarming. I don't think I'm using some abstract and philosophically untenable definition of "neutrality" - I'm using the Wikipedia method which is always about consensus, which is defined in policy as only saying things which have the widest possible agreement (ideally unanimity although we aren't so unreasonable as to demand that). In general, if a significant portion of Wikipedians in good standing are objecting, then we do not yet have consensus. What we do not do, again per policy, is count up votes and hand the article to the majority.
There has emerged an unfortunate trend in recent years to want to "Right Great Wrongs" and violate our traditions of consensus on the grounds that the Truth with a capital T is in the Right Sources (and we can ignore those sources which disagree, and the Wikipedians who disagree). This leads to intractable disputes and community conflict, where there is a much better way: respect the consensus method of Wikipedia, and do not say things in WikiVoice which are legitimately under dispute.Jimbo Wales (talk)13:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, for a long time now, the community has recognised that there are a great many subjects (e.g. most found on the list atWikipedia:Contentious topics, for a start) where 'consensus' in the naive form described in your 'Wikipedia method' is unachievable. They matter too much, to too many people - and are often the subject of organised lobbying, covert manipulation and the rest, as I'm sure you are well aware. Lobbying, more often than not, on both sides of a debate, whereboth factions are engaged in great-wrong-righting. In that context, vague waffle about 'neutrality' achieves nothing. No such thing exists in the abstract, and neither does it exist as some sort of 'mean opinion of Wikipedia contributors'. Or (more compliant with actual Wikipedia policy) can 'neutrality' be defined via some 'mean opinion of reliable sources'. And, following on from that, contributors will disagree on what constitutes a reliable source, and on the relative weight one should put on types of sources (in particular, the privileged status thatWP:RS puts on scholarship, which appears to be one of the underlying issues regarding a recent hot topic). And, given the external pressures involved, it should be entirely unexpected that those who are anything but neutral in their intentions have a direct interest in presenting their attempts to skew Wikipedia content in their favour as a 'neutrality' problem. And to accuse their opponents of being 'non-neutral'. In that context, a claim that something 'isn't neutral' needs to be seen as it very often is: an attempt to control discourse. The reality of the situation (as recognised by current Wikipedia policy, rather than vague aspirations) should require us to be sceptical of such claims. And to recognise that Wikipedia not only isn't capable of abstract 'neutrality', but shouldn't be pretending that it exists. A more honest statement would be that Wikipedia policy doesn't seek 'neutrality', but instead seeks to reflect and summarise that which can be found in the type of sources that the Wikipedia community (or at least those parts of it that aren't actively engaging in attempts to control the discourse to support their own faction) considers most appropriate. Needless to say, this implies that the existing contributor demographic (skewed as it is, in multiple ways) is the ultimate arbiter of what sources should be used to write 'neutral' articles etc. This is utterly unsurprising, unavoidable, and, given that despite its many flaws, Wikipedia seems to attract a large readership, quite possibly what readers on the whole actually want. And if they don't, we sure as heck shouldn't be trying to change policy on their behalf 'because they want it to be 'more neutral'. We don't know that is the case, and as I've already argued, because it can't be done.
In my opinion, a flawed Wikipedia (which this one clearly is) is better than no Wikipedia at all, given current political pressures in particular, but it would be better still if it dropped the pretence of being some sort of ultimate arbiter of truth, and instead took the more honest approach of telling its readers that it is what it is, because it is created by those who create it, and it needs to be read sceptically, like any other source.AndyTheGrump (talk)12:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is right there, atWP:NPOV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." The problem with these consensus decisions is that the argument tends to go that because there are either so many sources making a claim, or that there are no serious sources that provide a counter claim, that thus what this claim is must be truth (typically arguing that this must qualify under "Avoid stating facts as opinions." of NPOV, which is not supported by the language there). We should never jump to that conclusion while a contentious topic is still happening. There is zero harm in using attribution rather than Wikivoice while keeping all the same information and sources already used, and prevents WP from becoming part of the controversy over a topic.Masem (t)14:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we become part of the controversy because of choices of editors, that immediately belies the goal of taking a neutral point of view. WP's coverage of events will always be controversial because of things likeWP:RSP, but that's far different than deciding to state a controversial statement in Wikivoice rather than with attribution.Masem (t)15:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Gaza genocide is "controversial" because the sovereign states being accused of actively carrying out or complicity in the genocide have the incentive to skew the fact as "controversial" for their own interests. Such controversy is manmade and driven primarily by politics, not because there is a strong opposition in scholarly studies. --Sameboat - 同舟 (talk ·contri.)15:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is even more a reason WP should not be discussing the genocide in Wikivoice. It is not our place while the event is still happening to decide whether those sovereign states are in the wrong or not, even though I would think most editors on WP know themselves whatever is happening there is morally and ethically wrong, but that's where we can't let RGW cloud judgment on what neutral writing is.Masem (t)15:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without going into the specifics here, I'd have to say that as a general principle, if I consider something to be 'morally and ethically wrong', I don't consider acting on that judgement to be 'clouding it'. I'd considernot doing so to be the questionable part.AndyTheGrump (talk)17:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a politically driven narrative of "controversy" invalidates the use of Wikivoice. During the Covid-19 pandemic, there were lot of conspiracy theories or misinformation spread by politicians like Donald Trump of RFK Jr. Did we avoid the use of Wikivoice in articles likesocial distancing orvaccine because many politicians deemed those "controversial"? --Sameboat - 同舟 (talk ·contri.)23:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers current events and is not censored, and when a genocide takes place, Wikipedia will include a statement that a genocide took place and it will immediately become a part of the controversy whereby the party that is doing the genocide will attack Wikipedia. That is how it must be and I will not settle for anything else. —Alalch E.17:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not taking a side or keeping things out of wikivoice is nowhere close to