User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

 

Line 407: Line 407:

::::Please see my previous replies. –[[User:Timeshifter|”’Timeshifter”’]] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 00:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

::::Please see my previous replies. –[[User:Timeshifter|”’Timeshifter”’]] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 00:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

:::::Please see the complete lack of support you are getting here for your nonsense. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 01:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

:::::Please see the complete lack of support you are getting here for your nonsense. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 01:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

::Not sure why the [[Pentagon UFO videos]] article gives weight to outdated reports with ambiguous conclusions. It needs to be updated with Pentagon reports issued after 2021: [https://m.kuow.org/stories/pentagon-finds-no-evidence-of-alien-technology-in-new-ufo-report Pentagon finds no evidence of alien technology in new UFO report].

::Not sure why the [[Pentagon UFO videos]] article gives weight to outdated reports with ambiguous conclusions. It needs to be updated with Pentagon reports issued after 2021: [https://m.kuow.org/stories/pentagon-finds-no-evidence-of-alien-technology-in-new-ufo-report Pentagon finds no evidence of alien technology in new UFO report].

== No sh*t ==

== No sh*t ==

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk 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.

Hi Jimmy, I just wanted to invite you to respond to my “Nine Theses on Wikipedia.” Please have a look. Larry Sanger (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I do hope User:Jimbo Wales responds to this! Would be really interesting to see his thoughts. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Check the NYT-interview discussed above, there’s some Sanger-related stuff there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Would be nice to see Jimbo reply here I think. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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 the NY 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 with Lex 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]

  Also, I pre-ordered a copy of your book @Jimbo Wales and I am eagerly looking forward to reading it. Did you have time to address anything from Larry’s WP:9T in your book? Iljhgtn (talk) 05:06, 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, maybe Richard Branson would host this on Necker 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!

  I don’t think it very likely that it would be a useful thing for me to do to have a joint session with Larry. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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]

  Sanger hates that Wikipedia has become a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, like Larousse and Britannica. And there are enough right-wing editors, just not of the extreme right-wing. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be really interesting to see if there is any kind of mapping of editors based on ideological bias? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is “mainstream” in the same sense the New 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]

  Just seeing this. I mean, I’m open to a discussion (not necessarily a “debate”) if Jimbo is. Larry Sanger (talk) 16:15, 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]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Jimbo Wales, IDHT, inability to DROPTHESTICK, COI, and abusing his position as founder for self-promotion. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 20:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🙄 jp×g🗯️ 08:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo. I had previously closed a discussion about you at ANI; see Special:Diff/1320490846. By request of a group of community members, I have re-opened the discussion with a narrowed focus; see Wikipedia:Administrators’_noticeboard/Incidents#Partial_re-opening:_remind,_warn,_or_no_action. It is possible that you could be sanctioned as a result of this discussion. A sage and well considered comment (that acknowledges where you might have misstepped) at the discussion could go a long ways to lowering the temperature. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap’n!}⚓ 20:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we’ve reached the state where opening a discussion is subject to sanction, then we have a pretty sorry state of affairs.–Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy, agreed. This entire debacle shows more than ever the importance of reform. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer my version of reform compared to yours. I’m saying this because the reaction to your 9 theses might have led you to believe that people are inherently against reform as a concept. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was not starting a discussion. Like everyone, you’re entitled to your views and welcome to participate in improving the encyclopedia. The problem here is that you started a discussion in a contentious topic area on an issue that had reached community consnesus after a well-attended discussion (without even acknowledging the existence of that consnesus), invoked your status (even if your intent was really to comment as an editor, rather than as founder/board member/member of NPOV working group), and encouraged others to make bold edits aligned with your view of NPOV on an article that had recently been full protected for edit warring. Consensus can change, but the way you went about trying to change it felt like an attempt at imposing it, rather than discussing it. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can only say that I disagree. In this case I’m pointing out that the ongoing controversy and edit warring is very clear and simple proof that there is not consensus in the community for the current version. When there is not consensus, further editing is needed, and the most useful technique is to find the areas where there is consensus (in this case, careful attribution of claims to reliable sources) and to not say the contested things in WikiVoice. That’s what policy and tradition demands. And the reason for the policy and the tradition is precisely to find a way through things in a spirit of civil kindness. The amount of sheer abuse that people get who oppose the current version is not ok. Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of policy and tradition. Our policies, particularly in CTOPs, are quite clear that the most recent evaluation of consensus (here, the RfC closed by an experienced admin) should be adhered to until it’s overridden. Whether or not consensus currently exists is a topic for discussion; nobody is stopping you from starting an RfC right now or trying to change NPOV or another related policy. It is disruptive to suggest that editors should boldly ignore that consensus before it’s reevaluated. I can’t comment on the alleged abuse editors face because I don’t edit or admin in this topic area. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the RFC was not well advertised and only had a local consensus of editors (I don’t see it listed at CENT at the time it was up for example), it’s absolutely fair game for anyone after the fact to come in and challenge the results as an outsider looking in. This happens all the time and we do not punish those who question that result unless they don’t don’t drop the stick. The link to the RFC on the page name is buried under the FAQ box on the lead and it’s definitely not obvious where any past discussion is on lede sentence from scanning the existing talk page or archives. So there is no expectation that Jimbo much less any other should be immediately aware of past discussions. And in past cases of where local consensus has chosen a route against broader project consensus, reasking a new evaluation with a whole community is completely fair. We can argue throwing weight as a found could be an issue but keep in mind that Jimbo’s also watching out for WP and his own reputation after someone asks him in an interview about a seemingly non neutral article. Masem (t) 23:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• RFC open – July 30
• T:CENT – Aug 16
• RFC close – Sep 20

