Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier

RFC - Gaza Health Ministry qualifier

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.

This discussion resulted in a consensus that the name of the Gaza Health Ministry should not be qualified with "hamas-run" or similar, unless the connection is otherwise discussed and relevant. The numbers are pretty clear on this (about 3:1). Evaluating the arguments provided, there is no policy basis to assess the consensus differently; those in favour of using the qualifier mainly rely on a numerical argument about sources, but this has been criticized on several points and is far from overriding enough to carry the RFC, considering the numerous well reasoned opposes. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

---

When data provided by Gaza Health Ministry is mentioned in prose should Gaza Health Ministry have a qualifier such as Hamas-run or Hamas-controlled? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey - Gaza Health Ministry qualifier

• Don't use As shown in the discussion at Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_44#"Hamas-run" 'Hamas-run' is unnecessary - the previous conflicts saw no need for it, and it is dehumanising propaganda. NadVolum (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Do not use as per @NadVolum reasoning. Daisytheduck ^{quack quack} 01:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Use a qualifier on first mention. When determining what is WP:DUE we are required to follow reliable sources. In this case, and for this war, the use of a qualifier is incredibly common (for example, the BBC, al Monitor, Le Monde, France24, Haaretz, Sky News, WION, Bloomberg, Arab News). For further evidence, see #Systematic review of reliable sources, where 58% of sources were found to qualify the relationship based on a review of all sources listed as reliable at WP:RSP Added 09:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC) For further evidence, done to address concerns that the list at WP:RSP was not representative, see #Systematic review of newspapers of record, where 68% of sources were found to qualify the relationship Added 11:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact that reliable sources didn't consider it necessary in previous wars, or that some editors dislike it, isn't relevant. I think it is also relevant that, as far as I know, every previous RfC on this question has found consensus to include it. BilledMammal (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources, not editors, in the discussion I pointed at. There's a list at the end. NadVolum (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• arabnews is a saudi run news outlet. Even in that sourcing, it does not explicitly state that the health org is hamas-run, only that it is in territory that is hamas run
• al-monitor is similar, only states that the ministry is in hamas-run territory
• BBC and other "reliable western" sources may have anti-palestinian bias. Obviously not disqualifying, but we should not use language that is clearly anti-palestinian in a conflict like this. Multiple journalists, including this Fulbright fellow [1], have suggested that hamas-run as a descriptor is a sign of bias

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I’m supporting a qualifier, not necessarily this qualifier. Arab News and Al-Monitor supports that.

As for the rest, the only question that is relevant is whether is a significant aspect, as assessed by its prevalence in reliable sources - and the clear answer to that is yes, and as such it would be inappropriate of us to exclude it. BilledMammal (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You forget that RS can be quite biased as per WP:BIASED SOURCES, but our job is to maintain neutrality. Our mission is not the same as theirs.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

We maintain neutrality by accurately reflecting reliable sources. We can't decide that reliable sources are collectively biased. BilledMammal (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The viewpoints we present must be sourced to RS, but the exact wording we use is determined by us, not by RS. For example, here you proposed using the wording "Gaza genocide question" and opposed "Gaza genocide", even though extremely few RS use the former wording but plenty RS use the latter wording. RS don't shy away from biased wordings because they are not constrained by WP:NPOV like we are. Also, consider the fact that MOS:WEASEL, MOS:Puffery etc are very commonly used by RS, but our policies (rightfully) tell us not to use such words. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 11:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that the al Monitor and Le Monde and Arab News articles are all AFP wire pieces. All that shows is that AFP uses that, not that those three sources do. nableezy - 07:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of wire services

