Talk:Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike

Disclosure of Hamas parentage of Gaza Health Ministry

The "Hamas-run" language has been added, removed, re-added, re-removed, re-re-added, and re-re-removed. To prevent edit-warring and build consensus, I am starting this discussion. In my view, it should be included. The disclosure is in line with reliable sources who consistently remind their readers that Hamas is calling the shots, e.g., Le Monde ("To be transparent about the origin of these figures, we have also decided to change the way we present them, by stating that they come from the health ministry in the Gaza Strip 'administered by Hamas.'"); The Guardian ("Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry?"); BBC ("Gaza strikes: Hamas-run health ministry says 700 killed in 24 hours"); AP ("A massive blast rocked a Gaza City hospital packed with wounded and other Palestinians seeking shelter Tuesday, killing hundreds of people, the Hamas-run Health Ministry said."); The New York Times ("The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza has released a list of 6,747 people it said had been killed in Israel’s relentless bombardment of the Palestinian territory in retaliation for the Hamas-led raid on Oct. 7 that killed more than 1,400 people in Israel."). A person who is not familiar with the relationship between Hamas and the Gaza Health Ministry might see it as: IDF says it targeted Hamas, but a third party denied Hamas was there. When in reality it is: IDF says it targeted Hamas, but a subagency of Hamas denied Hamas was there. The advantage of inclusion is that you are flagging for the reader that this is not some uninvolved purely medical disinterested health agency, but rather a subdivision of a political party at war with Israel. Put another way, Al-Qassam Brigades and the Gaza Health Ministry are siblings and Hamas is their parent. Hamas and Israel are both committed to the other's destruction. In my view, it is important when describing claims and counterclaims made by them–as opposed to statements made about them by others–we make that distinction. What is the advantage of not disclosing the bias, or at least opportunity and motive for bias? Pinging those involved in the inclusion, removal, re-inclusion, and re-re-removal for their comments, but everyone should feel free to discuss (save for IPs and non-ec users): @Iskandar323, David O. Johnson, and The Great Mule of Eupatoria:. | Orgullomoore (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that casualty numbers for individual events are starting to be independently corroborated. For the 31 October 2023 attack on Jabalia, the Indonesian Hospital gave it's own count of corpses[1] and it was higher than the official Gaza Ministry's count. Likewise, news agency are reviewing footage that will show many of the corpses. For this particular attack, the CNN[2] story reported that the number of casualties was corroborated by witnesses at the scene. The Palestinian Red Crescent[3] has also corroborated the casualty numbers. In the same article, BBC quotes an interview with a witness that describes that people lost their arms and legs in the Israeli attack.

If you still insist on adding "Hamas-run" then we should also include all the corroboration from non-Hamas sources too. VR _talk 20:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, in this particular instance I think the more disputed element is whether the ambulance was being used to transport militants and/or weapons, as opposed to the number of casualties. | Orgullomoore (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not disputed as of yet, because there is zero evidence for it. It is currently a bald claim with no greater veracity than any other piece of hearsay. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it one bald claim vs. another? IDF says they have intel that the ambulance was being used as a Hamas wagon; Hamas says nuh-uh that's not true. | Orgullomoore (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Reuters also has reservations about the Israeli narrative: In a statement on the incident, Israel's military gave no evidence to support its assertion that the ambulance was linked to Hamas but said it intended to release additional information.[4] So maybe we can wait until IDF releases more information? VR _talk 20:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course, there is more to be seen. My original question, though, is why should we not disclose that the health ministry is a subdivision of Hamas? | Orgullomoore (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

shall we disclose that the Israeli health minstry is overseen by the Likud party, then? Or that everything that Israel says comes from Likud party spokespeople? 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:7009:48B4:E105:742 (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:7009:48B4:E105:742 Maybe check the other times I have answered that same exact question on this page. --Orgullomoore (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It was a well publicised medical convoy that the Palestinian Red Crescent was a part of. That the medical convoy was a medical convoy is the de facto state of reality and default state of affairs unless proven otherwise. That the health ministry denied the unevidenced claim does not somehow make it more credible. If someone says, unevidenced (and in defiance of common sense), that the sky is orange, someone denying this and saying the sky is blue does not make this a debate where the truth is neither of these statements but instead some sort of halfway house. The sky is still blue. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Or, put more simply: Occam's razor. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

PRCS also contradicts Israeli narrative.[5] VR _talk 20:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you guys please address the issue? The only question is about whether we should be transparent that the health ministry is in fact part of Hamas. I'm not arguing that one side should be believed over the other, I'm just saying we should clearly delineate the sides.--| Orgullomoore (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

But I'm arguing that the Israeli narrative here is doubted by many sources and should be given lower due weight (at this point in time).

"The dead and wounded visible in the videos reviewed by The Post included women and children and no weapons or individuals wearing military clothing could be seen." The Washington Post too has doubts[6]. VR _talk 21:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

But how is that relevant to the question of whether we should tell readers that the health ministry is run by one of the parties to the conflict? I don't see how that question touches upon which party has a more credible narrative. | Orgullomoore (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Directly addressing the question, I think it should be included. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I also agree, and think that the "Hamas-run" should be included. EytanMelech (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I think thats an odd argument to be honest, if one of the combatants is the government then of course its ministries are run by that government. And to the point, it is no longer true that sources are uniformly following this line for the Gaza ministries. The Washington Post article on this attack repeatedly attributes it to the Gaza Health Ministry with nary a Hamas-run to be seen. The NY Times article on this attack repeatedly refers to a Gaza Health Ministry, again no Hamas-run to be seen. nableezy - 02:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's safe to assume the reader knows that Hamas is the government. That's a unique aspect of this particular conflict. Conventionally, countries declare wars on other countries, as opposed to political parties. And conventionally, political parties don't have their own militaries. And conventionally, countries do have their own militaries. Here, Israel declared war on Hamas, which is a "resistance movement" that won elections in 2006 and then pushed out the other party in a civil war in 2007, never again to hold elections. There is no Palestinian army. There used to be a Palestinian Health Ministry embracing the Strip and the Bank, but in the course of the aforementioned events it was politicized. There is nothing typical about the facts here. The governance of the Gaza Strip is a complicated subject, and I think the "Hamas-run" label is informative and clarifying. | Orgullomoore (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with attributing it as "Hamas-run". When we say "Israeli Health Ministry" or similar it is obvious to readers that the health ministry is controlled by Israel, but the same is not true of "Gaza Health Ministry" and Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is it not true that Gaza Health Ministry will not be assumed to be controlled by Gaza? And what of the sources that report on this attack that simply attribute statement by the ministry to the Gaza Health Ministry? nableezy - 02:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is it not true that Gaza Health Ministry will not be assumed to be controlled by Gaza? That's not what I said? What I said was but the same is not true of "Gaza Health Ministry" and Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know thats what you said, but as youre shifting what needs to be understood between the combatants I asked the question that would be the logical conclusion of When we say "Israeli Health Ministry" or similar it is obvious to readers that the health ministry is controlled by Israel. Why would we need to specify the party running the government for one combatant and not the other. And what about the sources reporting on this attack, such as the two I linked, that attribute statements by the GHM to the GHM. nableezy - 02:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Because here the combatants aren't Israel and Gaza, they are Israel and Hamas. That's why "Israeli Health Ministry" is sufficient attribution but "Gaza Health Ministry" is not; the former makes it clear that the health ministry is controlled by one of the combatants, while the latter does not. BilledMammal (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is the government of Gaza. Again, what of the sources about this specific topic that simply attribute to the GHM the statements made by the GHM? Ive asked that question three times now. nableezy - 02:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, what of the sources about this specific topic that simply attribute to the GHM the statements made by the GHM? Some sources don't, most do. For example, one of your examples was from the New York Times. I searched for news articles from the New York Times in the past week mentioning "Gaza Health Ministry";

"Hamas-run" or similar:

1. Israel-Hamas War (October 31)
2. Israel Struck a Dense Area in Gaza, Saying It Killed Hamas Militants
3. Israeli Troops Battle Into Gaza as Airstrike Draws Conflicting Claims
4. Israel-Hamas War (November 1)
5. Israel Confirms Deaths of 15 Soldiers in Ground Invasion of Gaza
6. Wednesday Briefing
7. ‘A Very Slow Game:’ Why the Pace of Israel’s Ground Operation Counts
8. Israelis Advance on Gaza City, as Netanyahu Rules Out Cease-Fire
9. Israel-Hamas War (October 30)
10. Democratic Rifts Over Israel Burst to the Forefront in Congress
11. Israel-Hamas War (November 2)
12. Israel-Hamas War (October 29)
13. ‘You Think of Dying at Any Time’
14. Israel-Hamas War (October 28)
15. What We Know About the War Between Israel and Hamas
16. Israel-Hamas War (November 2)

Only "Gaza Health Ministry":

1. After Years of Vowing to Destroy Israel, Iran Faces a Dilemma
2. Blinken Meets Arab Ministers in Bid to Calm Outrage Over Gaza Airstrikes
3. Israel-Hamas War (November 4)
4. 34 Hours of Fear: The Blackout That Cut Gaza Off From the World

Single examples aren't illustrative; it's certainly possible to find examples where it is not attributed to Hamas in the New York Times coverage, but if we look at the broader picture we see that the New York Times consistently uses "Hamas-run" or similar, and thus gives weight to the notion that we need to do the same. BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Which of those sources are about the topic of this article? Because I checked, and it appears to be none of them. nableezy - 03:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, only one New York Times article has mentioned this strike and the Gaza Health Ministry. The sample size isn't large enough for us to determine whether the New York Times is diverging from its standard policy of attributing to Hamas.

