Sounds like a reasonable decision. The Hamas-run label was used to denote that the death toll coming out of the Gaza Health Ministry was not very trustworthy. The numbers have since been declared trustworthy by pretty much any credible agency around the world but the most invested hasbaristas. Therefore today the label has become misleading when it comes to this information. It adds uncertainty to trustworthy information which only serves the goals of the hasbaristas who seek to convince that the death toll is significantly lower.
I Germany, I hear this often, but it’s also often mentioned that the death numbers reported by them were usually reliable.
The 40,000 killed statistic is reliable in that the killed persons name, identity number etc are reported to MoH officials and recorded by them, and the dead are seen by the officials. However the figure is a small subset of the actual number dead. 200,000 to 300,000 dead in Gaza in the past year is a conservative estimate.
Yeah, which I think is a real weakness in the reporting.
40k dead is bad, but it’s a rounding error of the total population.
A tenth of the total population dead, a fifth or a quarter of the population subjected to severe permanent disabilities, and nearly the entire population displaced, homeless, and presently starving to death is a clear genocide. They really are trying to exterminate them. It strains my ability to comprehend. In any case, “40,000” does not begin to capture the current scale of what has become a pretty standard, unambiguous genocide.
But it is run by Hamas, just so we are clear.
Technically, you’re correct despite the down votes, Hamas was the government and the HM was part of the government.
I think since the invasion though, any bits of government still running are doing so independently of any oversight.
By the end of the article they’ve framed much of this as being pro-Hamas / anti-Israel when a collaborative encyclopedia was seemingly worried about appearing neutral.
There’s enough there to have a good argument about sources and consistent wording but the article keeps highlighting people who think it’s purely political and even that people probably didn’t read the issue, they just wanted to be pro or anti Israel.
There’s still a lot of people who call this a genocide because they feel / think it’s a genocide, not because they’re on a side. Having consistent wording is important because you should be able to speak the truth and still feel whatever you felt… it’s not about hating Israel. I guess the beginning of the article sort of captures that mindset.
it’s not about hating Israel.
Israel is working hard to turn the world agaisnt itself.
Once you learn the history, it is very hard to seeing aa anything but a brutal colonial project.
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 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.
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.
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.
Jewish Jounral - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Jewish Jounral:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