censoring, since the article would still be addressing the large number of people that consider the events in Gaza a genocide. But we shouldn't be arbitrating a truth that is not yet decided as a truth since the statement remains controversial. Further, the above is exactly the problem when we allow RGW guide decisions. I myself are probably like most editors that what's happened in Gaza is bad, but I wouldn't let my personal feelings and sense of morals drive how to write about it.Masem (t)19:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not stating a verifiable fact as a fact, in a calculated fashion, to avoid getting heat, because that fact is that a genocide has taken place, is censoring, and is taking a side: the side of those who are implicated in the genocide and are taking measures to change the record in their favor. —Alalch E.19:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather confused about facts. Under the convention, killing is a fact -- whether it constitutes genocide is a legal conclusion. And that won't be decided until the court enters its final judgement.Alanscottwalker (talk)22:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sourced support for your assertion that 'genocide is a legal conclusion'. It clearlycan be, under some circumstances, but I'd have to suggest that in within scholarship, the term is used much more broadly, and has frequently been applied in circumstances where a trial was never a possibility: not least in historical contexts where the whole concept of genocide trials would be hopelessly anachronistic. You appear to be attempting to apply a definition from one field (law) to another (scholarship) in order to prevent the latter from doing something it routinely does: examine events from its own perspectives, with its own definitions and methodology. Perspectives which, I'd remind you, are those of the sourcesWP:RS rates most highly.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already did supply a source, the convention on genocide. This is 2025, not another time period when there was no court and no case. Here, now, there is a court and an open case.Alanscottwalker (talk)23:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The convention on genocide is a legal document. A Treaty. One which as far as I can see, places no restriction whatsoever on how anyone not party to the treaty (which scholars clearly aren't, since it is a treaty between states) choses to use the term. And as far as I can see, attempts to impose no restrictions on whether states themselves chose to describe something as 'genocide' prior to a trial. It would be rather absurd if it did, given that one generally makes the accusation first, and holds the trial later.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, there is a live controversy. You've taken a side in that controversy and in your own life that's a fine thing to do. But it is not for Wikipedia to do, ever. NPOV is non-negotiable.
"I will not settle for anything else" than your preferred version of the article is... well, it isn't what we strive for in terms of reaching consensus with other editors. It's aWP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.Jimbo Wales (talk)11:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, among the core content policies there is no "do not be controversial" policy.Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. Jumping hoops to avoid getting heat from following the same content policies as with any other article, because this time the fact being stated is that a genocide has occurred in the world, i.e., calculatedly packaging that statement into a false-balance construct, is not what NPOV means and is not compatible with the project's values and mission. I will not settle for anything else because I am invested in Wikipedia living up to its values. If Wikipedia were to compromise on its values now, because of outside pressures, I would be disappointed, and while I can see pragmatic merit in compromising on policy so as not to attract the ill will of certain powerful hostile factors, the trade-off from the compromise is too much of a bad trade at the level of the project's longstanding values. Wikipedia might have to suffer a bit because of stubbornly holding on to its values, but that's how it will have to be. —Alalch E.16:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump I definitely agree with you "it would be better still if it dropped the pretence of being some sort of ultimate arbiter of truth". And yet, here we are, declaring without community consensus (we are far from consensus as many people in the community are giving policy based reasons not to do it) something in WikiVoice as if we are the judges. We are not. That's a pretence of being some sort of ultimate arbiter of truth and it needs to stop.Jimbo Wales (talk)11:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one said anything about not stating accusations, but to be NPOV, you have to state the defense, too. And do be NPOV, you have to withhold judgement until the court makes its final judgment. Just like in a murder case or any other such matter. --Alanscottwalker (talk)23:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a few articles that defend WP and its neutrality when others have raised complaints about it , for examplefrom the Verge this year. They set out how neutrality works on WP, and generally acknowledge it does have flaws but because of the wiki approach (multiple editors, source expectation) the form of neutrality generally works.Masem (t)13:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And importantly, WP should not be trying to arbitrate this as truth or not, but simply to document the controversy, even if the bulk of the sources claim it is a genocide, that statement is clearly contentious when you look past the walls of the ivory tower that some editors are trying to build. Maybe in 5, 10 years when there zero conflict in the Gaza strip we can look to what academics have written far distance from the event, but we absolutely should not be doing that now.Masem (t)23:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't thinkWP:EXCLUDESOURCESYOUDON'TLIKE is currently policy. Academics can, and do, comment routinely on events as they happen. Indeed, they are very often asked to do exactly that, by sources looking for expert knowledge. Something Wikipedia is supposed to be providing to its readers.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And most academics commenting on current events that I've seen tend to have some stake in why they are talking about it now while the event is ongoing. We need to treat more topics like the way hard sciences handle them: if it is something you cannot objectively prove, it remains a theory, and until there's a significant wide spread duplications to validate as much as can be done while its a theory, its treated as that, just a theory. Once there's enough wide spread duplication, it remains a theory, though maybe then described "widely accepted" theory alaquantum mechanics, and to that end, we don't have to take any extra steps at WP to avoid overstepping into the truth. But when we get into soft sciences and politics, suddenly editors want to be the experts on what is fact, in some cases on something that can never be proven, outside of an accusation directly from the persons at the center of it. Now, in time, well after the dust settles, history then tends to become crystallized, like the Holocaust being a genocide decades after it happened. We're nowhere close to decades out, so we shouldn't be claiming any subjective stances as a fact.Masem (t)02:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is it that we should be waiting for?
