[pcthrowaway]

And when you go to the page about the Holocaust, it doesn't mentioned alternative opinions either, and barely mentions that holocaust denial is a thing (instead, "Holocaust denial" has its own article)

Do you believe Wikipedia should "both sides" the holocaust? Or do you not hold the genocide of Palestinians to the same standard?

Any ongoing genocide will have its deniers, its minimizers, and its apologists. Those people will even persist after the "dust is settled". That doesn't mean an article needs to give the same attention to the beliefs of people who are not experts, who are misled, or who are intentionally dishonest.

[mmooss]

That becomes circular: if it's a genocide then deniers shouldn't be given much weight. It also doesn't address the other core issue: How does Wikipedia handle controversial issues?

I think Wales is full of it - he's giving orders in an official capacity and threatening them with action if they don't comply, and he's brazenly lying about it - a demonstration of power and a threat. Still, I think your comment is more inflammatory than helpful because it doesn't address the core issues, it just throws a rock.

[pcthrowaway]

I'm pointing out the absurdity of saying an article lacks "balance", or claiming "neutrality" lies somewhere between "there is a genocide" and "there is no genocide"

If Jimmy Wales believes there are compelling claims that Israel is not committing genocide, then rather than expressing this as necessary for a NPOV (neutral point of view) he should just admit that this is bias on his part. This doesn't address the consensus among people who actually study genocide that Israel is committing genocide. The UN has announced that Israel has committed genocide. Doctors without Borders, Oxfam, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and the International Association of Genocide scholars have called it genocide.

Siding with the experts is standard for Wikipedia's editorial standards; if it wasn't, the Holocaust article would also seek "neutrality" by using much less decisive language about the validity of that genocide.