However, since you want a larger sample size, I searched for "Gaza Health Ministry" "Al-Shifa" "Ambulance" on Google news confined to the past 24 hours. Of the first ten results from distinct news agencies, seven attributed to Hamas and three didn't.

"Hamas-run" or similar:

1. Jordan Times
2. The Guardian
3. WION
4. NBC
5. CNN
6. VOA
7. Times of India

Only "Gaza Health Ministry":

1. NPR
2. Mondoweiss
3. Al Jazeera

If we are to follow reliable sources - as we are required to do - we must attribute this to the "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry" or similar. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

NBC attributes a total number of casualties to the ministry, which doesnt appear in this article, CNN doesnt have Hamas-run or similar, what it has is A spokesperson for the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza, who was at Al-Shifa Hospital, said that Israel was responsible for the attack. and Palestinians have rejected the Israeli army claim. The Director General of the Gaza Health Ministry, Dr. Medhat Abbas, told CNN last week that Gaza’s hospitals “are used to treat patients only” and are not being used “to hide anyone.” Voice of America is a propaganda outlet, and Time of India doesnt attribute anything to Hamas-run anything. The Guardian says The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza. Yes, Hamas runs Gaza, all the ministries are Hamas run. That says that Hamas runs Gaza, full stop. Did you even read your sources? nableezy - 03:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

NBC attributes a total number of casualties to the ministry, which doesnt appear in this article NBC is discussing this strike, mentions the Gaza Health Ministry in the context of the strike, and makes it clear that Hamas runs the Gaza Health Ministry. I'm not sure what more you want?

CNN doesnt have Hamas-run or similar CNN says At least 15 people were killed and 50 others wounded, the Hamas-run health authorities said Friday.

Voice of America is a propaganda outlet Voice of America is considered generally reliable at WP:RSP, and I'm surprised that you objected their inclusion but not the inclusion of Mondoweiss which has no consensus at RSP.

Time of India doesnt attribute anything to Hamas-run anything Times of India says The incident led to the deaths of at least 15 people and injured, according to Hamas-run health authorities, and repeats Hamas-run at other points in the article.

The Guardian says The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza. Above, what I said needs to be done is make it clear that Hamas controls the Gaza Health Ministry in the same way that Israel controls the Israeli one. The Guardian does that with that quote.

Did you even read your sources? Yes. Did you, or did you just glance at them? BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I did given I gave the same quotes. When attributing to the ministry or the spokesman they are doing it without specifying Hamas run, because, again, Hamas is the government of Gaza and all government ministries in Gaza are run by the government. And, again, Hamas runs the Gaza ministries the same way Likud runs whatever ministries it controls. nableezy - 04:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

When attributing to the ministry or the spokesman they are doing it without specifying Hamas run, because, again, Hamas is the government of Gaza and all government ministries in Gaza are run by the government. Except they are; Hamas-run health authorities and similar. I'm not sure what you want here? For them to say "Hamas-run" every time they mention the health authorities? BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s what you’ve been doing across a range of articles so yes. nableezy - 05:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not. How about this as a compromise; the first mention in each top level section we attribute to "Hamas-run", and any mentions after that in the same section we don't? That will meet our requirement to properly attribute and make the situation clear to the reader without being excessive. BilledMammal (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I’d be fine saying, once, part of the Hamas government. This Hamas run meme is just poisoning the well. nableezy - 12:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

How about The Gaza Health Ministry, which is part of the Hamas government, denied any military use of the ambulances.? BilledMammal (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Im fine with that, once. nableezy - 14:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Added, I'm glad we could find an appropriate middle position. If the page becomes significantly longer I may believe it needs to be repeated at least once, but at the current length I think a single note is sufficient. BilledMammal (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

then we’d have to go “likud run health ministry”, or “democrat run health ministry”. It basically started as covertly saying “health ministry=hamas=lying” and then over time it latched on The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If it's such a no-brainer, why do many news agencies consistently insert the reminder? And if it's a close call, why are we not erring on the side of informing at the risk of slight annoyance through redundancy? | Orgullomoore (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

---

It was stealthily removed by Iskandar323 in this diff. I re-added it. Why would it be re-re-re-removed without discussion after being discussed at length? | Orgullomoore (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Because it's not relevant (or really ever was); it's just a fairly sad attempt at aspersion (the suggestion that the health ministry is somehow not reliable or their denials plausible) - as media has now confirmed redundantly that there is no evidence of military usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 And it falls on you to make that decision unilaterally and not even tell anybody about it despite there being a long discussion on it in the talk page? You believe that the solution is that we revert one another every 24 hours instead of reaching a consensus? | Orgullomoore (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This whole thread is dated. It is no longer just the health ministry saying this, but the HRW and independent media, so it's somewhat irrelevant and trivial detail whether the health ministry may or may not be bias by way of political affiliations at this point. It's not alone. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. If their denial is not relevant in view of the input from HRW and independent media, then why mention it? And if it is relevant, then why not disclose that it's coming from Hamas? I opened up an RfC below and publicized it on the NPOV noticeboard. | Orgullomoore (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This is conjecture and doesn't belong in the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Elmmapleoakpine: I'm sorry, but what part is conjecture? That the parent organization is in fact Hamas, or that this fact is relevant to the potential for pro-Hamas bias in their statements? Because the former is not disputed and the latter is subjective. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

How is it conjecture when the attribution is stated by a clear majority of reliable sources? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I fundamentally misunderstood something. Please ignore my comment. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

is a pro-Israel lobbying organization, and the reprint from the Jewish News Syndicate does not make that partisan source suddenly reliable for factual statements. nableezy - 02:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Jewish News Syndicate and National Post have published it in their own voice; to the best of my knowledge, both of those are reliable sources. Further, a source can be biased or even partisan without being unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No, they said it is a reprint from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. A group that sources identify as a pro-Israel lobby group cannot seriously be considered an independent source for factual statements on an enemy of Israel. That is absurd. nableezy - 03:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The author attribution is "Jewish News Syndicate, National Post Wire Services". They are publishing it in their own voice. BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Read the bottom of the reprint. Originally published by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy. You are attempting to put in to this article material written by a pro-Israel lobby as propaganda. And you are doing it based on the veneer of reliability by likewise partisan sources. nableezy - 03:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

For ethical and possibly legal reasons, publishers are required to attribute. What they choose to do is put their own names as the author; they are publishing it in their own voice, and the fact that they meet their ethical obligations in a footnote doesn't change that. BilledMammal (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no, they reprinted a partisan lobby organizations retelling of an Israeli military press release. That isn’t a reliable secondary source. And it certainly isn’t reliable to turn allegations by the Israeli military in to facts confirmed by independent third parties. Somehow you think choosing to claim you’re the author of a piece entirely written by somebody else makes you a reliable source, but tomatoe tomatoh I suppose. nableezy - 04:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Further, that propaganda piece was misrepresented. You wrote In the past Hamas has been identified by independent sources as using ambulances as part of its operations. The source says In 2014, the conflict between Israel and Hamas spotlighted how Hamas made use of hospitals as part of its strategy. “In Hamas’s world, hospitals are command centers, ambulances are transport vehicles and medics are human shields,” the Israel Defense Forces said. This was a flagrant violation of international law. citing this IDF release. The later section where it says Hamas has also used ambulances during the course of the war as part of its operations. The use of ambulances not only denies civilians who are injured the use of the ambulance but also puts at risk medical workers if terrorists use the ambulance in the course of their activities. cites an Israeli embassy reprint of the same material. So no, not even the garbage source used claims that Hamas has been identified by independent sources as using ambulances as part of its operations. nableezy - 03:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The independent source says, in its own voice, Hamas has also used ambulances during the course of the war as part of its operations. BilledMammal (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Ha! It cites the Israeli military and it isn’t independent. At this point idk how somebody can pretend that this is a good faith representation of a reliable source. nableezy - 04:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all three of the publishers that have signed onto this article are independent. Which ones do you think are not?

What part of the quoted sentence, or the surrounding sentences, suggest that these publishers attribute that sentence rather than saying it in their own voice? BilledMammal (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The link? nableezy - 04:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#National_Post_reprint_of_Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies_paper nableezy - 04:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This issue is very confused - can it be clarified?

Almost all press coverage shows a video of ambulances outside al Shifa, but there is no evidence of an airstrike anywhere. One ambulance has (been) struck (with) something in the front, but this looks like a traffic accident. There are images of a dead donkey. But no crater, no fire, no broken glass, no shrapnel, and while there are bodies that may be casualties, they appear to not to have been subject to anything resembling an explosion.

IDF acknowledges having struck *an* ambulance, but it is clearly not this one. There are images of a burning ambulance wreck at an intersection on al Rashid road, along with debris and other signs of fighting - it might be this one.

Some have claimed that there was a convoy of ambulances, and that it was struck multiple times, first at al Shifa, then at Ansar square. This might be, but I haven't seen any images or other evidence of this. And how is it possible to run an ambulance convoy to Rafa when IDF has encircled Gaza city, and there is heavy fighting? None of this makes any sense.

