Sounds like a reasonable decision. The Hamas-run label was used to denote that the death toll coming out of the Gaza Health Ministry was not very trustworthy. The numbers have since been declared trustworthy by pretty much any credible agency around the world but the most invested hasbaristas. Therefore today the label has become misleading when it comes to this information. It adds uncertainty to trustworthy information which only serves the goals of the hasbaristas who seek to convince that the death toll is significantly lower.
But it is run by Hamas, just so we are clear.
I Germany, I hear this often, but it’s also often mentioned that the death numbers reported by them were usually reliable.
By the end of the article they’ve framed much of this as being pro-Hamas / anti-Israel when a collaborative encyclopedia was seemingly worried about appearing neutral.
There’s enough there to have a good argument about sources and consistent wording but the article keeps highlighting people who think it’s purely political and even that people probably didn’t read the issue, they just wanted to be pro or anti Israel.
There’s still a lot of people who call this a genocide because they feel / think it’s a genocide, not because they’re on a side. Having consistent wording is important because you should be able to speak the truth and still feel whatever you felt… it’s not about hating Israel. I guess the beginning of the article sort of captures that mindset.
it’s not about hating Israel.
Israel is working hard to turn the world agaisnt itself.
Once you learn the history, it is very hard to seeing aa anything but a brutal colonial project.
Jewish Jounral - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Jewish Jounral:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
Why? Is it not Hamas run? If it’s not Hamas run, then it shouldn’t be called Hamas run, but if it is Hamas run what’s the issue?
There was also a question of redundancy, as editors against the qualifier opined that it’s implied that Hamas runs Gaza and noted that Wikipedia doesn’t refer to the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as the “Israel-run” or “Netanyahu-run” IDF or the State Department as the “Democrat-run State Department.”
There’s a clear implicit meaning when saying “Hamas-run” that a lot of people in western countries would use to help discredit what’s actually going on there.
If it was the Hamas National Hospital I’d agree with you.
I’m afraid I’m not understanding. Can you elaborate?
Until I did homework on the situation in Gaza, I didn’t know Hamas* was de facto in charge, and arguably de jure.
The Wikipedia “redundancy” is designed for people like I was: completely ignorant on the topic.
That’s why people go to Wikipedia, to educate themselves quickly.
It would be like calling FEMA ‘democrat run’ when talking about the latest hurricane recovery efforts. It is literally true, but it is not relevant. To add it would only serve an editorial purpose, not a factual one.
Well here are the facts:
Hamas is officially recognized as a terrorist organization by most of the world.. 70+ countries, in fact.
It is absolutely relevant if a hospital was held hostage by terrorists.
There are about 180 countries in the world, so rather than most that’s little more than a third
Just shows that there’s no such thing as neutrality on anything contentious (wikis are in any case systemically unsuitable for contentious issues). Even when and how often to mention indisputably true things can be a form of taking sides.
