“At present, the lede and the overall presentation state, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Israel is committing genocide, although that claim is highly contested,” Wales said. He added that a “neutral approach would begin with a formulation such as: ‘Multiple governments, NGOs, and legal bodies have described or rejected the characterization of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.’” Currently, the article bases its position that a genocide exists on conclusions from United Nations investigations, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and “multiple human rights groups,” among others.
Hey Jimmy, people who are committing genocide denying that they are committing genocide doesn’t make it highly contested.
Yeah. But also people who are not are contesting it somewhat. E.g. brit government.
The UK started the fucking genocide by giving away land that was not theirs to an entire religion/ethnic group who hadn’t been more than a minority in the region in all of recorded history.
Everyone denying the genocide is complicit or bought.
You are mental.
The UK did not redistribute land to Jerusalem this millennium. Claiming borders and deeds of old to justify (military) action is a book out of a warmongers playbook.
What does the turning of the millennium have to do with it? We’re still talking within a single person’s lifetime…
It isIch vermute, dass die Geschichtsbücher in Ihrem Land Ihnen ein falsches Bild von der Entstehung des Staates Israel vermittelt haben. Nach dem Selbstmord von 88 und der Kapitulation Deutschlands wurden die vertriebenen Juden von Europa nach dort verschifft, England und ein Lord sind die Hauptursache für die Probleme, die seit 1946 entstanden sind
Coward. Use English and spell shit out. Incredibly terrible machine translation is unacceptable. That was last millennium. By the way. Deporting the immigrants of the past does not solve the issue of today in an acceptable way.
English is my 4 language ,so screw yourself
In what way does this force you to use bad German? And why does this mean you must self censor?
To play devil’s advocate, due to the formulation of his edit suggestion, he may have meant how to depict the claims is being highly contested (on wiki) and should be more neutral and specific as per who is claiming what… And said it badly.
Why assume when he has had plenty of time to clarify if that is what he meant?
His exact phrasing is the same as saying climate change is contested. No, that kind of thing does not deserve to be in an article any more than the including denial about the Nazi genocide as an example of being highly cobtested because some shitty people and organizations still deny that one too. That kind of thing deserves to be ina section called genocide denial, no lt a note that ‘it is contested’.
Ends up in semantics though… Contested only requires 1, and highly or widely is not defined, and who is a qualifying contributor is not qualified, and who is a qualifying arbiter is not defined.
Depending on how invested he is in the feedback, he may not even realize currently it’s being read outside the context of the wiki editing neutrality issue he was talking about for the article.
I know nothing about his politics, and can only talk about the semantic concepts.