This is probably a lost cause, all Reliable Sources are just parroting each other's confused narratives. But perhaps it is possible to clarify some of these issues? Ketil (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggested Edit In Background

This sentence "Hamas has a documented history–predating the 2023 Israel-Hamas War–of using schools, hospitals, and other civilian objects to shield itself from Israeli airstrikes." cites an article detailing Israeli allegations of Hamas using human shields. I don't believe this source corroborates the claim "Hamas has a documented history..." I suggest changing the sentence to "Israel has accused Hamas of using schools, hospitals, and other civilian objects to shield itself from Israeli airstrikes" Graxwell (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Rule 29 of the international humanitarian law

Single sentence quoted from a single source cannot possible be WP:SYNTH, let alone when it is taken from the international humanitarian law. With regard to this edit, please User:Nableezy explain, or kindly consider self reverting. ~~ TaBaZzz (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Does it mention the topic of this article at all? If not it is SYNTH. This is super basic, please read WP:OR. nableezy - 19:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Ambulance is Medical transports. So Yes. TaBaZzz (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Where does the source mention any of the following, Shifa, Palestinians, Hamas or Israel? nableezy - 19:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The international humanitarian law covers Shifa, Palestinians, Hamas and Israel. TaBaZzz (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but you need a source connecting those topics. nableezy - 20:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy beat me to it, but yes, this was clear WP:SYNTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Please explain how? TaBaZzz (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Using a source on a general topic that does not refer to what we are covering in this article is original research, in that you are implying something that no source presented says for itself. You can’t use the original law to attempt to say this is what was violated absent a source doing that itself. nableezy - 20:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You implied it, and regardless the source itself must discuss the topic of this article directly. nableezy - 20:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's a source that says it explicitly:

• "Gaza: Israeli Ambulance Strike Apparently Unlawful". Human Rights Watch Council. November 7, 2023. Retrieved November 8, 2023. An Israel Defense Forces spokesperson said in a televised interview that day that: "Our forces saw terrorists using ambulances as a vehicle to move around. They perceived a threat and accordingly we struck that ambulance." International humanitarian law applicable to the armed conflict between Israel and Palestinian armed forces provides that ambulances used exclusively for medical transportation must be respected and protected in all circumstances, and only lose their protection if being used to commit acts harmful to the enemy.

TaBaZzz (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to add that material, along with HRW saying the strike appeared unlawful with the clarification "For the Israeli authorities to claim that their deadly November 3 attack on an ambulance in a crowded area was lawful, they need to do more than just insist that Palestinian fighters were using an ambulance as transport." Citing what you did remains SYNTH. nableezy - 21:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

"forces .... perceived a threat". TaBaZzz (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you are free to include the IDF said that, and that HRW says that such a justification does not meet the requirements to claim the strike is lawful. Here, Ill do it for you. nableezy - 21:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

and done. nableezy - 21:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Should the first mention of the Gaza Health Ministry disclose that the same is a subagency of Hamas?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to include context when first mentioning the Gaza Health Ministry, no consensus on wording of context. Editors are clearly in support of providing context to information provided by the Gaza Health Ministry, particularly relying on reliable sources who relate the GHM to Hamas. Discussion has not supported any particular wording (such as "subagency" as in the initial question), and has not decided on whether to frame GHM as administered (or other appropriate description) by Hamas, or GHM existing in Gaza with Gaza being administered by Hamas. Participants have also raised that editors should consider relating GHM information similarly to how other health authorities are conveyed on Wikipedia, relying on neutrality principles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the first mention of the Gaza Health Ministry disclose that the same is a subagency of Hamas? This edit is challenged. A prior discussion on this page did not result in a resolution. Orgullomoore (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes provides relevant info, read discussion above and do not find arguments against inclusion compelling. RSes in the article such as CNN mention it, CNN says “Hamas-run health authorities”. It is not trivial or irrelevant. Outside of this, multiple other reliable sources use wording similar to “Hamas-controlled health ministry” when referring to the ministry such as AP, “an agency in the Hamas-controlled government”. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• No Just as the Gaza government is Hamas-controlled, the Israeli government is controlled by a far-right coalition. We don’t say “the rightist-led Israeli government stated that…” because that would undermine the credibility of the statement that follows and suggest in wikivoice that it lacks veracity. Similarly, we shouldn’t say “the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry stated that…” because of what it implies in wikivoice. To say one and not the other amounts to taking sides, which is not NPOV. Today’s New York Times has a thoughtful discussion [7] of what’s happening in Gaza that makes clear the crucial role of rightist domination of the Israeli government. The fact that both sides in this conflict are governed by extremist parties is part of the reason why it’s so difficult to negotiate a resolution or even a cease-fire. NightHeron (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  But we do make it clear that the Israeli organizations are controlled by the Israeli government. Unfortunately, while it is self-evident that the "Israeli Health Ministry" is controlled by the Israeli Government, it's not self-evident that the "Gaza Health Ministry" is controlled by Hamas; reliable sources generally consider it necessary to make that clear in order to properly attribute claims by the Ministry, and thus for us to properly attribute those claims in turn we must also do that. BilledMammal (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  You're missing my point. It's not self-evident to readers that the Israeli government is controlled by the extreme right-wing of Israeli politics, and that this has a big effect on what Israel's doing in Gaza and on the credibility of government sources. Despite this, we do not say "the right-wing dominated Israeli government says that...". If we disparage Gazan ministry sources as being run by Hamas and don't do likewise to Israeli government sources, we're taking sides. Concerning the effects of the current rightist control of the Israeli government, you might want to read the piece I cited from the New York Times titled "What I Believe as a Historian of Genocide". NightHeron (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Providing proper attribution isn't disparaging the source. Further, reliable sources consistently do so; if it isn't a problem for them then it isn't a problem for us. BilledMammal (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is what the focus should be on, what do the reliable sources say. RSes on this article such as Reuters, “the Hamas-controlled enclave's health ministry said” and CNN state that attribution. There is no reason we should not do so. Wikipedia follows. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  So that's a good example of a source not staying "Hamas-led" or "Hamas-run" re: the health ministry, but calling it the health ministry OF the Hamas-controlled enclave, a.k.a. Gaza. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  You're implying that the purpose of attributing Hamas's control is to highlight that it is extremist. I'd argue the point is to highlight that the ministry is controlled by a side of the conflict. Thus clarification is required in this case. This is not necessarily obvious to readers given Hamas is often referred to as a militant group rather than as a government. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  That misunderstanding may or not be prevalent given the efforts from certain quarters to forget that Hamas has both political and military wings and functions, but it is not really the job of Wikipedia to go about pandering to the possible political bias-led ignorances of readers on each and every page. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Equating a liberal democracy's elected government taking a military operation to defend itself in response to a genocidally-motivated invasion, to a group who just invaded a country with the stated aim of the annihilation of Israel and the genocide of Jews, is inflammatory and misleading. JM (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• No: The RFC is, among other things, badly phrased: what is "sub-agency" event meant to mean? It's the Ministry, of Health, in Gaza. It's not a "sub-agency" of anything. It's a function of government, run by civil servants and bureaucrats just as any other ministry. Why would we veer off into the use of completely unnatural terminology? Do any sources use the term "sub-agency"? I can't quite tell if this wording also strays into the non-neutral, with this "sub-agency" talk, which seemingly gives a misleading sense of the relationship between political entity and minister. I assume this RFC is also geared towards the efforts of the OP to work the term into the lead, but this is not mentioned in the request, making the intended location of the proposed details ambiguous. For all of the reasons above, my vote is also on the verge of procedural close. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, per the evidence I provide above; a majority of reliable sources make it clear that the health ministry is controlled by Hamas, and thus we are required to do the same in order to properly attribute the information. As evidence of this, on the fifth I searched for "Gaza Health Ministry" "Al-Shifa" "Ambulance" on Google news confined to the past 24 hours. Of the first ten results from distinct news agencies, seven attributed to Hamas and three didn't.

"Hamas-run" or similar:

1. Jordan Times
2. The Guardian
3. WION
4. NBC
5. CNN
6. VOA
7. Times of India

Only "Gaza Health Ministry":

1. NPR
2. Mondoweiss
3. Al Jazeera

BilledMammal (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• First, the Guardian article that BilledMammal says uses "Hamas-run" or similar actually, earlier in the article, says The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza says more than 9,220 people have been killed in Israeli bombardments since then, most of them children or women. That is saying Hamas runs Gaza. Later, when discussing this actual topic, what it says is: Hamas official Izzat El Reshiq said allegations its fighters were present were “baseless”. Ashraf al-Qidra, a spokesperson for Gaza’s health ministry, said the ambulance was part of a convoy that Israel targeted near Gaza City’s al-Shifa hospital. That is, it attributes to Hamas officials what Hamas is saying and attributes to the health ministry what the health ministry is saying. The NBC article actually attributes the death count to the Palestinian Red Crescent, not the health ministry. Gaza is run by Hamas, and this meme of adding "Hamas-run" to every subordinate entity to the government is losing traction even among Western sources. All the more so that the numbers provided by the ministry have gained wider and wider acceptance, with even the US admitting that the count is either accurate or low. Beyond that, it is not just the Health Ministry that gave the count of 15 dead, that also comes from the Palestinian Red Crescent (see here: On Nov. 3, Israel struck near the hospital’s entrance, killing 15 people, according to Gaza’s health ministry and the Palestine Red Crescent Society.) So, in sum, no the health ministry should not be prepended with an attempt to poison the well, and also the count should be attributed to both the ministry and PRCS. nableezy - 15:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  That is saying Hamas runs Gaza That is making it clear that Hamas controls the health ministry along with the rest of Gaza. BilledMammal (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, it is making clear that Hamas is the government of Gaza, and a government has ministries. nableezy - 10:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• No Every bureaucracy everywhere has departments responsible for one thing or another and we don't go round adding a descriptor (the "US government run State Department" ??) Why do we need to point out that it is "Hamas run", what is the purpose of that phrase? It appears to be, as in discussions at the boards and other article talk pages, to dog whistle. The dedication to sources is admirable, since there are many sources that say the Gaza MoH is considered reliable, shouldn't we disclose that as well? How about "The considered generally reliable (except by the usual suspects) Hamas run MoH in Gaza"?

