A discussion regarding the Wikipedia article on allegations Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip was closed over the weekend in favor of stating the allegations as fact. The proposal received significant support from pro-Palestinian and socialist editors, but other editors noted a recent discussion had already ruled against claiming genocide as fact.
The decision on Saturday by admin Christopher Beland came nearly two months after discussion started. His decision found that stating “the Gaza genocide is” in the intro, thus treating the allegations as true, had consensus support citing a roughly 2-to-1 vote in favor out of about 80 editors. On Wikipedia, consensus is supposed to be based off the strength of arguments over numerical support. Beland stated the introduction could still note criticism of genocide allegations, comparing this to how articles on the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide are handled. Beland argued Wikipedia’s policies on maintaining a neutral point of view did not require treating the genocide allegations against Israel as allegations noting editors claimed a scholarly consensus. Scholars claimed to be allied to Israel and news media were given less weight.
Following the decision, the opening line of the article was changed to claim the “Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel by means of blockade, invasion, and bombing of the strip with the manifest intent of senior Israeli leaders in the context of the war that is taking place there.” While acknowledging “this characterization” was controversial, the article claims “it is now supported by a wide academic consensus.” Editors were still discussing how to change the introduction to reflect the result with one editor adding various “genocidal acts” attributed to Israel.
Discussion about formally claiming Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was initiated at the end of July, suggesting a move away from the status quo where the article cited various groups that claimed Israeli was committing genocide instead of stating it as fact. Several editors immediately objected to the discussion being opened, including one editor who supported the proposed change, noting a closely divided discussion closed in May found consensus was against claiming genocide as fact. In that close, admin “Dr vulpes” noted that sources deemed reliable on Wikipedia diverged on the question and claiming genocide as fact would give one view undue weight in breach of the site’s neutrality policy.
Many editors objecting to a change cited the recent discussion to argue for a “procedural close” and claiming not enough had changed to warrant a new discussion. This included multiple editors identifying themselves as left-wing. Editor “Dronebogus” called the discussion “borderline system gaming” and called for a moratorium on further discussion, despite expressing belief in the genocide allegation on his profile page. However, many more editors identifying themselves as socialist, pro-Palestinian, or both voted in favor of claiming genocide as fact. Other editors supporting the genocide claim identified as transgender with others claiming to be from Muslim Arab countries.
Several made other pro-Palestinian activist statements on their profile pages. “Abo Yemen” from Aden prominently displays an image of a pro-Palestinian protest above a message stating, “End the Gaza genocide. End the Gaza blockade. End the Gaza famine. Stop killing aid-seeking civilians. Stop sieging children. Free Palestine!” Another editor’s profile page consisted solely of the phrase “the Nakba continues” in reference to the Arab term for “catastrophe” many Arabs use regarding Israel’s establishment. Editor Steve Swonk states he returned to editing Wikipedia after 14 years because people were arrested for supporting Palestine Action, which he described as “a non-violent group of anti-genocide protesters” despite being designated terrorists by the United Kingdom after sabotaging British Air Force jets.
Last July, a separate discussion on renaming the article was closed. That discussion on renaming the article from “Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza” to another name concluded in favor of a move to “Gaza genocide” in a close by archaeologist Joe Roe, who previously served on Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee often likened to a Supreme Court. In that discussion, three options were presented for a new name with two qualifying the term “Gaza genocide” to show it was disputed with one unqualified option. Despite a clear majority favoring a qualified name, Roe ruled a “rough consensus” favored the unqualified version, stating opponents did not convincingly rebut sourcing analysis by supporters and that the intro could still treat claims as allegations.
Roe has made or shared numerous pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli posts on his Mastodon account, which is linked from his profile page. One post Roe shared just weeks after the October 7 attacks by Hamas, which killed over a thousand Israelis and saw hundreds abducted, condemned Israel’s military response to the attacks and called for it to end. Months after Roe approved the “Gaza genocide” rename, he shared another Mastodon post on the one-year anniversary of the attacks condemning “the Palestinian genocide” and calling on archaeologists “to act against state violence.” He has shared more anti-Israeli posts this year, himself promoting an open letter calling for the World Archaeological Congress to join an academic boycott of Israel.
