“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.
Man your comment was really impartial until that comment. So close…
How so? Do you think believing that a demented openly fascist reality TV star is the savior of the US is a sensible thing to believe?
How did you get that point from my comment?
The billionaires see your boot licking and they love you very much. Keep going! You’ll be one of them some day.
Just pointing out that with their last comment, their other point can be taken as one side being sensible, while the other isn’t.
What does that have to do with boot licking?
Fantastic point, right up until that last sentence. But I guess people just want to circle jerk eh?
“All issues have only one sensible side and the rest are insensible” is not the takeaway from their comment. Some issues have multiple sensible sides. Other issues might have one sensible sides and several nonsense sides. All their last comment did was provide an example of the latter. They seem to take no stance on what type of issue their first example is.
This is a Lemmy comment section, not wikipedia. Besides, the last line agrees with a majority of the US at this point.
So… that means one side of Gaza is sensible and the other isn’t? That’s the only take after their last comment.