Did Wikipedia remove the word "genocide" from the Moral equivalence article?

Yes. "genocide" appeared 2 times in this article's opening at its peak. Today it appears nowhere in the article, references included. We saved the article's opening paragraph at 6 moments between 2010 and 2025, and the counts come from those saved copies.

When did the Moral equivalence article stop using the word "genocide"?

The word appeared 2 times in the opening at its peak in 2010. It appears nowhere in the article today, checked against the live article on 2026-08-02.

How can I verify what Wikipedia's Moral equivalence article used to say?

Each snapshot on this page links the Wikipedia revision it came from, so you can open their own history and compare. We also keep our own copy of the text, which stays readable if the article changes again.

What did Wikipedia remove from the Moral equivalence article?

The opening as it read in 2010

Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to criticize any denial that a moral hierarchy can be assessed of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides.¹ The term originates from a 1906 address by William James entitled The Moral Equivalent of War , subsequently published in essay form in 1910. The term has some limited currency in polemic debates about the Cold War , and more currently, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict .² "Moral equivalence" began to be used as a polemic term-of-retort to " moral relativism ", which had been gaining use as an indictment against political foreign policy that appeared to use only a situation -based application of widely-held ethical standards . The purveyors of the device usually start by believing their side is by definition morally superior by who they are, not by what they do. They then use selective history to cast the situation as a big-picture struggle against an evil power. This evil could be totalitarianism , or genocidal policies or some other ostentatious villainy. They then justify the atrocities of their own side by claiming it to be a lesser evil compared with allowing the evil power to have its own way - usually culminating in genocide or mass enslavement . These atrocities in this way become acts of good, not evil.³ International conflicts are sometimes viewed similarly, and interested parties periodically urge both sides to conduct a ceasefire and negotiate their differences. However these negotiations may prove difficult in that both parties in a conflict believe that they are morally superior to the other, and are unwilling to negotiate on basis of moral equivalence.

This is Wikipedia's own text, saved in our repository. Their copy of it is revision 368689022.

The opening as it stood in 2005

Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to negatively characterize the humanist claim that 'there can be no moral or ethical hierarchy decided between two sides in a conflict, nor in the actions or tactics of the two sides.' The term has some limited currency in polemic debates about the Cold War , and more currently, the Israel-Palestine conflict . "Moral equivalence" arose as a polemic term-of-retort to " moral relativism ," which had been gaining use as an indictment against political foreign policy that appeared to use only a situation -based application of widely-held ethical standards .

Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 15918002.

The opening as it stood in 2015

Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to criticize any denial that a moral hierarchy can be assessed of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides. The term originates from a 1906 address by William James entitled The Moral Equivalent of War , subsequently published in essay form in 1910. The term has some limited currency in polemic debates about the Cold War , and more currently, the Arab-Israeli conflict . "Moral equivalence" began to be used as a polemic term-of-retort to " moral relativism ", which had been gaining use as an indictment against political foreign policy that appeared to use only a situation -based application of widely held ethical standards . The purveyors of the device usually start by believing their side is morally superior. They use history, possibly selectively, to cast the situation as a big-picture struggle against an evil power. This evil could be totalitarianism or genocidal policies or some other ostentatious villainy. They then justify the atrocities of their own side by claiming it to be a lesser evil compared with allowing the evil power to have its own way. These atrocities in this way become acts of good, not evil. International conflicts are sometimes viewed similarly, and interested parties periodically urge both sides to conduct a ceasefire and negotiate their differences. However these negotiations may prove difficult in that both parties in a conflict believe that they are morally superior to the other, and are unwilling to negotiate on basis of moral equivalence. The Right Word in the Right Place at the Right Time: Wit and Wisdom from the Popular "On Language" Column in The New York Times Magazine .

Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 667095336.

The opening as it stood in 2020 7 passages from the previous snapshot no longer appear

( Learn how and when to remove this message ) Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to deny that a moral comparison can be made of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides. The term had some currency in polemic debates about the Cold War , and currently the Arab–Israeli conflict . "Moral equivalence" began to be used as a polemic term-of-retort to " moral relativism ", which had been gaining use as an indictment against political foreign policy that appeared to use only a situation -based application of widely held ethical standards. International conflicts are sometimes viewed similarly, and interested parties periodically urge both sides to conduct a ceasefire and negotiate their differences. However these negotiations may prove difficult in that both parties in a conflict believe that they are morally superior to the other, and are unwilling to negotiate on basis of moral equivalence.

Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 958531105.

The opening as it stood on October 6, 2023

Term used in political debates ( Learn how and when to remove this message ) Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to deny that a moral comparison can be made of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides. The term had some currency in polemic debates about the Cold War , and currently the Arab–Israeli conflict . "Moral equivalence" began to be used as a polemic term-of-retort to " moral relativism ", which had been gaining use as an indictment against political foreign policy that appeared to use only a situation -based application of widely held ethical standards. International conflicts are sometimes viewed similarly, and interested parties periodically urge both sides to conduct a ceasefire and negotiate their differences. However these negotiations may prove difficult in that both parties in a conflict believe that they are morally superior to the other, and are unwilling to negotiate on basis of moral equivalence.

Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 1147555057.

The opening as it stood in 2025

Term used in political debates ( Learn how and when to remove this message ) Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to deny that a moral comparison can be made of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides. The term had some currency in polemic debates about the Cold War . "Moral equivalence" began to be used as a polemic term-of-retort to " moral relativism ", which had been gaining use as an indictment against political foreign policy that appeared to use only a situation -based application of widely held ethical standards. International conflicts are sometimes viewed similarly, and interested parties periodically urge both sides to conduct a ceasefire and negotiate their differences. However these negotiations may prove difficult in that both parties in a conflict believe that they are morally superior to the other, and are unwilling to negotiate on basis of moral equivalence.

Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 1284082000. This is our newest snapshot; the live article may have moved again since.