–Novem Linguae (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t usually list individual article RfCs in CTOPS at T:CENT. It’s not a “local consensus” just because the discussion occurred on a talk page. There was an RfC and it was listed as such. You’ve also presented no evidence that the consensus reached here is against broder project consensus. Finally, this is obviously not just a case of a random editor waltzing onto the talk page calling for others to make bold edits against consensus, and treating it as such is frankly dissembling. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all RFCs are expected to be posted to CENT, but my point is that you expected Jimbo to be aware of the past RFC actions on the page absent any known indications on the talk page headers that these existed, and without any large scale notification. In comparison, for example, if you felt Twitter should be moved to X and when to Talk:Twitter, you would see instantly that there’s been a large number of discussions about that just from the headers, so when new editors do come there and go “why hasn’t it been moved” or similar, those discussions are closed pretty quickly. That doesn’t exist in the Talk:Gaza genocide header – I know its very contentious from everything listed but I have no idea when certain decisions were made by RFC or similar larger discussion. We shouldn’t be slamming Jimbo for not being aware of buried information. Masem (t) 15:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is the FAQ header at the talk page, linking to the RfC, but arguably this would be better using Template:Consensus header. CNC (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I expect an experienced editor with immense social capital and institutional power who wants to weigh in on probably the most real-world contentious topic of today to actually familiarize himself with how the article came to be the way it is before weighing in on wiki and telling people to be bold about changing it. “I didn’t know about an RfC that lasted three months, was listed at T:CENT, that caused controversy when it was closed, and that is listed on the article talk page FAQ” is not a good excuse. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also just read the FAQ. It takes 10 seconds to read. The idea that it’s onerous to find or review before editingi s farcical. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except again, the FAQ only addresses the page title and not the other aspects in Jimbo’s complaint (how the lede is worded for example). And no, we do not have any expectations that editors have to review the talk page history in depth before making a suggestion or concern known, unless they are a frequent contributor to the page and are approaching WP:TE/dead horse type behavior. If past key discussions and factors that editors should know before editing (like the page being under sanctions) are well displayed at the talk header, then one could say there might be a problem but certainly not anything that AN is needed for, particularly as there’s no mainspace edits involved here. Masem (t) 18:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It literally links to the RfC about the first sentence and explains why the article calls the genocide a genocide. You’d have to lack any reading comprehension to not understand that the FAQ means precisely what it says, and I chose not to believe most editors are that obtuse. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s also possible to make NPOV improvements while remaining within consensus, it’s a lot easier and more productive than banging your head against a brick wall. CNC (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales: The amount of sheer abuse that people get who oppose the current version: Sure, but you fail to see the abuse productive contributors have received in this topic area either. There are multitudes, perhaps millions, who would go to extreme lengths to push their POV on this article. We have powerful governments threatening to dox people who enforce consensus, and long-term abusers harassing some of these users in real life. Many of the people active on that talk page are simply tired of handing hundreds of edit requests every day, and decided to protect the talk page and impose a moratorium to prevent endless relitigation that takes time away from contributing to other parts of the project.