If we're waiting for it to not be a politically charged topic after the genocide ends, or for enough countries to recognize it, keep in mind that, even to this day,shockingly few countries recognize the Armenian genocide (twice as many have recognized the Gaza genocide), but we absolutely should not change theArmenian genocide article to decline to call it a genocide in Wikivoice. 5-10 years from now, the statement "Israel committed a genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza" will be no less controversial to Israel and their allies than the statement "The Ottoman Empire committed a genocide against the Armenians" is to Turkey and their allies. Scholarly/academic sources from subject-matter-experts are the only ones it makes any sense to take into consideration here, whether or not the topic is contentious among the public or the international community, and there is an overwhelming consensus among said experts that what has happened in Gaza for the last two years is a genocide. There is no real dispute among the only sources that should hold any weight (as in, experts rather than world leaders), so there is no need for the article to present a false balance.
If you're arguing that the genocide is "just a theory" while it's ongoing, if what you're asking is for us to wait until the genocide is "officially over" and becomes a historical event, does that not mean we cannever call any event a current, ongoing genocide? Should Wikipedia be unable to ever state that there are any ongoing genocides? Should Wikipedia decline to call theRohingya genocide a genocide too? These aren't rhetorical questions, I am actually curious about your position on this, as well as Jimbo's. I've yet to see any arguments against calling it a genocide in Wikivoice that wouldn't also apply to at least one of the other two I've mentioned, if not both.
Except this is the classic case of false equivalence. How on earth are the ones (with their allies) being accused of intentionally targeting civilians and civil infrastructures in Gaza to be more credible on commenting on the Gaza genocide, than those who aren't. It almost sounds like asking the perpetrator to investigate their own crime, and claiming that no one else is more qualified. --Sameboat - 同舟 (talk ·contri.)08:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is helpful to think about. When we talk about consensus as the basis for editing in Wikipedia, we are talking about a way to work together productively and to make sure that Wikipedia remains neutral. It is not about consensus globally by everyone, it is primarily about the consensus of Wikipedians in good standing. "Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often, we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached." (That's policy.)
You won't find much if any (I think there's genuinely an absence of objections) controversy around Chemtrails (to pick one of your examples). That's very different from the current discussion where there are, both here and in the various RfCs, Wikipedians in good standing and with long experience who are making policy based arguments that saying this in WikiVoice is a mistake. That's the point. We do not have consensus within our community on stating this in WikiVoice. We do have very strong consensus on various aspects of the: that the UN said this, that Germany and the US said that, etc. That's how we will get to "as wide an agreement as can be reached".Jimbo Wales (talk)11:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are in an open case, in front of an open court, where there are judges to decide. As for the Armenian genocide, it did not take place when there was a open case and court to be the judge. (Also, no one said it was genocide at the time, the concept did not exist then. So, the only thing that anyone can do now with it is go back and project the later concept on its history. And that's not the case nor context, here, now. )--Alanscottwalker (talk)11:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Court cases are a controversy, their purpose is to address the parties opposed positions and decide among them. To controvert means to argue, to deny, for which a decision is then rendered. --Alanscottwalker (talk)11:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Certainly legal disputes are plainly a matter of controversy. Understanding how Wikipedia would not to take sides in the dispute for a matter in court should be helpful for how not to take sides. We don't say guilty before the court does, for example. And more broadly its easy to follow the same pattern beyond that, 1) What is the dispute? 2) Who gets to decide? 2a)how are concepts defined? 3) Who gets to argue? 4) what arguments are made? 5) what was the result or when will the result be?Alanscottwalker (talk)00:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Legal matters are/can be a matter of controversy, I don't thinkall are in the common use/a WP-useful sense of the word. But so is the 2020 United States presidential election (US president etc: "I never lost" (paraphrase)) and chemtrails (US Secretary of Health and Human Services: "We have to do something about that" (paraphrase)). And there are laws against chemtrails now. So "We do not take sides in controversies." doesn't seem like helpful WP-guidance to me in general.WP:LUNATICCHARLATANS (that essay is an essay) is also part of WP-philosophy, and a lot of stuff that it "covers" is "controversial" too,[3] etc.
