There was also a question of redundancy, as editors against the qualifier opined that it’s implied that Hamas runs Gaza and noted that Wikipedia doesn’t refer to the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as the “Israel-run” or “Netanyahu-run” IDF or the State Department as the “Democrat-run State Department.”
There’s a clear implicit meaning when saying “Hamas-run” that a lot of people in western countries would use to help discredit what’s actually going on there.
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.
It would be like calling FEMA ‘democrat run’ when talking about the latest hurricane recovery efforts. It is literally true, but it is not relevant. To add it would only serve an editorial purpose, not a factual one.
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.
Why? Is it not Hamas run? If it’s not Hamas run, then it shouldn’t be called Hamas run, but if it is Hamas run what’s the issue?
So we should also be calling it the Otzma Yehudit-run Ministry of National Security of Israel?
Heh, might as well have some fun with it: The Jewish-Power-run National Security Ministry of Israel. Sounds pretty fucking fascist.
And the Religious-Zionist-run Ministry of Finance of Israel.
They start sounding pretty cooky aren’t they?
There’s a clear implicit meaning when saying “Hamas-run” that a lot of people in western countries would use to help discredit what’s actually going on there.
If it was the Hamas National Hospital I’d agree with you.
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?
It would be like calling FEMA ‘democrat run’ when talking about the latest hurricane recovery efforts. It is literally true, but it is not relevant. To add it would only serve an editorial purpose, not a factual one.
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.