WAPO OC 24: "Why news outlets and the U.N. rely on Gaza’s Health Ministry for death tolls" "Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements."

Reuters 27 Oct "Despite Biden's doubts, humanitarian agencies consider Gaza toll reliable

AP 26 Oct "EXPLAINER: What is Gaza's Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war's death toll?" "The United Nations and other international institutions and experts, as well as Palestinian authorities in the West Bank — rivals of Hamas — say the Gaza ministry has long made a good-faith effort to account for the dead under the most difficult conditions."The numbers may not be perfectly accurate on a minute-to-minute basis," said Michael Ryan, of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program. "But they largely reflect the level of death and injury." In previous wars, the ministry’s counts have held up to U.N. scrutiny, independent investigations and even Israel’s tallies."

Time 26 Oct"News outlets and international organizations and agencies have long relied on Israeli and Palestinian government sources for casualty figures. While they do so partly because they are unable to independently verify these figures themselves, it’s also because these statistics have proven accurate in the past."

Gdn 27 Oct "Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry? "Israel and Joe Biden have shown scepticism about accuracy of rising death toll but others point to historical reliability of data"

Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry? discusses the MoH methodology and goes into more details than others (e.g., immediately reported numbers are less reliable)

BBC: World Health Organization (WHO) regional emergency director Richard Brennan, based in Cairo, said last week he believed the figures provided by the health ministry were trustworthy. "We're confident that the information management systems that the ministry of health has put in place over the years stand up to analysis," he said, adding "the data over the years has been quite solid".

Die Zeit: English translation: The World Health Organization, like many other organizations, trusts the figures. "We have had good experiences with the Ministry of Health in the past, for example with vaccination campaigns. We see no reason to fundamentally doubt the numbers of wounded, dead and sick. And the question for all of us is: would we have a different discussion if there were 100 or 200 fewer deaths? I don't think so," says Lindmeier.

WSJ, 11/10: U.S. Officials Have Growing Confidence in Death Toll Reports From Gaza Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• No. There is no need for Wikipedia to try and make out that it is not a proper health ministry like in any other country. It is not Hamas country it is Gaza. Hamas has been in government longer than Biden but it is like saying the Biden run HHS. Nobody is going to assume it is some other countries health ministry. NadVolum (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  then why hide this fact? TaBaZzz (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's redundant and the motive to inclusion is clearly tendentious. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  You need to stop accusing people of tendentious editing without proof. --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  There is reason for Iskandar323's suspicions. You're also at least borderline bludgeoning at this point @Orgullomoore. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC) non-ec --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  You also need to stop making accusations without proof. And I disagree. --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. The disclosure is in line with reliable sources who consistently remind their readers that Hamas is calling the shots, e.g., Le Monde ("To be transparent about the origin of these figures, we have also decided to change the way we present them, by stating that they come from the health ministry in the Gaza Strip 'administered by Hamas.'"); The Guardian ("Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry?"); BBC ("Gaza strikes: Hamas-run health ministry says 700 killed in 24 hours"); AP ("A massive blast rocked a Gaza City hospital packed with wounded and other Palestinians seeking shelter Tuesday, killing hundreds of people, the Hamas-run Health Ministry said."); The New York Times ("The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza has released a list of 6,747 people it said had been killed in Israel’s relentless bombardment of the Palestinian territory in retaliation for the Hamas-led raid on Oct. 7 that killed more than 1,400 people in Israel."). | Orgullomoore (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  As already mentioned by Selfstudier, the UN/WHO consider the health ministry broadly reliable. That a handful of cherrypicked articles can be found suggesting otherwise is a poor counter. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, per the evidence and arguments I provide above by BilledMammal (talk), Orgullomoore. -- Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC) (Editor was randomly selected from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers to be invited to comment on this request.)
• Question would we also point out that the IDF is being lead by the controversial Benjamin Netanyahu, which is a well known fact and whose name is frequently mentioned in reporting on this (and other) event(s).VR _talk 06:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• No, per nableezy and NightHeron. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC) user is non-ec--Orgullomoore (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes I'm not sure it is clear to the casual reader/bystander who doesn't follow the topic strongly that the Health Ministry is part of Hamas rather than a NGO or UN agency or the like. When I read the original reporting, it wasn't clear to me. Clarity is always something to strive for. Lulfas (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC) user is non-ec --Orgullomoore (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have to be EC to discuss on the talk page? I thought it was only for making actual edits? Lulfas (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Lulfas: It also applies to formal discussions such as RFCs. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Got it, my apologies then! Lulfas (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• No Just look at the RFC topic; "disclose"??? "Subagency"? It's quite POVish and needs to be rephrased for the sake of WP:NPOV. Also, we don't need to state Hamas run, simply as we don't say Zionist run Israel health ministry, or far-right run IHM. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• No Why do we need to point out that it is "Hamas run", what is the purpose of that phrase?. It is difficult to put any construction on the proposal other than to cast 'particular' doubt on the reliabity - which the vast majority of sources indicate is unnecessary. The health ministry has historically been shown to be very reliable. Attributing to Gaza health ministry is sufficient, we all know that the 'fog of war' can produce inaccuracies, but all indications are that GHM is more reliable than most. The level of use of the "Hamas-run" as a qualifying prefix is proportionately very low based on the sources offered. Pincrete (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Can you clarify which the vast majority of sources indicate is unnecessary and level of use of the "Hamas-run" as a qualifying prefix is proportionately very low based on the sources offered? Per the evidence I provided above - the only systematic evidence anyone has provided - the majority of sources indicate it, or an equivalent (the format previously used in the article was which is part of the Hamas government), is necessary. BilledMammal (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes The indisputable identification of the government ministry with Hamas has raised concerns about the accuracy of the data coming out of the ministry. This is not the place to decide this issue, but Wikipedia readers should acknowledge its existence. Eladkarmel (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  And yet it hasn't raised issues of accuracy, because everyone has admitted it's accurate. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  This evidence, in turn, suggests that the Gaza Ministry of Health, controlled by Hamas, has deliberately told the world a false story. NYT --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Generally reliable does not mean always reliable. Old news anyway, all the reliabilty sources postdate that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Right. 11 days ago, deliberately false story. Today, everybody agrees reliable. Got it. --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not just today, all agree that it was historically reliable as well. That's what generally reliable means. Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  From an article by The Guardian[8]:

  Questioning of the reliability of the Gaza health ministry’s numbers follows the dispute over who was responsible for a large explosion at al-Ahli Arab hospital, and how many died in it.

  The ministry claimed there were at least 500 deaths in an Israeli airstrike. Later accounts suggested that a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket aimed at Israel was responsible and that there was a lower death toll, of between 100 and 300 people, although a final figure has not been settled on.

  However, Shakir [Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch] and others said estimates of death tolls immediately after an attack should be distinguished from calculations based on recorded data.

  Gaza health ministry casualty figures have historically tended to be reliable, in part because the names of the dead are carefully documented and the deaths tend to be well known in the territory’s tightly knit communities.

  Shakir said: “Generally this data is catalogued in a way that there are detailed breakdowns that include identifying information about each person. That’s part of why we believe this to be reliable.”

  IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC) non-ec --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes : Substantial evidence pointing toward Gaza Health ministry being a sub agency of Hamas. Widely accepted in International Media (CNN, AP, BBC...), has been repeatedly proven to having provided unverified reports that were later revealed as false or exaggerated (Hospital incident a few weeks ago). Used as a tool by Hamas according to Defense experts, US and others.

sources: [9] quote: "After Hamas seized the Gaza Strip from the Palestinian Authority in 2007, it began running a parallel government within the coastal enclave. One of the departments under Hamas’s purview is the Gaza branch of the Ministry of Health, with responsibility for disseminating data on Palestinian deaths in Gaza. The Gaza Health Ministry courted controversy in 2018 when it reported and subsequently retracted claims, reportedly made under Hamas pressure, that Israeli tear gas killed a Palestinian child who suffered from a preexisting condition. It also failed to report injuries that Hamas-controlled security forces inflicted on anti-Hamas protesters in 2019."

Quote 2: When asked about the number of Palestinian deaths reported by the Gaza Health Ministry, President Joe Biden said, “I have no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed.” National Security Council Spokesperson John Kirby said the White House will not use “numbers put out by an organization that’s run by a terrorist organization.” “Hamas has a clear propaganda incentive to inflate civilian casualties as much as possible,” warned Luke Baker, a former Reuters Jerusalem bureau chief. He added: “Any health official stepping out of line and not giving the death tolls that Hamas wants reported to journalists risks serious consequences.”