But, if someone starts a"When we say "We do not take sides in controversies.", what do "controversies" mean?" rfc, I'll at least read the opening statement. If the WP-community wants to add a"Like a living person can't be called a murderer in wikivoice unless there's a court ruling, a genocide can not be said to have happened in wikivoice unless there's a court ruling." rule, it can.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)06:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The aftermath of the 2020 presidential election was a matter of court cases multiple times from the start but it can only begin one way, some version of, 'Biden won the presidential election. Then Trump said things, sued and lost in court, too, again and again.' And yes, it is true that in science matters, those discussed in your essay are often not going to be the subject of a court case. Instead of 'what is the law, who is guilty?' the issue is science, which easily presents as, 'what is the science? who knows it?' And who speaks science and who does not, and who speaks for science and who does not can be determined.Alanscottwalker (talk)10:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Choosing to downplay relevant, expert scholarship (which, per long-standing Wikipedia policy, arrived at by consensus through the community, is seen as the ideal WP:RS for subjects it deals in) in order to 'avoid taking sides' is actually nothing of the sort. It isa deliberate distortion of policy in order to facilitate a false equivalence. In more normal circumstances, such distortion would be dishonest, and damaging to the project. In the circumstances we are discussing it is also utterly immoral. Evil. And yes, call this 'righting great wrongs' if that upsets you. I don't fucking care. I have morals. I don't lie to Wikipedia readers to promote fantasies of an imaginary 'neutral Wikipedia' that never existed, and never will. I do not, and will not, downplay genocide to promote an online encyclopaedia. If Wikipedia policy demands we leave our morals at the door, what kind of project is it, Jimbo?AndyTheGrump (talk)11:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? There is nothing immoral about understanding genocide in the present context as a legal and political issue. Indeed, it was supposed to be a great advancement in human moral history that world agreed to make it the subject of international law. No one is asking anyone to lie about any atrocity, the killing and starvation and the rest. --Alanscottwalker (talk)12:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one is calling for downplaying reliable sources or forcing false equivalence. It is simply making sure WP is not jumping to a subjective conclusion in a very-much ongoing event over a controversial factor of that event by avoiding wikivoice and using attribution. Its very easy in a situation like Gaza to insist WP should take a side, but that's not our role here, and this is very much illustrative of the larger problem with how we too often write around controversial topics where the moral issue is much more messier yet editors insist on using Wikivoice.Masem (t)13:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia community's decision to insist on reliable sources is subjective. The same community's decision (except here apparently) to prefer scholarly sources is subjective. This insistence on (philosophically untenable) 'neutrality' is a subjective decision. The entire project exists because people make personal choices. And because presumably, at least some of them think it is a good thing. And yet somehow, when it comes to what scholarship is overwhelmingly describing as genocide, 'subjectivity' is a bad thing? I'm quite sure the dead children of Gaza will find that comforting...AndyTheGrump (talk)13:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is still too soon, things are still ongoing and there may be issues not yet revealed that no one can take into account yet. As such, per RECENTISM, we shouldn't be assuming any source coming to a conclusion on a subjective aspect is necessarily right. 5-10 years from whatever is considered the end of the conflict, and most of all the details have been put on the table, then we can start looking to ask the questions of what are the most appropriate expert sources here to use and consider if this should be stated as a Wikivoice fact. In the present, we can certainly make those academic voices weigh appropriately in the discussion as a point of DUE, but they're still trying to judge the conclusion for a moving target.Masem (t)13:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't too soon for the dead children. 'Too late' would seem more appropriate. Or is that too much of a conclusion for you, Masem? As for moving targets, that's how academia works. Or should. It doesn't strive for final answers. It doesn't wait until it knows everything before it says anything. That would be absurd. We don't cite academia (or anything else) because it is in possession of incontrovertible 'facts'. We cite it because fallible human knowledge is best advanced through looking to those who are best placed to advance it. Which doesn't include those who would rather Wikipedia didn't say anything at all on the subject of dead children. Or if it must, would prefer that it hide the dead children behind a smokescreen of bogus 'neutrality' and a stack of bullshit about academics not having engaged in decades of research, and thus being unqualified to comment (unlike those defending the killing in Gaza, apparently).AndyTheGrump (talk)13:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking a moral /ethical question that should be left at the door when editing fir neutrality on WP. That's why calling out all this RGW pleading as a problem. Personally I think it's atrocious what's happened in Gaza and have little doubt it's a genocide, personally, but it's when editing in mainspace on WP, that personal side has to be push aside and looked at from how a neutrally written written work would cover it. A d that means at this point treating this as a contribution versial topic that we should only document and not be a participant in (in this case jumping to claim something contentious as truth). We need to edit without our morals and ethics influencing our writing approach.Masem (t)14:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So once more we are back to this fictitious 'neutrality' policy (arrived at through subjective decisions made by the community) as the final arbiter of article content. Why exactly? How does pretending to be in possession of some all-knowing arbiter of 'neutrality' advance human knowledge? Are you perhaps afraid that if Wikipedia were to admit it were in possession of no such thing, the entire project would collapse? Do you really think it is that fragile? And do you really think the average Wikipedia reader either thinks Wikipedia is currently 'neutral', or thinks that it is even possible to be?AndyTheGrump (talk)14:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral here means simply documenting and summarizing the topic with appropriate weighting of all sides in proportion to sources presenting their arguments. It does not