If we do change the article content back to what it was before the latest RfC, we’ll simply get the same pushback from the “other side”. Sure, the US government would leave us alone, but that’s a less than ideal way to solve disputes. You are right that there is no consensus for what’s going on here; there can never be true consensus, and people will always find a way to disagree. This is a third rail topic where people’s emotions take over, and any elements of rationality or reliable sourcing fly out the window.

So anyway, your words have power (and you know this), and when you show up to the talk page challenging recent consensus, you risk destroying the relative peace and stability that the few neutral editors left have spent years to build. That’s why people are upset. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What moratorium was imposed? I didn’t see a moratorium !vote to be honest(and if the protection of the talk page that you are mentioning is EC wasn’t that Arb Committee that did that?Though either way I would have my concerns about such a thing.There surely has to be a better way.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 4 § RfC on page move moratorium.

There surely has to be a better way: There’s no in-between here. There’s no way we can satisfy everyone with what the article says. Any misguided attempts to do so will probably result in a WP:ARBPIA6. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh it was on page moves ok thanks for the answer and link. We probably cannot but we could find a way to allow non EC users onto the talk page even if everyone will never be satisfied with the outcome of the consensus on genocide should be in Wikivoice on the page. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of edit warring does not mean the article is presented without consensus. You blame one side of POV-pushing (pro-Israeli POV is fringe and often meets the definition of COI), yet your failure to see or point out the opposite side (pro-Israeli POV should get more weight) is doing just that. Speaking of “the amount of sheer abuse that people get who oppose the current version“, if my memory serves me, you were notified that the so-called “pro-Palestinian” Wikipedia editors are under constant threat of doxing by pro-Israeli entities. — Sameboat – 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC) 03:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I’m pointing out that the ongoing controversy and edit warring is very clear and simple proof that there is not consensus in the community for the current version

the ongoing edit war was for something different. its not about saying Gaza genoicide in wiki-voice. Cinaroot (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a little User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_250#Arbcom_Case again, isn’t it. As can be seen at ANI, while someone opened a discussion about a sanction, there was (so far, anyway) no sanction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I very well could agree with your interpretation of how NPOV should be interpreted, and could very well support you if you decided to try to change the current consensus on it, or have it overhauled, depending on the argument presented. If you were to give that exact same viewpoint at the WP:VP on changing how we interpret NPOV, I think there’s a decent chance it could lead to change.

The issue was that there was an RFC *just* closed and you demanded change introducing with your credentials and with an interpretation that went perpendicular to the RFC. Do you kinda get why people are upset? I’m not asking you to take their position as your own, just, you do get why we hold the viewpoint we do on this, right?.

I want you to read your statement and imagine if someone else wrote that, not in your position, and it was someone who ran a grocery store in Bumfuck, Kansas, posting the equivalent of what you did in the WP:PIA topic area. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Michael Boutboul (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to Jimbo’s observations. People are threatening sanctions for putting a {{POV}} template on the article. Something is very wrong here. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Welcome to Wikipedia in 2025. Ideological warriors love it here these days; the rules and bureaucracy around here make for a cozy editing environment. WP:CPUSH is the biggest problem this site has yet to convincingly solve. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both co-founders may or may not find some of the content at Wikipedia_and_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Commentary_and_response interesting. I don’t mean the this-week addition, I mean the rest of it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Jimbo and anyone should be free to open a discussion any time. He should not be threatened with sanctions for doing so. Yes, he was unaware of previous discussions, sources, and consensus. That should not open him to threats or abuse. Jimbo was and has remained, to individual editors, relentlessly polite, despite facing sometimes abusive replies. I hope that Jimbo has taken time to read the reports compiled by legal and genocide scholars, by international human rights organizations, and has now read through the RfC. When interviewed by the press, in the future, he will be in a powerful position to explain,

