Just shows that there’s no such thing as neutrality on anything contentious (wikis are in any case systemically unsuitable for contentious issues). Even when and how often to mention indisputably true things can be a form of taking sides.
There’s a difference between literal truth and contextual honesty.
People only point out that the Gazan health ministry is de jure “Hamas-run” (even though the biggest hospitals are run by the UN, just like the education system) to discredit it’s death tolls and justify the bombings of hospitals by making people associate it with the one thing even the most ignorant know Hamas does; terrorism.
It’s the equivalent of a red hat fascist calling it “Democrat-run FEMA” or a red armband fascist (the two are far from mutually exclusive btw) the “Jew-run IDF”.
Another example of this phenomenon is that, last I checked, all or most of the articles about individual Israeli settlements on en.wikipedia had, very near the top, a sentence like “the international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this”. This is literally about right, but the article about one individual settlement wouldn’t become less accurate or informative if it were left out. No such thing as neutrality on contentious issues.
Just shows that there’s no such thing as neutrality on anything contentious (wikis are in any case systemically unsuitable for contentious issues). Even when and how often to mention indisputably true things can be a form of taking sides.
There’s a difference between literal truth and contextual honesty.
People only point out that the Gazan health ministry is de jure “Hamas-run” (even though the biggest hospitals are run by the UN, just like the education system) to discredit it’s death tolls and justify the bombings of hospitals by making people associate it with the one thing even the most ignorant know Hamas does; terrorism.
It’s the equivalent of a red hat fascist calling it “Democrat-run FEMA” or a red armband fascist (the two are far from mutually exclusive btw) the “Jew-run IDF”.
Another example of this phenomenon is that, last I checked, all or most of the articles about individual Israeli settlements on en.wikipedia had, very near the top, a sentence like “the international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this”. This is literally about right, but the article about one individual settlement wouldn’t become less accurate or informative if it were left out. No such thing as neutrality on contentious issues.