“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.
is consensus even a thing? and considering the groups that make up the group saying it’s not a genocide, it would be like giving a murder equal say in his conviction at trial.
genocide has a definition, isreal far exceeded all criteria, israel has and is currently committing genocide.
unless there is a new definition that excludes israel but also doesn’t exclude the holocaust without naming the parties i don’t know of
You guys don’t allow the accused a defence?
When the accused has been repeatedly recorded murdering and raping people in plain view of the public while cackling maniacally and yelling “and I’ll do it again!”…?
…sure, but we’ll still call a spade a spade, and a genocide a genocide.
say in his conviction. the accused does not get to deliberate upon their own guilt