“I may not agree with the way that article is written, personally. But you have to understand that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is likely to treat findings by international human rights organizations, the United Nations, and related legal and and investigative bodies, as authoritative. It would not be appropriate for our editors to give equal weight to statements from officials of the Israeli, American, or German governments, which are directly or indirectly parties to the conflict. In the case of the Gaza Genocide article, despite my personal disagreement, the editorial community has taken time to weigh these considerations carefully.”

If an interviewer pushes back, Jimbo can add,

“As a journalist, you have to recognize that the killing of tens of thousands of civilians including children may lead authoritative international bodies to describe those actions as genocide, and encyclopedias will reflect what those bodies have found.”

But whatever Jimbo decides to say with his own voice, he and other well-meaning editors deserve the right to have that voice protected. Note that, in his interview with Amanpour [1], Wales said that he would make efforts to protect our editors from doxxing by the US government. He’s sticking up for our right to express ourselves too. –Darouet (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying Jimbo can’t participate in or start discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo was literally sent to ANI for opening a discussion. It doesn’t matter if it didn’t turn out in the best way; the fact remains that editors were trying to sanction Jimbo for opening a discussion because they think the way he did so was disruptive. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time that has happened to an editor. Another time he started a discussion, someone requested an arbcom case. He spoke, and Wikipedians reacted. Which, presumably, is part of what he wanted. And the ANI was closed with no action, basically per too much rambling (not his, he didn’t participate, and it was rather short, time-wise).

As with other hot button on-WP topics, discussion over at Gaza Genocide will continue and things will change again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was sent to ANI for invoking his status and telling editors to boldly edit against consensus in a CROP while the article was full protected for edit warring. I don’t think anyone would have had an issue if Jimbo had said on the talk page, “Hey, I had a discussion with this journalist and was pointed to this article. What’s going on here? Can we discuss changing it?” Imagine if I had went to that talk page and said “I’m an admin and [insert everything else Jimbo said] By the way, I’m an admin, but I’m not saying this in that capacity”. I think I would’ve been (rightly) dragged to ArbCom/AE and potentially warned or admonished for invoking my perms/social capital in that way. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don’t think that the way Jimbo went about this was disruptive. I know it was. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely disruptive. Even now, Jimbo’s involvement has only intensified the disruption and led to increased conflicts among editors. Cinaroot (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda agree now that even if Jimbo wasn’t trying to cause disruption, the way in which the discussion played out definitely disrupted Wikipedia for a short while.

I commend Jimbo for staying civil during the whole thing, especially after outrage from editors who came to the discussion after reading incorrect news headlines and assuming he unilaterally overruled community consensus by protecting the article. (In fact, I think the main reason the discussion went off the rails was because of miscommunication/misunderstanding in general.)

Could this have all been avoided by Jimbo wording his original comment differently? Probably. Can we do anything about it now? No. Let’s go back to working on the encyclopedia now, okay? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Jimbo did wasn’t disruptive he was giving his view which he is entitle to do any increase to conflict based on other editors views on the situation does not mean what he did specifically was disruptive(and I certainly agree with User:SuperPianoMan9167 that there was no intent to cause disruption.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Legacy rightsholder wades into most contentious topic on Wiki seeking to reverse consensus with declaration of legacy rights. What could possibly go wrong? And the hubbub continues, heading for two weeks later, hashtag Streisand Effect or something. For the record, something like 8 of the biggest 10 Wikis speak of the “Gaza genocide” in Wikivoice, the notable exceptions being the German and the Hebrew. Carrite (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how you define “Biggest” wikis. If we’re going by the most common way of counting it (number of articles) :

Cebuano doesn’t seem to have an article

English, Spanish and French do use Wikivoice

German, Swedish, Polish and Russian don’t, nor do the last two, for example:

Dutch: (“Several organizations and many experts state in 2025 that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza against the Palestinian people”)

Italian: “Genocide in the Gaza Strip is a qualification given to Israeli military action and its effects on the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip during the war between Israel and Hamas that began in 2023. The debate on this definition has involved the institutions of international justice, humanitarian organizations, academic scholars, political actors, the mass media and global public opinion. Its use was proposed in the initial phase of the war and as the months went by it saw a growing consensus from scholars.”