Further sources: [10] AP: "Yet the Gaza-based Ministry of Health — an agency in the Hamas-controlled government — continues to tally casualty numbers."

Further Source: [11] CNN: "More than 10,000 killed in Gaza, Hamas-controlled health ministry says"

[12] BBC : "Hamas-run health ministry says Gaza death toll passes 10,000"

I can keep adding sources, yet I believe this is enough Homerethegreat (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm just amazed that anyone is still quoting Biden on this stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Those citations don't support what you say. They show Hamas paying the family of the baby. they show the hospital then accepting what the parents said - and later retracting it long before the Israeli's interrogated the person. How does that indicate the Ministry of Health deliberately put out false figures? You're supposed to edit Wikipedia with a NPOV, you biased what you said. NadVolum (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Is such bolding and highlighting of points allowed here? I considered doing it previously but I thought it would be a bad idea. Seems like it will just lead to everyone bolding and highlighting their own opinions in competition to be seen/heard. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC) non-ec --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, this is relevant information with many sources. Dovidroth (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
• YES. in a Totalitarian regime everybody is required to service the cause. and Yes, Hamas was in control there. and Yes, this article deals with the outcome of Hamas involvement there. No reason to hide these fact. TaBaZzz (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Why dont you just come out and say what you really think, if you want us to call the ministry of health unreliable just say that, dont couch it in this language. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Irrelevant to this discussion, and while true, it hasn't came to my mind in the context of this discussion. TaBaZzz (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

'this article deals with the outcome of Hamas involvement there'? I thought it was about Israeli forces bombing ambulances. NadVolum (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

A big part of the subject matter is whether Israel was justified in bombing the ambulances because Hamas was allegedly using them for military purposes. IDF alleges, Hamas denies (via their Ministry not bearing their name). Hence the relevance of their affiliation. --Orgullomoore (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Umm, no ... Wapo, HRW and the Red Crescent all also deny Israel's concocted story. Nothing depends on the health ministry at all here. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Is that so? Where is your source? WaPo says: The dead and wounded visible in the videos reviewed by The Post included women and children and no weapons or individuals wearing military clothing could be seen.. HRW says: Human Rights Watch did not find evidence that the ambulance was being used for military purposes, however.. Red Crescent says: The attack resulted in the deaths of 15 civilians and wounded 60 other people, it said, mirroring figures released earlier by the Health Ministry in the Hamas-run enclave. Another ambulance, belonging to the Health Ministry, was "directly targeted" by a missile around one kilometer from the hospital, causing injuries and damage, the PRCS said. Deliberately targeting medical teams constituted "a grave violation of the Geneva Conventions, a war crime," added the organization, part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.. Where is the one that says: "Hamas was not using the ambulances for military purposes"? --Orgullomoore (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that. Lots of independent sources saying no evidence. Vs one, biased, non-independent source known for actively pushing propaganda and disinformation of the most extraordinary and extreme kinds making claims to the contrary, without evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Correct. So we all agree that there are several independent sources saying there is no evidence of either of the two non-independent sources claims. Great. Now, to the topic of the RfC: disclosure of the non-independence of one of the sources. --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

No, there is no evidence that the ambulances were not just ambulances => ambulances = ambulances. No evidence of the dodgy claim means that the dodgy claim is now not just a dodgy claim, but an unevidenced dodgy claim. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, no evidence for Israeli allegation. HRW "did not find evidence that the ambulance was being used for military purposes". Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• No For reasons well explained by iskandar and nightheron. Additionally, if the outcome is to include I would like to see phrasing similar to "the hamas run ministry of health, which is considered generally reliable for information" due to its general description as generally reliable in sources. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Assuming we were to go with some sort of bolstering like this, it should be "the Hamas-run ministry, whose overall casualty counts in prior conflicts have been generally accurate." That is all the sources say. See, e.g., Reuters (""It's worth noting that the numbers that are coming out since October 7th are generally consistent or within logic for the scale of killings one would expect, given the intensity of bombardment in such a densely populated area," Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch, said. . . . While Hamas controls Gaza and exercises tight control over information coming out of the enclave, formal responsibility for the health ministry still rests with the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank."); WaPo ("News reports cite figures released by the Gaza Health Ministry — an agency of the Hamas-controlled government. . . Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements."). The issue here is not about accuracy of the numbers/figures; it's the accuracy of the denial of military use of ambulances. There is no contention in the RS that the Hamas-run GHM is generally truthful and it is undisputed that Hamas controls (or has the ability to control) what they say. --Orgullomoore (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Um. Should it say the corresponding thing about the Israeli Defence Forces? NadVolum (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Um. What corresponding thing? --Orgullomoore (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

That they go around telling lies. NadVolum (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

So your proposal is that, at the first mention of IDF, we say: "The Israeli Defence Forces, which goes around telling lies, . . ." And that, to you, is the "corresponding thing" to "Hamas-run"? Seriously? --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

NadVolum makes a good point. Statements like "The IDF, which has a history of war crimes" or "The IDF, which has a history of lying" etc would be factually accurate but undue and promoting a non-neutral POV. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC) non-ec --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a great point which still hasn't been addressed properly. Why should we not refer to the IDF as being run by the far-right Likud? It would be accurate to say, but it would be pushing a non-neutral point of view. We ought simply refer to the IDF as the IDF and the Gaza Health Ministry as the Gaza Health Ministry. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC) non-ec --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

What's the difference from your dog whistle labelling the health ministry as supporting what Hamas does? There is absolutely no need to label them and I very much hope this isn't some start to the business in newspapers and streams of putting labels on everyone as they introduce them. Wikipedia has links to look things up. It is obvious Hamas is in charge of Gaza - that's why Israel attacked it and is the reason many of the 'yes' ones here say it should be put in. It just encourages ignorant hate like where people read left-wing or right-wing and immediatly dismiss what is said afterwards. NadVolum (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that "Hamas-run" is frequently used by reliable sources and merely discloses, neutrally and without passing judgment, that the Gaza Health Ministry is subordinate to Hamas, whereas ", which goes around telling lies" is a highly non-neutral accusation not used by any reliable source (to my knowledge). --Orgullomoore (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, per the majority of sources, as per the analysis by BilledMammal. In case of Israel, US or any other country it's clear to the reader that the health ministry is part of the government. Since Palestine has two health ministries, it's worth specifying which one we're talking about. Alaexis_¿question? 19:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

:There is only one Gaza Health Ministry. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC) non-ec --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

If a person knew enough to know that about the health ministry I rather think they'd know that the Gaza one was the one in Gaza and Gaza is run by Hamas! The only case where labelling might have some point was if the reader did not know Gaza was run by Hamas but at that level there's links to follow. Not that labelling is considered a good idea on Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's still helpful to know that Gaza Health ministry is a part of the Hamas Government and not of the PA ministry. I also don't see any drawbacks to mentioning it and of course this is how lots of sources describe it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes per BilledMammal, who is right as usual. JM (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• No per selfstudier and others. If we don't mention that the Israeli government lead by Netanyahu (which the vast majority of RS quickly point out), then its not clear why we'd mention the same about the Gaza government.VR _talk 21:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  What reliable sources regarding the topic of this article state that? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Plenty, like this one[13]. VR _talk 00:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: It's worth remembering that this is an interlinked online encyclopedia where people can click on anything to find out more, so there are not the same demands to spoonfeed information in every statement as in news sources. More pertinently to the project, parallel entities should be referred to in a consistent and neutral manner. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Neutrality doesn't mean what you think it does on Wikipedia. It means we neutrally use the terms RS use; if they say "the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministy" we must use that. Additionally, when we get information from that ministry, since it's unreliable we need to attribute it, the same way RS do. JM (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  "a consistent and neutral manner" - read, then witter. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  No idea what witter means. Are you saying you want to go against WP:NPOV in favour of a a consistent and neutral manner or are you saying that a consistent and neutral manner means WP:NPOV despite saying in full parallel entities should be referred to in a consistent and neutral manner despite that being against WP:NPOV according to BilledMammal's analysis? JM (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps read the full policy, including WP:IMPARTIAL. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  I fail to see what there applies here. Anything in particular? Nothing there says we use a different description of something than RS do. JM (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  If you don't understand the concept, I can't help. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  You could try something specific instead of just citing the policy without explaining how or why it applies and just claiming without any substance that I "don't understand the concept" when I ask for an elaboration. JM (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's 125 words-long and you can read it yourself, but since you insist: "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized." (my bolding) - hopefully you can mull over how that applies by yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Elaboration" doesn't mean "copy and paste" it means "explain why you think it applies here" as I just said. I already read it verbatim and failed to see how it applied so I asked you what you thought and you still haven't told anyone. I don't know why you think anyone will be convinced to adopt your viewpoint when you tell them hopefully you can mull over how that applies by yourself instead of just telling them what you think. So I still don't know what you think it means or why you think it applies here; but what it really means is "don't add your own tone, just say what the sources say". The sources say what BilledMammal tells us. JM (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  "inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized" - this means that if you present one side without caveats, and the other with what are obviously intended to be opprobrious and inappropriately partisan-minded attributes like "Hamas-led", it is no longer impartial, but partisan. This is already pretty obvious from the fact that it is overwhelmingly sources from Israel's Western allies from that feel the need to heap this caveat on. It's not so simple as "a good number of sources mention it, so it's NPOV"- context matters, such as material clearly being from one side of a partisan divide, such as only media from Israel's close allies using a caveat. Not even El Pais heaps this on. The only source that I've seen that bucks this partisan trend is the Jordan Times, but again - close US ally. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:FALSEBALANCE; impartiality on Wikipedia isn't the middle ground between two positions. If reliable sources consistently present one side without caveats but present the other with caveats then what we are required to do to treat the subject impartially is to present the first side without caveats and the second with caveats. To do otherwise would be partisan. BilledMammal (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Impartiality is about being wary of partiality, which can readily be conveyed by a one-sided slice of media. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not neutrally used, see for instance Why News Outlets Are Avoiding 'Terrorist' Labels in Israel-Hamas War, where by agreement they try not to use 'terrorist' in their own words. But they're not - they use terms like 'Hamas-run' instead. For instance 'Another example is qualifying Gaza's Health Ministry as "Hamas-run" when citing the Palestinian death toll, Odeh said. ... ... Although small and technically accurate, adding "Hamas-run" risks casting doubt over data that has historically been credible, Oden said. "It helps kill empathy," she said.' By 'killing empathy' I take as meaning it associates the figures of all those killed in Gaza with terrorists. This indicates it falls under WP:LABEL. NadVolum (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Hat tip to NadValom - et voilà: we now literally have a source cataloguing the usage as a form of bias. So unless someone can produce a source saying "this is not bias", editors advocating for this inclusion can now be said to be advocating for the carrying over of a documented form of bias. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

