Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has intervened in a growing controversy surrounding the platform’s article titled “Gaza genocide”, questioning its neutrality and calling for immediate revisions.

The article in question currently states, “The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war.” Wales argued that this phrasing violates Wikipedia’s core policy of neutrality, as it presents a contested claim in Wikipedia’s voice without proper attribution.

Writing on the article’s discussion page, Wales said he had been asked about the content during a “high-profile” media interview. He responded that the page “fails to meet our high standards and needs immediate attention,” describing it as a “particularly egregious” violation of Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines.

Editors accuse Wales of political bias

Wales’ intervention was met with strong backlash from other Wikipedia editors, some of whom accused him of responding to political pressure and undermining editorial independence.

One editor claimed Wales was “asking us to betray scholarship,” while another questioned his motives, pointing to his promotion of a book. Several editors emphasized that Wales, despite his status as founder, is only an editor like anyone else under Wikipedia’s rules.

Read more: Inside Grokipedia: Elon Musk’s botched war on 'Wokepedia'

Responding to the criticism, Wales denied any external influence. “Outside pressure is irrelevant – and I should say that's true in either direction,” Wales wrote.

“The neutrality of this article is disputed, and there are very good reasons for that – it inappropriately, and contrary to our policy and traditions, takes sides in an ongoing controversy when it ought to accurately and fairly summarize all relevant views,” he added.

Debate over neutrality and language on Palestine

Editors cited other contentious topics, such as mRNA vaccines and the 2020 US election, to argue that Wikipedia does not take sides even in highly controversial areas. One longtime editor noted that they had never seen so much “outside focus on Wikipedia’s coverage of the ['Israel'-Palestine] area” in over two decades of work, much of it coming from pro-Israeli media and blogs.

While Wales maintained that he was not denying the possibility of genocide, he reiterated that Wikipedia is not the platform to declare such conclusions.

“My argument is that it is not the job of Wikipedia to adjudicate the issue," he said.

Read more: Does UK's recognition of Palestine atone for Balfour's sins?

As of now, the “Gaza genocide” article is listed as “protected” and cannot be edited until November 4 at 21:47 UTC.

Despite the internal debate on Wikipedia, several prominent international organizations have already addressed the Gaza genocide claim.

Experts, including the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Amnesty International, B’Tselem, and a UN Human Rights Council commission led by Navi Pillay, former president of the Rwanda genocide tribunal, have concluded that "Israel" is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip. "Israel" denies all accusations of genocide or war crimes.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is currently wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity. The International Court of Justice has provisionally ruled that Palestinians face a plausible risk of genocide.

Read more: Microsoft's role in world’s first AI-driven genocide, in Gaza, exposed

Broader concerns over online speech, regulation

The Wikipedia dispute comes shortly after Jimmy Wales criticized the UK’s new Online Safety Act, warning of a “political showdown” with the Labour Government.

“It’s really very poorly thought-out legislation,” Wales said. “It feels like it was passed because they felt like they needed to do something, and this was something.”

As debates continue over neutrality, freedom of expression, and responsibility in digital platforms, Wikipedia’s handling of the Gaza genocide article underscores the ongoing struggle to balance open access with accurate representation, especially on issues involving Palestine and "Israel".