“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.

  • merdaverse@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict…[an individual] who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it – Martin Luther King J

    I’m sure that neutrality and both side arguments are perfectly acceptable for articles on the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, Native American genocide, flat earth and climate denialism, right? The article already cites 500 sources, mostly in favor of the genocide label, but we should give more credit to the Israeli government and the Western colonial powers that created it?? Fuck neutrality, and fuck anyone who supports it.