mean being an arbitrator of truth.Masem (t)14:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same BS about Wikipedia's fictitious 'neutrality' doesn't make it less fictitious. Why exactly are you so keen to defend something you surely understand isn't philosophically defensible? The community chose to define 'neutrality' through its own subjective choices. A self-selected community. One that the readers, presumably based on their own subjective choices, seem to like the output of (or at least enough do to keep the readership up). So again, are you afraid that the readers might all disappear (where? Grokapedia?) if Wikipedia were to admit that it isn't entirely objective (same as any other publication), and that its content might for instance be affected by the demographics of its contributors (which isn't even representative of that of its readers, I suspect, and certainly isn't representative of anything else). How would admitting that we aren't trying to be 'objectively neutral' (because no such thing exists) be so harmful?AndyTheGrump (talk)14:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never said objectively neutral, just that taking NPOV at its face, our goal is to document but not get involved with controversial subjects. Because that works with aspects like DUE and RS, our summary is going to be slanted towards the dominant side of a controversy, so clearly no attempt to be objectively neutral. But we are still neutral in tone and approach, and that means not presenting contentious topics as facts, as stated directly at NPOV.Masem (t)15:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply repeating yourself. While refusing to explain why pretending that a 'neutral in tone and approach' can be achieved (it clearly can't, without first arriving at a subjective definition of neutrality) is so essential.AndyTheGrump (talk)15:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our existing neutrality policy as written is pretty clear what WP's approach to neutrality is, which is summarizing controversies, with sides covered in proportion to what coverage is from RS, but withoit taking any side in that controversy. Nothing subjective about that, until we have editors trying to push moral and ethical aspects to say we should do something different.Masem (t)16:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. We clearly aren't going to agree. Mostly because you seem to refuse to actually even think about the possibility that maybe Wikipedia doesn't actually operate according to the fairy-tales it tells about itself. Creation myths are powerful things...AndyTheGrump (talk)16:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or we acknowledge this growing problem of editors ignoring the clear wording of one of WP's core policies to push ideas along the RGW approach and making WP jump to conclusions on contentious subjects.Masem (t)18:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just what it looks like to you, but it is not the case. The problem is elsewhere: Wikipedia does what it does, by publishing content about recent events, and when a genocide happens in the world, those who are committing the genocide, their allies, and supporters will, through various channels, put pressure on (what they think is) the supporting structure of Wikipedia to cause it to buckle, because they don't like it that such a popular website freely shares knowledge about what they are culpable for and implicated in. Wikipedia cannot do anything differently because the majority of its editors are radicals of Wikipedia ideology, who will not compromise on the project's values. But to you, this looks as if these people were pro-Palestinian RGW-ists. That is a conflation. —Alalch E.19:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even ascribing intent, simply that the topic of genocide in Gaza is a contentious topic, and thus we should approach without stating things in Wikivoice as required by NPOV. When you get arguments like above that are basically "won't you think of the children?" that is now appealing to RGW which WP doesn't do; WP should have an amoral viewpoint even in the face of a significant human disaster as to avoid violating NPOV. And I know that is a harsh stance to take but its what the policy is meant to keep us from wading into becoming part of the controversy. The more we simply state facts and summarizing opinion w.r.t. to DUE, the more we stay neutral as defined by NPOV.Masem (t)12:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy isn't about avoiding controversy, it's one prong of the three-prong content-policy framework designed to ensure that the content published on the site can reasonably be deemed to be knowledge and not something that is not knowledge (propaganda, apologia, spin, narrative laundering, etc.) —Alalch E.23:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with documenting controversy under NPOV, it exists so we have a framework to do that, which includes the reliance on RSes, and the use of appropriate weight of coverage of all viewpoints. What the policy does not allow for, spelled out quite clearly, is to make statements of fact in Wiki voice on claims that are controversial. We attribute those claims as to cover them and document who said what as given the reader the sense of what all sidesare saying (to the limits that RSes let us). There is no narrative spin when using Wiki voice if the claim is any bit controversial, it keeps us out of taking a side.Masem (t)00:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Praytell why we claimvaccine's effectiveness and safety when the incubent US secretary of healthRobert F Kennedy Jr. argues about it. His elite stature and role as a health minister should have given him enormous weight (not credibility) in invalidating the use of wikivoice in the vaccine article lede. After all, the controversies surrounding vaccine are "ongoing". --Sameboat - 同舟 (talk ·contri.)00:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it isn't valid to exclude sources that we don't like, nor to take the side of the sources that we may prefer. And yet, that's exactly what has happened here.Jimbo Wales (talk)11:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This entire controversy seems obvious. If both viewpoints contain tens of thousands of words, during the discussion and its aftermath, then there is no consensus. Consensus means, more or less, agreement. An agreement did not occur, so Wikipedia's voice should not be used as if it had.Randy Kryn (talk)13:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the current iteration of Gaza genocide lede deserves the blame of "excluding sources we don't like". The last paragraph gives Israeli counter-claims quite sufficient spotlight. The denialists on Israel's side would want the article be deleted entirely, but because they lack the capacity to achieve that, the next best thing is to manufacture "controversies" around the accusations to bait Wikipedians who would challenge the use of Wikivoice. --Sameboat - 同舟 (talk ·contri.)13:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ReYes, it isn't valid to exclude sources that we don't like, nor to take the side of the sources that we may prefer.
