 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
Tone
editAs I have laid out on the relevant user's talk page, I am very seriously concerned about the npov problem introduced by this large, recent addition to the page. In general I think the language is clearly unbalanced, flattening out attributions of quotes and presenting them as consensus. And there are a number of specific problems too; for example, the source used to support the notion that "Al-Aqsa is in danger" is an "Islamist" slogan does not say anything of the sort, merely describing it as "art, reinforcing the sense of religious solidarity. AntiDionysius (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)