According to a single political analyst. However, even if they are right and the media is biased then that doesn't make a difference here, because we are not here to WP:RGW, and WP:NPOV means writing articles in a manner that fairly represents the collective position of reliable sources even if we personally believe that the reliable sources are collectively biased. BilledMammal (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Not all RS have adopted the trick of using the label “Hamas-run” to kill empathy for the thousands of civilian victims of Israel’s brutal attacks on Gaza. The label is used primarily by pro-Israeli media. There’s a war going on, and it’s not Wikipedia’s business to take sides. We should avoid that biased label. NightHeron (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Per the evidence I presented, the majority use that label. Even if you believe that a majority of reliable sources are pro-Israel and biased, Wikipedia is not the place to correct that; WP:RGW. All we can do here is faithfully reflect reliable sources, and doing so is how we avoid taking sides. BilledMammal (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That the RS has actively said that the language is partial provides context for the application of WP:IMPARTIAL - the RS has defined the partiality issue for us, without any need for editorial input from our end. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, it has significant bearing on the reliability of the information. Sennalen (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  What kind of reliability does it bear? Using the same analogy, should we use Zionist run Israel health ministry? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  How about Israel-run Israeli health ministry? --Orgullomoore (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Or at that rate Gaza health ministry run by the Gaza administration. This 'might be confused' argument is based on the idea that Israel has declared war on Gaza and is bombing and killing people there because of a group which people might think wasn't the government there! NadVolum (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Israel did not declare war on Gaza. --Orgullomoore (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Zionist" is not a political organization, "Hamas" is. Also "Zionist" is so often treated like a slur or dirty word. And thirdly, reliable sources do not even use that terminology. People can't seem to understand that NPOV means "say what the reliable sources say" which is obviously "Hamas-run" as BilledMammal has proven more than once. JM (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Read WP:DUE. It is a controversial description. NadVolum (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's controversial on Wikipedia due to various editors opposing it despite policy. It's consensus in reliable sources per BilledMammal. JM (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The Health Ministry is no more a 'subagency' of Hamas than the HHS is of the Democratic Party. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR --Orgullomoore (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• No "Hamas-run Health Ministry" is a MOS:LABEL in this context. It's inviting the reader to make a conclusion that is not actually sourced (namely, that the Health Ministry is unreliable), and which we in fact have significant sourcing to contradict. Loki (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:LABEL tells us to avoid contentious labels in the vein of "bigoted, sexist, misogynist, neo-Nazi". Hamas is the name of the organization, so MOS:LABEL doesn't even apply. The reliability of Hamas is irrelevant because BilledMammal showed that most sources say "Hamas-run", but regardless your claim that "significant sourcing" proves Hamas is reliable is unfounded (especially with counter-evidence like the blatant falsehoods about the hospital attack, which turned out to have a death toll 10x less than what Hamas said and which was actually perpetrated by a jihadist Hamas ally). JM (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Unfounded? The Guardian: Gaza health ministry casualty figures have historically tended to be reliable, in part because the names of the dead are carefully documented and the deaths tend to be well known in the territory’s tightly knit communities. Washington Post: Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. nableezy - 21:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes unfounded, because the person I replied to provided no supporting evidence for the claim. When a claim is provided without supporting evidence, it is unfounded and can be dismissed with Hitchens' razor. JM (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Except for the fact that those sources have already been provided on this page in this section. See the comment by Orgullomoore, who mind you supports the label, at 16:49, 15 November 2023. The foundation has already been provided, that you declined to read it does not make it so that it was not provided. And it also means you cant dismiss it. nableezy - 22:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Orgullomoore was not cited by the person I replied to so there was nothing for me to decline, and I didn't go back and read through the whole survey to find a comment from 2 weeks ago just because someone replied like a week or more after I was last here. Regardless, this is such a minute nitpick that is irrelevant as I already pointed out that Hamas' alleged reliability has nothing to do with whether or not we follow the RS name given to their health ministry. My main point was that MOS:LABEL does not remotely apply here. JM (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• No: It is true that a number of RS have described it as the "Hamas-run" or "Hamas-controlled," but that doesn't necessarily mean we should. Hamas are considered by a lot of people to be a terrorist organisation whose information is unreliable. Whether that belief is right or wrong, it leads to the conclusion that numbers released by a Hamas-run ministry are distorted to serve Hamas' interests, which is blatantly false and a disservice to the thousands of innocent civilians who have been killed. As Selfstudier correctly pointed out, the Gaza Health Ministry's casualty figures are reliable and trusted internationally. Saying that the ministry is "Hamas-run" gives an impression that they aren't. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 16:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes effectively for the rationale laid out by Orugllomoore. A bit of an international politics rant from myself - I'd get the idea of not attaching the label if Hamas ran the internationally-recognized Palestinian Authority as a whole; however, due to their break with Fatah/the PA, their administration in Gaza is effectively that of an unrecognized competing government rather than a legitimate authority, and as an extension of that the PA/West Bank Health Ministry is technically Gaza's official HM, as the WB and Gaza are formally one state(-ish). Thereby, the label denotes this is Hamas' administration talking, rather than the internationally-recognized PA health ministry; not labeling it as such would be somewhat akin to us (in the past) labeling communiques from the Juan Guaído rival government as from the government of Venezuela itself, despite Guaído's administration not being the officially recognized government there (despite what some other countries might have claimed). I hope that all makes some degree of sense. The Kip 07:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• No: per NightHeron's comment above: We don’t say “the rightist-led Israeli government stated that…” because that would undermine the credibility of the statement that follows and suggest in wikivoice that it lacks veracity. Similarly, we shouldn’t say “the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry stated that…” Ghazaalch (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  What is your opinion on the fact that RS use "Hamas-run" but not "rightist-led"? When to be NPOV we need to follow RS. JM (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• No. Some sources uses this description, which doesn't oblige us to, because we use our WP:OWNWORDS. The descriptor serves to case doubt on the reliability of the figures (as admitted by some "Yes" !voters), but numerous reliable sources (and experts) agree that the figures are reliable, contrary to assertions here. You can find discussion of those sources in two very well-attended discussions, one an RfC and another a long discussion at WP:RSN. Therefore, an expression that casts doubt on the figures is undue and poses strong POV problems. The fact that this expression is POV, is itself supported by reliable sources like VoA and Coda, see NadVolum's comments. DFlhb (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• yes, pertinent, informative, and helpful. Not a POV violation but a simple descriptor. The figures should indeed be characterized and attributed to the non-state agencies so that readers understand they are originating from militant groups. Andre🚐 22:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Andrevan: The numbers are originating from the public medical organ of Gaza, so a government instrument connected in the normal way to a government that, in the usual way, won the last election. There is no evidence that these political considerations have any bearing on the information coming out of the health ministry, so your characterization of the numbers as "originating from militant groups" is misleading. Why would you state such a thing, and in such a tone, after so many months of analysis? I understand that you had strong opinions on the reliability of this information two months ago, but this doubt neither exist in historical sources, nor has been borne out by reliably sourced material since. On the contrary, The Lancet has published a review indicating that there is "no evidence" of mortality inflation, and you might note that The Lancet does not even mention Gaza's state of governance, because it is functionally irrelevant to the publication of mortality figures by the Gaza Ministry of Health. Another recent piece by the Washington Post again extensively and redundantly goes over the dispute, also without feeling the need to attribute the health ministry. Over the course of this it does, however, clearly state the POV dynamic to the attribution: "Israeli and U.S. officials have questioned the figures publicly, however, arguing that they cannot be trusted because the ministry is controlled by Hamas" - so at this point the POV and aspersion casting in this attribution is pretty apparent. And as any sane source has now admitted, and as repeated in the WAPO piece: "The true death toll is probably higher". It is at this point neither encyclopedic nor impartial to push this attribution, whose only motive of origin is the casting of inappropriate and confounded aspersion. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  The last election in Gaza, you mean the one in 2006? What "usual way" since there haven't been any other elections? I agree that the Lancet review should be cited and is reliable. It is germane and pertinent to the discussion. I don't see that it obviates the need for labelling. I have no objection to the Washington Post piece either. Andre🚐 06:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  The need for labelling is obviated by the fact that labelling ministries as falling under the governments that they fall under is not routine. As such, a very good reason needs to be provided as to why non-routine labelling needs to be performed, and it needs to be explained how this is both NPOV and encyclopedic in the context. If the most recent reliable sources do not add such labels, and the same labels have been identified with a certain clear POV, that casts significant doubt on the encyclopedic merit of inclusion, does it not? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, of course it a very important clarification that has many reliable sources and is important for the readers to understand the subject. Plus per Orugllomoore. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

