Thats not on Wikipedia to ensure that everyone knows who runs what country at any given moment. Like the quote I provided above says, we don’t say the same thing for Israel or any western nation. So not only would there be a clear political undertone with using it, it would also display a very big bias and double standard. And one of the big things about Wikipedia is its stance to be as neutral as possible.
I’m afraid I’m not understanding. Can you elaborate?
Until I did homework on the situation in Gaza, I didn’t know Hamas* was de facto in charge, and arguably de jure.
The Wikipedia “redundancy” is designed for people like I was: completely ignorant on the topic.
That’s why people go to Wikipedia, to educate themselves quickly.
Thats not on Wikipedia to ensure that everyone knows who runs what country at any given moment. Like the quote I provided above says, we don’t say the same thing for Israel or any western nation. So not only would there be a clear political undertone with using it, it would also display a very big bias and double standard. And one of the big things about Wikipedia is its stance to be as neutral as possible.
I will say it’s often mentioned in news articles that the Senate or House is GOP/Democrat-held/run, but Wikipedia is obviously a different thing.
Where do you see that?