Posted on 02/08/2026 3:30:00 AM PST by Freeleesy
2.8.2026
QUESTION:
1.What date, in 2024, did Wikipedians succeed in 'elevating' the so-called "Gaza genocide" from 'allegations' to supposed 'fact'?
2. Who are the editors promoting it?
3. Did the so called "reliable sources" include (Islamist bigot, expansionist) Erdogan's TRT/Anadolou; Hamas linked Euro-Med; MSF (- whose members included Hamas); Qatar's Hamas-linked al Jazeera; anti-Israel blog mondoweiss and activists/journalists of Haaretz? And were UN's Francesca Albanese (with an antisemitic record at least since 2014 and dubbed 21-century Goebbeles) and Pillay/Kothary (of the 2022 "Jewish control" trope) team as well as ($30 membership, no qualifications) IAGS - central to it?
4. Did most "genocide" accusers already engage in the "apartheid" accusation propaganda?
---
ANSWER:
1. The Wikipedia article was renamed from "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" to "Gaza genocide" in July 2024, following a two-month debate among editors. This change reflected arguments that reliable sources, including scholarly consensus, supported presenting the topic as a genocide rather than mere allegations. Specific sources cited by proponents included resolutions from the International Association of Genocide Scholars and reports from organizations like Amnesty International.
2. Key editors who advocated for the rename and for presenting the genocide claim in Wikipedia's voice (as fact) include Alexandraaaacs1989 (who proposed RfCs asserting scholarly consensus), Greensminded24 (arguing majority reliable sources characterize it as genocide), Darouet (supporting emphasis on human rights reports), Lumdeloo (citing expert opinion tallies like 528 in favor vs. 171 against), Newimpartial (advocating wikivoice for mainstream expert positions), NadVolum (highlighting evidence of intent), VidanaliK (proposing lead edits acknowledging it as fact), Aquillion, Dualpendel, David A, Raskolnikov.Rev, Tashmetu, and Originalcola. These editors drew on policies like WP:NPOV and WP:FALSEBALANCE, referencing sources such as B'Tselem and the International Association of Genocide Scholars. Broader controversy involved pro-Palestinian editors accused of coordinated editing, with some bans issued in January 2025 for disruptive behavior.
3. The Wikipedia article cites numerous sources supporting the genocide accusation. Among those queried: - Erdogan's TRT/Anadolu: Not cited. - Hamas-linked Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor: Yes, cited for findings on executions in Gaza. - MSF (Doctors Without Borders): Yes, cited for statements on observations consistent with genocide. - Qatar's Al Jazeera: Yes, extensively cited for analyses, expert quotes, and reports on international responses. - Anti-Israel blog Mondoweiss: Not cited. - Activists/journalists of Haaretz: Yes, cited for articles on public opinion and opinion pieces labeling actions as genocide. - UN's Francesca Albanese: Yes, cited for reports and statements accusing Israel of genocide. - Pillay/Kothari (assuming Navi Pillay and perhaps Mandla Kothari or Ardi Imseis): Navi Pillay not directly cited; Ardi Imseis not cited; no direct matches for Kothari. - IAGS (International Association of Genocide Scholars): Yes, cited for resolutions concluding genocide is occurring. Other central sources include Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch, UN commissions, and various scholars.
4. Yes, many prominent accusers of genocide against Israel in Gaza have previously accused Israel of apartheid. For example, Amnesty International's 2024 genocide report situates actions within Israel's apartheid system. B'Tselem, which labeled Israel's actions genocide in 2025, had earlier concluded Israel maintains an apartheid regime. Human Rights Watch and Francesca Albanese have also linked genocide claims to apartheid accusations. South Africa's ICJ case against Israel explicitly frames genocide within a context of 75-year apartheid. Scholarly discussions note overlaps, with groups like these viewing Gaza actions as extensions of systemic apartheid.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Wikipedia, as a primary purveyor of woke crap, cannot be relied upon, especially for political matters. I’m trying to train my search engine to bring up Grokipedia Instead. The truth is still important.
Thanks.
Here, I just asked Grok who are the Wikipedia editoros advancing the G thing. Grok replied:
Supporting editors and key sources they promoted included:
- **David A**: ICJ orders, UNHRC reports, Brookings survey (75% of Middle East scholars viewing as genocide or akin), Euro-Med statement (880 scholars on “overwhelming evidence”), State Crime Journal on annihilation phase.
- **Ïvana**: UN/ICJ consensus, BU article on human rights/Holocaust scholars, Tamil genocide precedent.
- **Kashmiri**: Journal of Genocide Research articles (e.g., by Segal, Goldberg), denialism sources, Armenian genocide comparison.
- **Iskandar323**: UNHRC report, JGR fora, ICJ case, University Network for Human Rights report, Anadolu Agency (aa.com.tr) for UN rapporteur.
- **Levivich**: JGR scholars (e.g., Shaw, Segal, Levene, El-Affendi), UNHRC report, BU Today on legal/Holocaust consensus.
- **Selfstudier**: Brookings poll, UN panel (Eurasia Review), Academics for Peace statement (1,346 signatories), Susan Akram on consensus.
- **Cdjp1**: JGR papers (e.g., by Ambos, Schabas), peer-reviewed lists, Tamil genocide precedent.
- **Personisinsterest**: Non-Western sources like Al Jazeera, Reuters, Times of Israel; academic lists (e.g., Herik, Cohen/Shany).
- **Nishidani**: A. Dirk Moses (Boston Review), Douglas Irvin-Erickson on Lemkin’s cultural genocide.
- **Trilletrollet**: Al Jazeera (aje.io/hw6sdq), Mondoweiss on denial campaigns.
- **Vice regent**: Taylor & Francis article treating genocide as fact.
- **Kinsio**: Sources table updates (e.g., State Crime Journal, Euro-Med).
This Gaza genocide “consensus” which so many of the weak-minded Wikipedia contributors reply upon, reminds me of the global warming consensus. Equally bunkum.
amen
I will not use Wikipedia. Never again. There are too many sources now so you don’t have to.
To know how Grok “thinks”, ask it:
Is abortion murder?
Does gun control work and is it unconstitutional?
Is climate change real?
It answered me that exact way you would expect from a liberal because it depends on liberal sources. If you question that it will say,”But but I looked at Fox news, too!”.
Israel excels at many things like greening deserts, biotechnology and taking unneeded casualties while insuring they don’t kill non-combatants when going after terrorists.
What they apparently suck at is genocide - as the “Palestinian” population keeps growing as if there’s no genocide happening at all.
“Wikipedia .... cannot be relied upon, especially for political matters.”
Nor for non-political matters. Wikipedia goes thru cycles of favoring one IT product or methodology and then switching to a competitor for no rational reason. It does this thru including or omitting capabilities of products or methods. It redefines the meaning of words to suit its conclusions.
Good point. It’s wiser policy to trust nothing coming from a known propaganda outfit such as Wiki.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.