andWe do not have consensus within our community on stating this in WikiVoice. We do have very strong consensus on various aspects of the: that the UN said this, that Germany and the US said that
Jimbo, a point I feel necessary to keep making (admittedlyat the risk of being less persuasive each time I repeat myself) is thatthere is good reason why "some sources" are "excluded" when determining how to describe the event in Wikivoice. If you want to see the current version changed, you should at least make some acknowledgement of why it is the way that it is rather thanasserting that everyone else is ignoring NPOV and trying to RGW, and that the closing admin at the RfC failed to understand that Wikipedia is not a majority vote. The "some sources" in question are world leaders. We care only about the opinions of subject matter experts and not about what the representatives of Germany or the US said because, if the official positions of countries mattered, we would be unable to say the Armenian genocide was a genocide. To put it bluntly, we do not and should not give a single shit if Donald Trump calls it a genocide. He is not a genocide studies expert. No one believes otherwise. His opinion does not matter. Just as we do not care what Erdogan or Aliyev have to say about the Armenian genocide. Part of NPOV is determining which viewpoints should be given weight and acknowledging that there are some viewpoints which should not. Vanilla Wizard💙20:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You misapprehend the topic in a critical way. Since the genocide convention, genocide is a matter of international law, and what national governments say on international law is per se relevant to international law. Nations create international law. Every competent expert will tell you so. And no competent expert is going to tell you, they are a judge of the international court when they are not. Experts will opine, they might seek to persuade, and they will critique, but they will still tell you, they are not the judge of the court, and we should relate what they say but not treat them as the judge, when they are not. Competent Human Rights groups will say what they think, it is their right to do so, but they will not tell you, they are the judge, when they are not. Again we relate what they say, but we cannot tell people they are the judge, when they are not. Your wholesale per se exclusion, only makes readers less informed about the topic of genocide.Alanscottwalker (talk)11:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are arguing Wikipedia should not describe the event as a genocide until after the end of theGaza genocide case, no matter how many decades that takes, I'll ask you the same question I asked Masem, which he did not answer. Do you believe it is a problem that Wikipedia uses the word genocide in Wikivoice to describe theRohingya genocide? Vanilla Wizard💙17:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources used in that article lead paragraph (currently numbers 4 and 5) do not support the article's genocide statement. The first carefully makes clear there is no final judgement, the other does not use the word genocide. The last sentence of the lead paragraph ascribes a POV on ethnic cleansing (not genocide) to various countries, so clearly we are able to attribute to others (including countries) in that article and should do so. Document the atrocities that have been documented, but leave final judgements to the competent authority who can render the final judgement.Alanscottwalker (talk)11:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have bodies of scientific evidence over decades that show vaccines are safe, particularly after that one Lancet article several years ago. We also have numerous reliable sources that establish that RFK Jr's views on vaccine have no scientific merit. As such, this is where stuff like FRINGE and our policies about pseudoscience come into play. Same with flat earth and moon landing and climate change skeptisms.
What we don't have in the Gaza genocide is a decades-long body of scientific evidence to show that the intent was to commit genocide in Gaza. We have observations and numerous voices saying it is, but we also have a fair number of voices from RSes that say it isn't, and unless we have a confession from the agencies involved saying their goal was to commit genocide, it will remain a subjective, controversial issue that doesnot fall under FRINGE. If the ICJ ultimately ruled that way, that's different. Or decades from now, after sources far distance from the event can review the event under more objective considerations, and they all universally agree it was a genocide, then it makes that we can use Wikivoice then. But we are nowhere close to those conditions to be met.Masem (t)01:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if a list, agreed upon by consensus among veteran editors, could gather the two dozen or so most unsettled discussions in a way similar toWP:RSP. A list with color-coded indications of how well we have done with WP:NPOV, or how close to "Wikivoice" we are: is that ridiculous or do you think we could actually set aside something like that, and that it would help set a neutrality focus to have such a list?Sswonk (talk)14:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn'tWP:BLPCRIME apply? "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law."
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting currently says, "James Wenneker von Brunn...fatally shot Museum Special Police Officer Stephen Tyrone Johns."[00:45, 5 November 2025][5] Before the offender's death, the wording was, "According to the six-page indictment, von Brunn entered the building and shot security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns, who died from his injuries."[00:29, 29 December 2009][6] There was never any doubt about the facts. However, the original wording cannot be seen as creating a false doubt.
It could be argued that perWP:BLPGROUP, BLP does not apply to the government of Israel. OTOH, the decisions were clearly made by a small group, including the prime minister and various staff and military officers responsible for each of the actions in Gaza.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The founder userright is at a technical level completely ceremonial, it contains the ability to edit pages and add a 2-fa device. The fact that they hold the right locally and globally is ceremonial at a technical level as well.Sohom (talk)06:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Jimbo had any part at all in created that user right. I think it would make sense to either: 1. Abolish it, or 2. rename it to co-founder and extend it to both Jimbo as well as Larry Sanger. Might lessen the tension around this silliness then, regardless of which of those that you chose.Iljhgtn (talk)20:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see absolutely no reason. We all have better things to do than squabble over things that don't really matter. We don't need some sort of equal playing field here and we DEFINITELY are not extending a user right like this to someone who has been trying to tear us down for 20 years, simply because you all got rage baited on Twitter. —TheDJ (talk •contribs)13:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDJ, with all honesty if he really "has been trying to tear us down for 20 years", why isn't heWMFOffice-banned yet? I imagine trying to destroy Wikipedia would be the violation of all violations. Anyway, I agree that we have better things to do, I was just wondering why the redundant local founder status when there's already a global one.Yacàwotçã (talk)14:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Larry Sanger,@Iljhgtn or @Yacàwotçã, The correct place to engage (if at all) on this isWP:VPR, which is not here. Feel free to ask the community at large by filing aRFC in line withour policies on requesting sitewide changes to gauge the community temperature on whether Larry qualifies to get a co-founder user-right. Iff a majority of the community agrees, (and I have a feeling the community might some minor objections after Larry's multiple blatant attempts to damage the site's reputation, recent rejection of core policies, offwiki canvassing and attempts to dox contributors) feel free tocreate a phabricator ticket by clicking on the provided link. Once you do that, it will be reviewed by engineers at theWikimedia Foundation and provided there are no concerns, a deployer will deploy such a change and it will be live. Thanks. For what it's worth, I think this discussion has run it's course and has become somewhat inflammatory (and thus will be closing it). I'll see y'all at the village pump if y'all decide to start a RFC!Sohom (talk)16:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They've got that wrong, for a start. Jimbo did no such thing. And why should we be remotely surprised that a pro-Israeli source should be publishing such a story? This is absolutely standard for the pro-Israel lobby, and frankly, boring.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know it was wrong, that's what I meant by "Some sources corrected", like Gizmodo[7] (bottom of article). Personally, I didn't find this one boring, though I've seen similar content before, the author was new to me.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)17:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely not canvassing, since people from all persuasions stalk your talk page.WP:NPOV for the rare newbies on this page. I have been editing since 2005. My POV is that Wikipedia is frequently censored:
Wikipedia has various articles on government investigations of UFO/UAP, some with better or worse NPOV in the articles and the ledes.This Wikipedia search pulls up a few.
