“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.
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.