Under Wikipedia policy, admins are generally not supposed to exercise administrative authority in disputes “about which they have strong feelings” since they would be considered “incapable of making objective decisions” on the matter. Such issues of bias also arise in the decision to treat Gaza genocide allegations as fact. On early revisions of his profile page, Beland mentions moving to Boston from San Francisco and has uploaded images to Wikimedia Commons, a file repository affiliated with Wikipedia, disclosing his name as Christopher Beland.
An X account from Boston under Beland’s name has made several posts discussing criticism of Wikipedia over the dispute about recession determinations in 2022, a dispute in which Beland was involved. He admitted making a comment on X, then Twitter, to the author of a Bloomberg article on the dispute, which matches one post. Regarding an editor being quoted as wanting to “avoid making clowns of ourselves” in that piece, Beland stated “guess it’s just a reminder to all editors that anything we say here can be read by anyone, and can easily end up on the front page of the newspaper, or whatever the Internet equivalent is.”
Earlier this year, the Beland X account directed a comment towards Speaker Johnson urging him “in the strongest terms to condemn and block the removal of the population of the Gaza Strip” in apparent reference to a relocation plan advocated by President Donald Trump. In the post to Johnson, the plan was said to be “ethnic cleansing” and violate “conservative principles of freedom, human dignity, and rule of law.” A subsequent post warned “allies would be more reluctant to cooperate with a country which engages in such evil acts.” Despite the appeal to “conservative principles” in the posts, an earlier post mocked Republican gun rights advocacy.
Many editors cited a list of “expert opinions” in favor of stating genocide as fact. The list included groups claiming genocide within days of Israel’s military response, pro-Palestinian organizations, and statements in left-wing media outlets. Raji Sourani, a former member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, is identified merely as a “human rights lawyer” in the list, though his linked Wikipedia page mentions his prior membership in the U.S.-designated terrorist organization. Notoriously anti-Israeli academics Ilan Pappe, William Robinson, and As’ad AbuKhalil are among those cited. Despite these issues, one editor analyzing the list found that of the identified “experts” cited, one out of five rejected the genocide claims with nearly another tenth ambivalent.
Numerous editors also showed up to support Wikipedia claiming genocide as fact in the wake of the International Association of Genocide Scholars putting out a resolution to that effect. This came in spite of serious criticism raised about the process for the vote on the resolution and the integrity of the vote itself with one member stating the process was rigged in favor of approval. Some editors noted issues with IAGS on the article’s discussion page with one who supported stating genocide as fact expressing concern that relying too much on IAGS to support genocide claims “may be shooting ourselves in the feet here.”
Wikipedia’s handling of genocide allegations against Israel contrast with cases where Israel is targeted. Allegations of Hamas and other Palestinian groups engaging in genocide on October 7 are in an article that still contains “allegations” in the title. Back in June, during the 12 Day War between Israel and Iran, editor “Vice regent” sought to delete an article on “Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy” noting Iran’s support for Palestinian terrorism, resulting in the page being merged and its content buried in a page on Iran-Israel relations, despite overwhelming support for keeping the page. Vice regent voted in favor of stating as fact that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.
Anti-Israeli editing on Wikipedia has prompted significant criticism of the online encyclopedia in recent years. This has culminated in recent efforts by U.S. government officials to investigate bias on the site and alleged foreign involvement. Earlier this year, then-Acting U.S. Attorney for D.C. Ed Martin sent an information request to the Wikimedia Foundation that owns the site, which prompted retaliation against his Wikipedia page. Bipartisan members of Congress have similarly made inquiries as have Republicans on the House Oversight Committee. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), a member of that committee, also recently criticized Wikipedia for editors attempting to delete the article on the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska.
T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias.
Read the full article here