Anyway, some people do not like my NPOV clarification of the lead paragraph which basically comes down to clarifying "identified" and "unidentified":
Investigation and analysis of reportedUFO incidents under the federal government of the United States has taken place under multiple branches and agencies, past and current, since 1947. In spite of decades of interest, there remains no evidence that there are any UFOs with extraterrestrial origins and, indeed, those identified all have been shown to be natural phenomena, human technology, misapprehensions, delusions, or hoaxes.[1] There are a percentage of UFOs that remain unidentified. For example,Project Blue Book listed 701 reports that were classified as unexplained, even after stringent analysis.[2]. And more recent hearings by Congress list more.
References
^Frank, Adam (2023). "The UFOs Arrive".Little Book of Aliens. Harper Collins. ch.1.ISBN9780063279735.
Investigation and analysis of reportedUFO incidents under the federal government of the United States has taken place under multiple branches and agencies, past and current, since 1947. In spite of decades of interest, there remains no evidence that there are any UFOs with extraterrestrial origins and, indeed, those identified all have been shown to be natural phenomena, human technology, misapprehensions, delusions, or hoaxes.[1]
References
^Frank, Adam (2023). "The UFOs Arrive".Little Book of Aliens. Harper Collins. ch.1.ISBN9780063279735.
So there are two types of 'UFO' reports: those that have been explained, and have non-flying-saucer explanations, and those that haven't been explained at all. My goodness, how astonishing! In the real world, lots of things go unexplained. Wikipedia doesn't however editorialise to imply that the lack of explanation (which is almost always down to vague, unverifiable, or simply inadequate data) is an indication of anything significant. SeeOccam's Razor for a start. Along with common sense. AndWP:DUE. There is nothing 'neutral' about turning lack of evidence into little green men.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence by itself is close to a good NPOV lede for the article. I would make it more neutral:
"According to some government investigations there are two types of 'UFO' reports: those that have been explained, and have non-flying-saucer explanations, and those that haven't been explained at all."
My lede change does not say this: Lack of evidence means they are little green men. And I don't want it too. It just clarifies that there actually are manyunidentified flying objects (UFOs) or aerial phenomena (UAP). And that's from government investigations. Which is what this article is about, UFOs. The reader can speculate about what they are, and go to other sources for other opinions.
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). Forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
I mainly bring this here to amuse Jimbo and others after hisdiscussions aboutWP:NPOV and theGaza genocide article, and especially its lead paragraph. By the way I read some of his book free on Amazon, andintend to buy it have bought it. It gives the history from the beginning of Wikipedia as to how difficult it is to be truly NPOV.
Consensus changes over time, as it did concerning the belief that theSun revolves around the Earth. And people will laugh at those who believed highly intelligent life only exists on Earth, and couldn't possibly have visited here.
Consensus has changed on Gaza genocide too. Many reliable sources have confirmed it. It is a very minority opinion that genocide has not happened. But I still think Wikipedia should not confirm Gaza genocide in Wikipedia's voice. Various language Wikipedia's have used Wiki voice to confirm it. Others have not. I am glad Jimbo brought it up, if for no other reason then that it has made more people wake up to the genocide.
Back to the UFO article: There are both old and new UFO reports (and government videos) from reliable witnesses that the government has studied of objects that travel at higher speeds than any known Earth-built aviation, and that make right angle turns that would liquefy any pilot due to G forces. So to say "there remains no evidence" is inaccurate. It is more accurate to say that it is unknown how this is happening. Is it advanced Earth tech, or what? The lede is completely inadequate to what the recent Congressional hearings are reporting.
Thank you for making your intention to abuse Wikipedia in order to promote vacuous UFO-cult bullshit that 'might possibly turn out to be true later' so abundantly clear. As for the Galileo comparison, congratulations, you've just come up with an entirely new argument that absolutely no tinfoil-hatter, fruitcake, or purveyor of new theories of everything has ever come up with on Wikipedia before. Or maybe not...AndyTheGrump (talk)12:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several recent Congressional UFO hearings with videos, pilots, and other government officials did the reporting, not me. Personal attacks like yours seem to be the knee-jerk response of some. --Timeshifter (talk)16:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people reported all sorts of BS to a Congress hearing. And no doubt, it being Congress, more was added there. And no doubt some non-BS was there too - which you will have entirely misrepresented (I see you cite no source for anything there). Still doesn't justify your facile and ridiculously egoistic self-comparison with Galileo, or your 'it might turn out true later' idiocy. Feel free to complain about 'personal attacks' at an appropriate place though. I'd recommend readingWP:BOOMERANG first.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pentagon UFO videos. They don't know what some of them are. The flight characteristics of some of them are extraordinary and unexplained. I am just the messenger here passing on this info and link. Please don't shoot the messenger. Read it, and be informed, or keep spoutingad hominems. It is not idiocy. --Timeshifter (talk)19:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are attempting to cite a Wikipedia article? Have you ever readWP:RS? As for 'They don't know what some of them are', so fucking what? The world doesn't work like that. I can't explain why I have socks go missing sometimes. I don't blame extraterrestrials. As for 'flight characteristics' being extraordinary, that is your spin, and the spin of the UFO cult. Video anomalies don't have flight characteristics. Reflections don't have flight characteristics. Instrument faults don't have flight characteristics. Assuming that everything in the videos is an actual aircraft (or spacecraft), and then extrapolating (with way insufficient data, guesswork, and often outright misunderstanding of things like potential parallax errors) the supposed flight characteristics of a hypothetical physical object when none has even been shown to exist, is pure BS. If I want to be 'informed', I'll look for information, not clueless gullibility.AndyTheGrump (talk)20:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to break it to you, but Wikipedia articles have references. FromPentagon UFO videos:
In 2023, David Fravor, the pilot who reported the USS Nimitz sighting from the FLIR video, gave testimony under oath regarding the incident in aUnited States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability hearing. Alongside him was fellow former fighter pilot Ryan Graves, and former intelligence officerDavid Grusch. Fravor repeated his claims that, in his opinion, "the technology that we faced was far superior than anything that we had."[64] ...
