this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
131 points (100.0% liked)

World News

50674 readers
2659 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

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'.

[–] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

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.