So English, French and Spanish seem more the exceptions to the wider Wiki approach. Valenciano (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, Jimmy hosted a meeting with members of the Arbitration Committee and some former arbitrators to discuss Jimmy’s recent 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]

Hi there, have there been any actions or changes as a result of our discussions? Cinaroot (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, if Jimmy wanted the ArbCom to take some sort of action he would need to make the request on-wiki. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:53, 8 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]

Like BarntToust 20:42, 11 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]

Thanks for informing the community that the call occurred, and it’s good that it did. —Alalch E. 23:49, 8 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 as Wikipedia: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? Jehochman ^Talk 12:47, 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]

Right. So the POV pushers on all sides need to be excluded. Blocking is a bit strong. Jehochman ^Talk 17:19, 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 article Gaza 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 via WP: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 including WP:NPOV and WP: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. Jehochman ^Talk 19:30, 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]

Like BarntToust 02:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like BarntToust 02:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Jimmy’s involvement would be more helpful if it would be more focused. The article Gaza genocide has a biased title that violates core Wikipedia policy, including WP: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 the International 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 like Judge Judy and more like, well, how it is being treated now. BarntToust 17:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, well reasoned.Halbared (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to remind everyone that we are still on Jimbo’s talk page, and this is decidedly not the correct place to discuss the content dispute. Please move any discussion as to what the article should say to the article’s talk page. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please come to Wikipedia: Genocide where we are discussing policies on when the term “genocide” can be used. LDW5432 (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to convince Jimbo to agree with your reasoning, that already happened even before the opening of this topic (“the current lede is egregious“), 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. BarntToust 23:10, 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 as Jimbo Wales, so even though his declarations are the fact-of-the-matter, he’s not actually trying to supervote. BarntToust 00:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies to living persons. Not countries or states SWATKats (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement about Israel is beside the point, nations only act through living individuals and they are the ones who are guilty or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP, “A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group.” Anyway, the International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli leaders shows that many individuals are directly affected, e.g. a United Nations Commission of Inquiry has called for genocide charges to be included in various arrest warrants. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:05, 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]

Is it Israel who has committed genocide? Or is it Benjamin Netanyahu? Or is it the Likud Party? LDW5432 (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump, the presumption of innocence in criminal cases is an important civilizational value, and an important value that our BLP 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 at Gaza genocide recognition):

Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 organization B’tselem in their report, OUR GENOCIDE [2]:

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. Yet many 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]

meta:File:Tides-Transition.png is believed to be or to use copyrighted content without the express permission of the copyright holder(s). The Wikimedia Foundation’s Terms of Use and the Licensing policy require that all content be freely licensed in order to be used in the Wikimedia projects. If the copyright status is not cleared within 7 days (since this file was tagged) the file will be deleted. —Matrix (_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} – _talk?) 16:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason you’ve notified me? I’m not the uploader nor do I even know what the file is (it seems to be gone now). If there’s something that needs my attention, great! Just let me know. Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo, you were the uploader of the file in question plus the one below. You didn’t put a license on it, so please either let me know the license you want the files to be licensed as. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – _c) 17:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot comment on anything recent or in particular and am not saying I have read what you did or what they’re saying about you now. I just wanted to thank you for all of your work on Wikipedia over the years. You could easily wash your hands of this place and move on but you choose to tend to your problem child. I can tell things are important to you. So, thank you. Andre🚐 01:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 following WP: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]

 Note: This has already been discussed at length on the talk page. CNC (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has, but I really did mean to ask @AndyTheGrump, whose views I am interested to know about. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And here Kowal2701 (talk) 17:56, 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 recall ever seeing someone complaining that Wikipedia gets its ‘neutrality’ wrong, and skews article content in 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 at Wikipedia: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, where both 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 that WP: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, at WP: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]