On 25 June 2021, the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released a preliminary report on UAPs,[65] largely centering on evidence gathered in the last 20 years from US Navy reports. The report came to no conclusion about what the UAPs were, based on a "lack [of] sufficient data to determine the nature of mysterious flying objects observed by military pilots — including whether they are advanced earthly technologies, atmospherics, or of an extraterrestrial nature",[66] though in a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics, including high velocity,[67] breaking the sound barrier without producing a sonic boom,[68] high maneuverability not able to be replicated otherwise,[69] long-duration flight,[70] and an ability to submerge into the water.[29][71][61][72][70] Some of the UAPs appeared to move with no discernible means of propulsion,[73] and it was noted that the alleged high speeds and maneuvers would normally destroy any craft.[70] These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception, and require additional rigorous analysis.[73]
The report indicated that, in most cases, the UAP recordings probably were of physical objects, and not false readings, as individual instances had been detected by different sensor mechanisms, including visual observation.
We do not cite Wikipedia as a source. Just how difficult is that to understand? (Though if we did, we'd take note of what it actually says re "sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception" along with the requirement for "additional rigorous analysis". Along with the bit you conveniently omitted:The report also stated that "UAP probably lack a single explanation", and proposed five possible categories of explanation: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, US government or industry development technology, foreign craft, and an "Other" category.) As attempts to misrepresent sources go, that was a rather pathetic effort.AndyTheGrump (talk)00:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the choice, I'd have to suggest that if one wishes to draw attention to one's lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy, Jimbo's talk page is probably one of the better places to do so. Are you actually looking for a topic ban or something?AndyTheGrump (talk)00:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The OP's direct invocation ofthis is telling, as its fundamental basis is an assumption of bad faith against other editors. For the benefit of the OP I encourage a passerby to close this apparentcanvassing attempt, as theoriginal discussion of this topic is, despite the clearWP:1AM situation, ongoing.JoJo Anthrax (talk)14:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I recently wrote aparagraph about Dick Cheney's love of fishing, as this seemed a significant gap in our coverage. While researching that, I came across anentertaining story about a naked woman photographed in a reflection in his aviator sunglasses. It's another one which got away...Andrew🐉(talk)07:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am listening to this now. Funny term, and interesting that they would apply "enshittification" to Wikipedia. I need to hear the context.Iljhgtn (talk)20:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard it but my guess is that we're a case study in how not to do it. Epistemic humility is a great phrase, it fits very well my current interest in strengthening our commitment to NPOV and avoiding using WikiVoice in controversial areas.--Jimbo Wales (talk)08:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Things have gotten much more complicated over the last 20 years.Alan Perlis said, "All software becomesRococo, and then rubble." Internet systems tend toward enshittification because it's easier to add code/features/rules than to delete them.JehochmanTalk00:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, enshittification has nothing to do with software rot or similar effects. I suggest you read up on the subject: the lede to our own article summarises the concept well enough: "a pattern in which two-sided online products and services decline in quality over time. Initially, vendors create high-quality offerings to attract users, then they degrade those offerings to better serve business customers (such as advertisers), and finally degrade their services to users and business customers to maximize short-term profits for shareholders". The term has since been used more broadly, beyond just web-based material, but properly understood, and not merely used in a derogatory manner, it refers toan intentional process, where customers are initially offered something they find worthwhile, and once locked in (or at least dis-incentivised to find something else) the quality of the product is whittled away to junk. I'm sure we can all think of examples for ourselves.
For all its problems, I don't think the term can properly be applied to Wikipedia (possibly to the WMF, but even that is rather a stretch), and I'd be very surprised if Doctorow was suggesting it could.AndyTheGrump (talk)11:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finished the piece, and Doctorow spoking glowingly about Wales and Wikipedia as examples of "democracy" in action. It was very much not subject to "enshittification" according to Doctorow in the piece I listened to from BBC.Iljhgtn (talk)12:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that Wikipedia is a two-sided process, our 'customers' are readers, and our benefit is thus pageviews I suppose? I suppose we could degrade our product to chase views, but we don't face the enshittification pressures of a product whose 'views' is actual money.CMD (talk)13:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New word to me. Just saw this today inThe Guardian:
If enacted, it would lead to Russia becoming the “apex predator in Europe”, she observed. “Truly marks the complete enshittification of diplomacy,” she added on X.
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
LikeBarntToust02:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This has already been discussed at lengthon the talk page.CNC (talk)13:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