With respect to NightHeron's suggestion that saying "Hamas-run" is the same as saying "right-wing dominated Israeli government," I don't see the equivalency. Nobody is proposing that we say "Gaza Health Ministry, controlled by the Islamist fundamentalist Hamas." In other words, the proposal, and the convention of reliable sources, is not to pass judgment on the leanings of the parent, but simply to disclose its identity. And, as the point has already been made, saying "the U.S. Department of State," or the "Israeli government" or the "Israel Defense Forces" already explicitly discloses the parent. The issue is that the "Gaza Health Ministry" is not self-evident, which is why multiple reliable sources constantly remind their readers that the health ministry is a subdivision of one of the parties to the conflict. I disagree that this is an attempt to poison the well. If readers have a negative view of Hamas, then the poison is already there. That this poison spills over to the Gaza Health Ministry upon learning that they are part of the same entity is the consequence of learning about the unknown (to that reader) association, which negates the argument that the relationship is self-evident by the mere fact of being a ministry located in Gaza. In other words, if the reader already knows, upon reading "Gaza Health Ministry" that this is part of Hamas, then why does saying "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry" have any effect on that reader's view of the neutrality of the agency? And if the reader does not already know this, then to hide it from them is a form of whitewashing and the suggestion that it should be hidden contradicts the suggestion that it is self-evident. | Orgullomoore (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

According to Omer Bartov, an Israeli-American described in his Wikipedia page as "a noted historian of the Holocaust[...] considered one of the world's leading authorities on the subject of genocide", the Israeli attack on Gaza cannot (yet) be called "genocide", but Bartov further writes that several statements by the right-wing leaders of the Israeli government and military show "genocidal intent".[14] Readers in the US and some other Western countries who rely on pro-Israeli media and who do not follow Israeli politics are likely to be unaware of the extreme right-wing control of the Israeli government and the resulting "genocidal intent" in Prof. Bartov's terminology. So if we associate the Gaza Ministry of Health with terrorism in readers' minds by saying it's controlled by Hamas, we should also point out the credibility problem with any Israeli government source we cite about the war. If it's "whitewashing" not to include the words "Hamas-controlled" when citing the Gaza Ministry of Health, then it's also whitewashing not to indicate the analogous credibility problem with Israeli sources due to current right-wing control of the government. NightHeron (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Many readers associate Hamas with terrorism, but not the Gaza Health Ministry, because they don't know that the Gaza Health Ministry is part of Hamas. | Orgullomoore (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"Many readers associate Hamas with terrorism, but not the Gaza Health Ministry" Are you saying the Gaza Health Ministry is associated with terrorism? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC) non-ec --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

No. I'm saying the Gaza Health Ministry is associated with Hamas. --Orgullomoore (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It sounds a lot like you think it is important to associate the Gaza Health Ministry with terrorism, which I think is the real WP:NPOV issue in this RFC. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Friendly reminder to assume good faith. --Orgullomoore (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

...which is a terrorist organization. See the bottom of the infobox. JM (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

From New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof in the current issue: "[...] by the count of the Gaza Health Ministry, which is under the Hamas government but whose numbers have been regarded as generally reliable by the State Department and humanitarian agencies". [15] If even pro-Israeli sources (such as the US State Department) acknowledge reliability, then perhaps Wikipedia doesn't have to insert "Hamas-controlled" so as to undermine the credibility of the figures coming out of the Health Ministry in Gaza. Needlessly putting in that qualifier would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. NightHeron (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

So that's the UN, WHO, US State Department and humanitarian agencies - that's a pretty resounding line up of entities that trust the Gaza Health Ministry as generally reliable, without qualification, and without the need for well-poisoning attributions intent on aspersion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Gaza Health Ministry, which is under the Hamas government but . . . --Orgullomoore (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What's your point? Every ministry is under a government. We've been over this. We don't say "Israel Health Ministry, which is under the Likud-led far-right coalition government ..." You're also taking a detail infrequently mentioned in news article bodies and trying to put it, unduly, into the lead of this encyclopedic article, which is meant to be a summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: My point is that if the NYT and numerous other sources feel the need to state that the GHM is under Hamas's control, we should too. As I've said before, I'm not advocating that we describe the leaning ("far-right"). With regard to its placement, it makes sense that it be placed the first time the reader is confronted with the name, but I don't think it's unreasonable to place it after the second mention based on lead style considerations. The suggestion that it be after the first mention comes from the compromise reached above between nableezy and BilledMammal, which remained in the article until you stealthily "updated" the lead and removed it without bothering to participate in the discussion, having in your own head proclaimed it outdated. --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's an article analyzing Israel's unreliable count. "Some news outlets — including The New York Times — occasionally used those Israeli figures without attributing them to Israeli officials or noting that they were an initial estimate and subject to change." Goose, gander. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I don't think the casualty count is in dispute for this event. It's just about whether the reader should be told that GHM is part of Hamas, mainly because the article says (paraphrasing): Israel hit ambulances, potentially a war crime; IDF acknowledged it but said it was not a war crime because Hamas was using the ambulances "to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy"; but the GHM denies this. And so my argument is that it is not self-evident GHM is Hamas, whereas it is self-evident that the IDF is Israel. And my argument is not based on whether the GHM or the IDF is generally believable–only that in reading about the event the reader should have a clear notion of who the parties to the he-said-she-said are. --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The GHM isn't Hamas. It is a health ministry of the jurisdiction that operates under the government of Gaza, which is currently run by Hamas. In drawing an analogy between this relationship and that if the IDF + Israel, you are failing to distinguish between a political party and a state. It is obvious from the word "Gazan" that the GHM operates on behalf of Gaza. It's not obvious what the political affiliation of all of its constituent administrators are because no source tells us the political affiliation of all of its members. I don't believe anyone has done a poll. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas has run the government of Gaza since 2007. Its regime is authoritarian and oppressive. Hamas has opressed opposition to it, even banishing doctors affiliated with Fatah the opposition. International Media confirms that GHM is run by Hamas (CNN, BBC, AP...). Homerethegreat (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Im fine with saying Gaza is governed or controlled by Hamas. I’m not fine with the Hamas-controlled GHM meme that’s been proliferating around various articles, sometimes multiple times in a single article. nableezy - 18:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Why not? Does it not make sense that Hamas, which has opressed opposition etc, also control the Gaza Health ministry? Most international Media report this too (CNN, BBC, AP). Also its already been reported that GHM has reported unverified reports that turned out as false or exaggerated. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

That'll be a "Yes" then, fair enough. Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as white-washing, this is why we have wikilinks. So that we can avoid saying "right-wing politician" when some person is quoted in another article. We cover who runs the Health Ministry in the article Gaza Ministry of Health. We cover who runs Gaza in the article Governance of the Gaza Strip. We aren't saying far-right Otzma Yehudit run Israeli police forces arrested Ahed Tamimi for example. Why not? Is it obvious that this "Israeli agency" is in fact run by somebody convicted of supporting a terrorist organization and member of an extreme right-wing party? nableezy - 19:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I think the analogy there would be saying something like "the Islamist Medhat Abbas-run Gaza Health Ministry," which, again, is not the proposal, i.e., no one has suggested that we state the identity of the person at the head of the subagency, but instead that we disclose the identity of the parent agency. | Orgullomoore (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

My phrasing was about the party running the ministry, not just the head of it. And honestly, it makes more sense there in which the ministry is run by a politician and not some professional bureaucrat. nableezy - 19:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You're right; I misinterpreted the "Otzma Yehudit" part as the name of a person instead of the name of a political party. But the "far-right" part is still not analogous, because the proposal is not that we say "fundamentalist Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health," just "Hamas-run." So, arguably it is analogous to "Otzma Yehudit-run police forces," but not "Otzma Yehudit Israeli police forces," because, again, you are adding more to the comparison than is being proposed in the subject example: that would be like "fundamentalist Hamas-run Palestinian Gaza Ministry of Health", unless we want to say that the "Gaza" part of "Gaza Ministry of Health" is comparable to the "Israeli" part of "Israeli police", in which case I would concede that this is a valid comparison. That is, "Otzma Yehudit-run Israeli police forces" is potentially comparable to "Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health", but only to the extent Gaza is viewed as a de facto sovereign entity. | Orgullomoore (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn’t analogous but it’s an extension. My point here is that we can keep the adjectives to their respective articles, and we do that all the time. We don’t say, for example, Israeli occupied whenever we say Gaza Strip or the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Where it is pertinent sure, but just having some blanket when this ministry is mentioned we must include Hamas controls it rule is extremely one sided in its application. nableezy - 18:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

