You just defended claiming objections should be taken seriously from “serious” (lmao) countries in the specific context of someone trying to get the article rewritten to downplay claims of genocide by invoking the claims of interested governments that are the ones doing the downplaying for their own cynical reasons.

You’re an idiot who can’t follow the topic and context of conversation. Goodbye.

If you are not able to extrapolate, I’m not going to give an opinion on all ~200 governments in the world, or any significant fraction of them.

Only that there’s apparently enough “serious” ones to be OK to deny genocide in an encyclopedia.

Fundamental error. Wales and the wikipedia ethos is not about “not offending” people; it’s about creating a resource that can be trusted by as many people as possible.

And how you get trust is by denying inconvenient facts that are only controversial to morons and complicit governments and politicians according to you, because they’re “serious” in your stupid, shallow and meaningless criteria. Moron.

So if you’re just repeating the claim, there is no point. Say something new?

So if you’re not going to say anything of substance, there is no point. Say something that doesn’t waste peoples time?

So the statements of the Israeli government would not have much weight in this, as they have obvious incentive to lie. The government of Russia should not have much weight, because it wants to whitewash its war crimes in Ukraine. The government of the US should not have much weight, because it has been eviscerated of everyone of any intellectual capacity.

Good to know we’ve dealt with all 3 governments.

They are not neutral observers, but (some of them) make serious statements and are capable of responding to facts even when it concerns an ally. We don’t see that with the US. We do see it with the UK, so even though it is not neutral, it forms part of the lack of consensus.

Going on the basis of consensus means that sometimes Wikipedia will not state as fact something that is a fact. And that’s fine. It’s better than the alternative.

Somehow you’ve managed to be both inane and absurd. We can’t state facts because there’s no consensus, there’s no consensus because there are material and idealogical incentives to deny facts, so therefore liars and and co-conspirators get to pre-empt statements of fact, and this is better than the alternative to stating facts, because it might offend those who want to deny them. And the basis of this allowance of self censorship for alignment with the guilty is that some are “serious”, and they are “serious” entirely because they are “capable of responding to facts even when it concerns an ally”. This is despite the UK (a “serious” country) being directly complicit, having hidden its own legal advice on the sale of arms to Israel, having been in near lockstep with the US on policy, having declared Israel “does have that right” to deny power and water to Palestinians as collective punishment, having cracked down on domestic protests and made Palestine Action a proscribed organisation for mere trespassing and maybe criminal damage (of spraying paint on a plane), I could go on.

That’s just repeating the claim that they’re ideologically motivated.

Because they are, as well as materially motivated.

Western governments, sans the US, are serious governments.

As opposed to every government that is non-western, which are by definition non-serious???

What denotes serious vs non-serious government worthy of weight? Why would you not merely look at the evidence, and make determinations independent of the will of any particular government? Why would being “serious” mean they’re not materially or ideologically motivated? Why would the US under Biden be more serious when Biden repeated the false claim of beheaded babies? Why would Starmer, who declared Israel had the right to withhold power and water, be any more serious? Why would any of these countries that have smeared Palestinian advocates as anti-semites and introduced laws to crack down on even peaceful protests be “serious” and worth weighing in their view of what constitutes genocide as if they are neutral observers, not guilty co-conspirators?

An opinion prompted by a awkward question in an interview and where he is abusing his position to insist the article needs to change to meet his arbitrary standard of not being considerate of governments that deny genocide.

There are serious governments and academics and commentators who disagree.

No there isn’t. All the arguments rely on genocide denial and ignoring repeated, clear statements of intent by Israeli government officials, soldiers, MP’s and citizens, whilst clearly having a clear bias towards exaggeration when it concerns claims about acts committed by Palestinians.

I just figured he was trying to save Wikipedia from getting axed by those in power in some countries who are pushing back very hard against anything that has sentences containing both “Israel” and “genocide” in it.

This is not the case.

But I am pro-Israel. That doesn’t mean I’m anti-Palestine. This is not a controversial position. My views actually aren’t in any way shocking or unusual. 9:30 AM · Apr 16, 2019

https://x.com/jimmy_wales/status/1118069048493740032

You can search his profile and find the last time he mentioned anything regarding Israel, Palestine or Gaza was 2 years ago, besides a post referring to the ADL discussing how wikipedia banned editors for antisemitism.

What you can find, however, is many, many, many posts over a number of years claiming Jeremy Corbyn was antisemitic and had made the Labour party antisemitic during his tenure as leader, something which happened largely due to Corbyn being pro-Palestinian and was used as a smear campaign against him.

And now out of the blue he declares this article not up to standards, and the only argument he consistently formulates is that some governments disagree and they have to be given equal weight.

Gee whiz, I wonder why.

Liberals turning into “fake news!!” idiots when faced with direct quotes of Democrats literally telling their base to fuck off and stop expecting anything of them.

The article directly cites at least 2 liberal orgs directing people to call Democratic politicians to do as much as they can to oppose Republicans, and directly quotes multiple Democrats directly relating to this and trying to insist there’s nothing they can do. I don’t know what more you want.