Skip to main content


Wikipedia bans eight editors, six of them anti-Israel


in reply to apfelwoiSchoppen

They edited out sources showing proven human rights abuses by hamas and Iran, think that goes beyond highlighting the many serious crimes of Israel which is obviously legitimate
in reply to CodeNil

I disagree entirely as the Palestinians are facing existential threat. Only one side is genocidal. Perhaps I am misreading your comment. If so, I apologize.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to apfelwoiSchoppen

Yes only one side is genocidal I agree, only Israel. Not aware of any claims of genocide in Iran but they are still deeply evil against their own people and I'm not sure how trying to hide that in articles about human rights abuses in Iran is helpful to the Palestinian cause, it seems insulting to the people being abused in Iran. Israel is worse but why does that mean we cannot discuss any other countries abuses.
in reply to apfelwoiSchoppen

Disinformation is bad no matter which side it appears to be "helping". It would be just as easy for the other side to intentionally spread disinformation on Wikipedia in order to discredit it.
in reply to CodeNil

Perhaps, but I suspect that Wikipedia was looking for a reason to ban them to avoid problems with the ADL and US Government..
in reply to anachronist

No defence for the ADL portion of it but the rest of what they did seems deserving of a ban, I support the struggle of the Palestinians but the oppressed Iranians are just as deserving of international support, the regime is murdering unarmed protesters in the thousands, I don't think deleting references to those human rights abuses furthers any positive cause.
in reply to TheTechnician27

Thank you for that source it has a lot of great info that I didn't get from any of the news coverage
in reply to CodeNil

the regime is murdering unarmed protesters in the thousands


According to their geopolitical enemies, yes. But you'd think we'd see evidence if there was just hundreds. Please stop spreading imperialist narratives that are used right now to get our consent to bomb the hell out of children and other civilians.

in reply to orc girly

I'm not American and don't agree remotely with the American war against Iran to be clear, but the evidence spans countless difference sources going back decades, including UN fact finding missions, amnesty international etc, the same sources that have been considered trustworthy on proving Israel is committing genocide.
I'm not using this as consent to bomb their children I oppose the bombing of Iran. We do not need to take a single side and try to hide all evidence of wrongdoing by that side, the Iranian regime is a brutal dictatorship and the USA is killing children in Iran I do not see why both cannot be true.

amnesty.org/en/latest/news/202…

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to CodeNil

in reply to orc girly

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to CodeNil

I looked at the stuff shared in the article, which showcases people previously shot or otherwise hurt, which isn't the same thing as a video showcasing the government shooting into a crowd or prosecuting peaceful protestors. The narrative you're promoting isn't corroborated by the evidence you're sharing. The only thing I can verify with that is that people indeed got hurt, which even the Iranian government acknowledges.

The organizations that "independently verified" these claims are western backed NGOs, regardless of the intentions of those working there they serve their donors, who have itched to plunder Iran for decades.

in reply to CodeNil

We do not need to take a single side


I'm afraid you registered to the wrong instance

in reply to CodeNil

The government killed rioters that were armed by Mossad and gunning down cops and burning down military installations.
in reply to CodeNil

the regime is murdering unarmed protesters in the thousands


I heard it was in the brazillions. Previously:

The “protesters” were mercenaries & rioters led by the CIA & Mossad to kill civilians & police and to seize or set fire to government buildings. It was the standard faux color revolution playbook for regime change that the US has been using since at least the 1980s.

One reason they keep using it is because you keep falling for it.

in reply to davel

Thanks for sharing sources, liberals are exhausting
in reply to anachronist

The founder, Jimmy, says his life was changed after reading Ayn Rand and considers himself an actual objectivist.

Take that as you will as a starting point.

in reply to a_non_monotonic_function

Take that as you will as a starting point.


If you want your starting point to be "Easy, intellectually dishonest answers because I don't have the first fucking idea of how Wikipedia or its culture works or a desire to lift a finger to understand", then great. A+. No notes.

That's the foundational understanding people should have of this ArbCom decision I doubt you've even glanced at and that Jimmy Wales wouldn't even have had tangential involvement with because why the fuck would he.

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to a_non_monotonic_function

So you read and understand the decision, right? Or did you just run to Wikipedia's article on Jimmy Wales, look at the 'Political views' section, and decide you were sufficiently informed to ~~poison the well~~ raise the alarm? Pretty bad form; I've heard that the Randian Zionist whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-blanket-Wikipedia-as cabal has conspired to slander notable democratic socialist champion Jimmy Wales. Can't trust shit you read there. I can't believe you would sink that low with your sourcing.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to TheTechnician27

So you read and understand the decision, right? Or did you just run to Wikipedia's article on Jimmy Wales, look at the 'Political views' section, and decide you were sufficiently informed to poison the well raise the alarm?


No, I know his views are kind of shitty already.

I can't believe you would sink that low with your sourcing


Umm, you accused me of sourcing information on the site he founded.

You seem tired. You might need a nap.

in reply to a_non_monotonic_function

Umm, you accused me of sourcing information on the site he founded.


Yes!! And as we've established now, it's run by the Randian Zionist etc. cabal. Why would you believe the filthy, propagandist lies published there smearing dear revolutionary Jimbo Wales?

(You've already turned this into a farce, so I'm going to treat it like one.)

in reply to TheTechnician27

Lol. I brought up real actual things in a techno oligarch state.

It matters.

in reply to apfelwoiSchoppen

Just so you know, this article is from January 28, 2025 and likely refers to this ArbCom decision. Why OP hasn't disclosed the former, I don't know.