There’s no problem with Wikipedia becoming part of the controversy. —Alalch E. 14:42, 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 like WP: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 consider not 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 like social distancing or vaccine because many politicians deemed those “controversial”? — Sameboat – 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point on language, controversial =/= “seriously contested”, Race and intelligence is an example of the former but not latter Kowal2701 (talk) 23:34, 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 clearly can 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 sources WP: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 a WP: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 example from 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 think WP: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 ala quantum 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 the Armenian 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 can never 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 the Rohingya 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.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it takes a genius to realize that politics is playing a huge part in those calling it a genocide. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The most important point is that we, as Wikipedians, are not judges. We do not take sides in controversies. Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that’s an oversimplification per WP:NPOV, and it’s hard not to go WP:OTHERCONTENT on it (that essay is an essay). 2020 United States presidential election, Holocaust, Chemtrails, Intelligent design, Altmed, take your pick. All of these are “controversies” for a certain value of “controversies”, but IMO WP would not be improved if they were re-written per “We do not take sides in controversies.” Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 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]

Well, if you’re right, the next rfc at Gaza Genocide should support… well, whatever that rfc will be about. Like [3] said, when we disagree a lot, we go process-heavy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a related question. You’ve talked about how the WP:LEAD at Gaza genocide fails WP:NPOV. What do you think of the lead at Gaza war? Is it as bad, acceptable, something else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 18 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]

So there is a WP-valid definition of “controversies” here, based on open case/in front of an open court? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 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]

That doesn’t really help me in the “We do not take sides in controversies” WP-context, but thanks for trying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 18 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 is a 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]

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]

Re 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 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

Jimbo, a point I feel necessary to keep making (admittedly at the risk of being less persuasive each time I repeat myself) is that there 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 than asserting 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]

Why does Wales have founder status both on enwiki and globally? (see Special:CentralAuth/Jimbo Wales) Wouldn’t having it globally be enough? Yacàwotçã (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@Iljhgtn, support your proposal. Pinging @Larry Sanger. And it probably should only be a global status. Yacàwotçã (talk) 07:57, 18 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]

For the interested, some coverage from Aish HaTorah. Published today, and “Jimmy Wales is taking a sensible first step by freezing further editing of one inflammatory entry.” Some sources corrected, anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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[4] (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]

Jimbo, want some more fun? 😉

Talk:Investigation of UFO reports by the United States government#Violation of WP:NPOV in lead paragraph

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 reported UFO 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.

Current lede is this:

Investigation and analysis of reported UFO 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]

—Timeshifter (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. See Occam’s Razor for a start. Along with common sense. And WP: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 many unidentified 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.

I mainly bring this here to amuse Jimbo and others after his discussions about WP:NPOV and the Gaza genocide article, and especially its lead paragraph. By the way I read some of his book free on Amazon, and intend 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 the Sun 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.

May the Force be with you. 🙂

—Timeshifter (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 reading WP: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 spouting ad 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 read WP: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. From Pentagon 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 a United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability hearing. Alongside him was fellow former fighter pilot Ryan Graves, and former intelligence officer David 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.

—Timeshifter (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Please see my previous reply. —Timeshifter (talk) 00:37, 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]

Please see my previous replies. —Timeshifter (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the complete lack of support you are getting here for your nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the Pentagon UFO videos article gives weight to outdated reports with ambiguous conclusions. It needs to be updated with Pentagon reports issued after 2021: Pentagon finds no evidence of alien technology in new UFO report. – LuckyLouie (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Radio 4 interviewed Cory Doctorow this morning in the programme Digital Futures and Information Crises as he’s written a book about his concept of Enshittification. Amongst the case studies, he discussed Wikipedia (about 28:30 mins in) and attributed its success in resisting this trend to the “epistemic humility” of Jimmy Wales in particular . Well done! Keep up the good work… Andrew🐉(talk) 12:53, 17 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 strenghtening our commitment to NPOV and avoiding using WikiVoice in controversial areas.–Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]