And I think you have a perfectly valid point, which is essentially that "Hamas-run" is a slur. My point is that it's a neutral description of the relationship and that the negative connotation has to do with the things the reader may have heard about Hamas, not the manner in which we describe the ministry they run. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

No my point is not that it’s a slur, it’s that it is meant to be one, and that anybody can click the link to Gaza Health Ministry and get the information on who runs it, just like they can for Ministry of National Security (Israel) instead of us specifying it is run by some convicted terrorist sympathizer whenever it is mentioned. nableezy - 20:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

With respect to NadVolum's statement that [i]t is not Hamas country it is Gaza, and [n]obody is going to assume it is some other countries health ministry, the article Gaza Health Ministry states that formerly the Strip and the Bank were governed by a unified Ministry of Health (Palestine), but "[a]fter Hamas' takeover of Gaza in 2007, Hamas governments have appointed alternate health ministers for the Gaza Strip." So I do think there is a distinction to be made there. | Orgullomoore (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Well lets call the HHS the American government run HHS then since America rebelled from the UK. NadVolum (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That suggestion is quite strange. The United States has been independent from the British Empire since 1776 (July 4, 1776 (1776-07-04)). The Gaza Strip (not the Hamas strip) is part of Palestine under the Oslo Accords but after the Battle of Gaza (2007) (June 15, 2007 (2007-06-15)), the unity government was dissolved, though efforts to reconcile are ongoing. Hardly analogous. | Orgullomoore (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Sign your !vote. Selfstudier (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot. | Orgullomoore (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I find your suggestion far stranger that people know enough about the relationship between the Gaza strip and Palestine for your legalism and yet would not know that Hamas are in charge of government in the Gaza strip. NadVolum (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Got it. So your argument is "Hamas-run" is redundant and a no-brainer and an obnoxious waste of 9 characters, but not that it poisons the well or is an aspersion, right? | Orgullomoore (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Basically yes. But it does also strike me as an aspersion when the evidence is there's no real problem with its figures. NadVolum (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. To me, these two arguments are mutually inconsistent, but I will leave this particular thread right here because I don't want to bludgeon or run in circles. | Orgullomoore (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what I said if you see any inconsistency. It seems obvious to me that you feel strongly that "Hamas-run" should be put in - you are straining to not bludgeon. My feeling is you think it is an aspersion and want to put it in for that reason even though it is unwarranted. NadVolum (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

To respond to Iskandar323's comments regarding the meaning and neutrality of the word subagency, the word is defined in all the dictionaries I have checked as an agency that is subordinate to another, and the Gaza Health Ministry article's infobox says that its parent agency is Hamas and provides the name of the agency executive. In addition, the first sentence of that article is: "The Gaza Health Ministry is a government agency in the Gaza Strip of the Palestinian territories" (emphasis added). | Orgullomoore (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Ministries are the "first-level executive bodies in the machinery of governments", meaning they are not the sub-agencies of anything. They sit under the minister, who sits on the government cabinet. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think it's important for the purposes of our discussion whether it's a ministry or an agency. --Orgullomoore (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Given the RFC is termed in the language of "sub-agency", it is. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas has run the government of Gaza since 2007. Its regime is authoritarian and oppressive. Hamas has opressed opposition to it, even banishing doctors affiliated with Fatah the opposition. International Media confirms that GHM is run by Hamas (CNN, BBC, AP...).

Per comment above that I replied to you.

Hamas controls Gaza gov, controls GHM == Hamas controls GHM. It's rather clear, and it's the same in other places where there is a single party that has excessive power and control. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The basic question is whether their figures are unreliable. The evidence is that they are pretty reliable. The type of government doesn't seem to make much difference to that. Deaths from Covid in the US were widely covered as other types of death by many authorities in the US that didn't want to acknowledge the effects of the disease. NadVolum (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats actually not the basic question in this RfC. --Orgullomoore (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

We can all pretend that it isn't but that's exactly what it is. And it's very obvious, too. Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

No need for pretending. The casualty count is 15. Nobody is disputing it. The question is whether it is relevant that the GHM is part of Hamas when we say: GHM denied X thing that Hamas is accused of doing. --Orgullomoore (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you trying to make out that there were Hamas militants using the ambulances for non medical purposes like the Israeli say but nobody else does? NadVolum (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

No. I have no knowledge about it one way or another. --Orgullomoore (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: WP:NEWSSTYLE is relevant here—"The encyclopedic and journalistic intent and audience are different." As well as WP:PERSUASIVE: "It is not Wikipedia's role to try to convince the reader of anything, only to provide the salient facts as best they can be determined, and the reliable sources for them." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC) still not EC JM (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the more general precepts of WP:IMPARTIAL, yes. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

And WP:NPOV in particular WP:DUE "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources", not that a vote be taken and the winner gets to say things in Wikivoice. The use has been criticized in a reliable sources, at best it should say something like 'which according to a number of sources is Hamas-run though this usage has been disputed as being used to reduce empathy for the dead Gazans. As well as the Voice of America source one can use one from Coda Media [[16]] "As Israel flattens Gaza, the Western media ties itself in semantic knots — insisting, for instance, on using phrases such as “Hamas-run health ministry” to shroud casualty figures in doubt or worse, to do Israel’s job for it by associating all residents of Gaza with terrorism." NadVolum (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Context

@NightHeron: Can you clarify your revert? I think you’ve misunderstood the close. BilledMammal (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The closure does not give clear guidance on how context should be supplied, and in fact says that there's "no consensus" on this. So there can be good-faith disagreement on how to interpret the closure statement. However, if we look at the last part of the closure statement, it says that one possible wording is "GHM existing in Gaza with Gaza being administered by Hamas" (which suggests that there's no necessary connection between Hamas' reliability and the GHM reliability) and further says that "Participants have also raised that editors should consider relating GHM information similarly to how other health authorities are conveyed on Wikipedia, relying on neutrality principles." Generally, health authorities are considered reliable for information about fatalities, and this is the case for GHM, so it seems to me that neutrality would require that we don't cast aspersions on the reliability of GHS information about fatalities by linking it to Hamas without supplying the context that reliable sources consider that information to be generally reliable. NightHeron (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Editors are clearly in support of providing context to information provided by the Gaza Health Ministry, particularly relying on reliable sources who relate the GHM to Hamas.

We need to add wording that relates GHM to Hamas. Rather than reverting my implementation of this consensus, can you instead switch it your preferred method of doing so? To merely revert is clearly against consensus.

Regarding whether to include details about whether they are or are not reliable, we can discuss whether and how to do that after we settle how to implement the formed consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How to cover whether the GHM is reliable for fatality statistics is the central issue, and that should be discussed here on the talk-page before anything is inserted in the article. There's no value in my putting a version into the article that I'd be happy with, which would start to look like edit-warring. What we need is a consensus on wording with participation of other editors. The RfC did not reach a consensus on wording. NightHeron (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How to cover whether the GHM is reliable for fatality statistics is the central issue The close doesn’t say that. All the close says is we have to relate Hamas and GHM, and expanding the scope of what needs to be considered will merely filibuster the implementation of consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You're ignoring the part of the close that editors should consider relating GHM information similarly to how other health authorities are conveyed on Wikipedia, relying on neutrality principles. All I'm saying is that, rather than the two of us inserting conflicting versions and reverting each other, the constructive approach is to reach a consensus on what to insert that complies with WP:NPOV. NightHeron (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"Participants raised that editors should consider doing X" isn’t the same thing as "Editors should do X"

For now, how do you suggest relating Hamas and GHM? BilledMammal (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably needs a whole sentence to provide context, such as: "Although the Health Ministry is part of the Gaza government, which is controlled by Hamas, its fatality statistics are regarded as generally reliable." NightHeron (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How about The Gaza Health Ministry, which is part of the Hamas government, denied any military use of the ambulances? It’s a non-sequitur to mention fatalities there, and in any case trying to make an explicit statement about their reliability is beyond the scope of the close and will only serve to filibuster its implementation. BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I can live with that. But of course other editors might object. I'll do some minor editing in the lead, but I won't revert that sentence if you add it. NightHeron (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Many reliable sources say Hamas run health agency, a significant number of other reliable sources say that is designed to dehumanise the dead by associating them with the October 7 Hamas atrocity. Following Wikipedia NPOV policy if we should include this context we should show the controversy. NadVolum (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Everyone here needs to consider that any additions for the sake of having "context to information provided by the Gaza Health Ministry" should preferably determined by an RFC. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Category: Israeli war crimes

This article was removed from Category:Israeli war crimes. Does anyone know what the criteria is for including articles in that category? (@BilledMammal) - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Since the lead indicates evidence for that, I added it back. Selfstudier (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have been re-added. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Has been re-added. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of the category; given that sources aren't saying it was a war crime, just that it might be, I didn't feel it was an appropriate category given that per WP:POVCAT we should only be adding categories when uncontroversial. BilledMammal (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

PRSC called it a war crime [17] which I've added to the article. Would it be appropriate to restore the category? Seems like a pretty WP:Sky is blue war crime anyway. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Disputed, given that Hamas uses ambulances for the transport of militants which is a war crime of perfidy. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That's unsourced, Israel provided no evidence for its claims and WAPO said "no weapons or individuals wearing military clothing could be seen" in a video of the aftermath. Afaics, this is sourced as an Israeli war crime so removing the cat is a POV edit. Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)