Sources are attributed to two entities; the author, and the publisher. In those cases, the "author" is AFP, but the publisher is still al Monitor, Le Monde, and Arab News, who by publishing the piece have stated they stand by it and it complies with their editorial policies. They show that AFP, al Monitor, Le Monde, and Arab News use the term. BilledMammal (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC) Ill let a closer evaluate the mendacity of the claim that wire service articles that are reproduced in a number of sources are in fact multiple sources with multiple publishers. nableezy - 01:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC) To help the closer to that, see WP:SOURCE, which makes it clear we consider the work, the creator, the publication, and the publisher. Thus, the same work published in the Sun and the Washington Post is a different source, with the former unreliable and not contributing to WP:DUE and the latter being reliable and contributing to WP:DUE. There is no basis in policy to say that publication "didn't really mean it" when they published a work. BilledMammal (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC) This is so elementary that I cannot believe that anybody can argue about it in good faith. BilledMammal is arguing that this, this, and this for example are three independent sources. Never mind they are exact copies, with each attributing it to the Associated Press and merely reprinting their article. If you had a stronger argument you wouldnt need to pretend that wire agency reprints are actually multiple sources. And if somebody needs a WP: page to make them believe something obvious is true, see WP:NEWSORG: Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source. nableezy - 02:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict) The question we are considering is whether reliable publications consider it important to include a qualifier. Those are evidence that they do; if they thought it important to exclude the qualifier they would have removed it. However, if you think the evidence is weak, lets consider it in more depth. In the past week Le Monde has published 5 articles that mention "Health Ministry" and "Gaza". Of these, 4 qualify the relationship (1, 2, 3, 4). Two of these are published with AFP and two are published only by Le Monde. Only one does not, (1), published with AP. Note that there were five additional results that were behind subscription walls; the summary provided by google suggests that they all use a qualifier, but I have only included articles that I have been able to directly verify. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC) The first says "The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza said" which is not saying the health ministry is run by Hamas. But all this avoids the point, of course there are sources that qualify the ministry. There are also sources that do not. You are however pretending that a majority of sources support this, and to support that argument you count 3 or 5 or 10 times any single AFP wire service article based on how many times you can google it up. And that remains a completely bogus argument that I see no reason to continue engaging with. Let me know if you come up with something even a little bit more intellectually coherent. nableezy - 02:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC) Regarding the first, that is a qualifier - and unless you are arguing that you would accept a qualifier in that form then separating is, to quote you, a bogus argument. Let me know if you come up with something even a little bit more intellectually coherent. Like reviewing every relevant article published in the past week, and finding that 80% use a qualifier, and if limited to the ones that aren't published with a wire service 100% do (in the form "Ministry of Health in Hamas-administered Gaza" and "Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health")? BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC) It’s a qualifier of Gaza. And no, I don’t think you have reviewed "every relevant article published in the last week" and I decline to take such a claim seriously. nableezy - 03:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

To expand on what I've said here, subsequent discussion has found that French, German, and Spanish language sources generally qualify the relationship. This should add considerable weight to the argument that we need to include this under WP:NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Entirely untrue, and not even relevant nableezy - 01:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: The fact that reliable sources didn't consider it necessary in previous wars, [...], isn't relevant. The dispute over the Gaza Health Ministry didn't exist in previous wars. None of the articles in your !vote discuss it, but "Hamas-run" references, if not actively participates in it. The qualifier hides the fact that there even is a significant dispute, which fails WP:DUE. It's also not seen as WP:IMPARTIAL, because it's been phased out by roughly half of the news sources we use (see Nableezy's !vote). With all that in mind, using "Hamas-run" in Wikipedia's voice turns source bias into editorial bias, an NPOV violation. RAN1 (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. There have been multiple high-profile disputes involving the accuracy of casualty numbers, and high quality newspaper and newspapers of record (in multiple languages) have chosen to apply it repeated enough that everyone who has read about the conflict since Oct. 7 is likely aware of the label. While I think there is merit to discuss using phrasings such as "Hamas-influenced" or similar, and I myself believe that a first mention is enough, it's not an editorial bias if I can find almost any RS having used the label in the last year, and have only discontinued once almost everyone has become aware of it. We can't recency bias our way out of a broad label, if we have months of recent use. FortunateSons (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The news media were absolutely saturated with this label after the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion when a bunch of them plagiarized the "500 deaths" misquote from Al Jazeera English ([2] from #Death toll). Now several of them have dropped it, in spite of the current charges of Hamas-influenced falsification. That demonstrates no preference for or against those claims, which means that "Hamas-run" shows bias for those claims. This is a recent development, but it is what it is, and bringing that bias into Wikivoice is what NPOV is designed to prevent. RAN1 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Don't use - When attributing claims to IDF, we don't use "Israeli-run IDF". When attributing claims to Biden State Department or Trump White House, we don't use "Democrat-run state department" or "Republican run White House". If folks want to know more about the org and its controversies, they can always click on the link to the appropriate article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  we don't use "Israeli-run IDF"

  Because reliable sources don’t, probably because it’s obvious that Israel runs the Israeli Defence Forces. If they did, however, then we would need to defer to them in that too - if they think the information is important it would be a violation of NPOV for us to decide it’s not. BilledMammal (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  By that logic, I argue its obvious that Gaza Health Ministry is run by the government of Gaza, which is currently Hamas. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  And you’d be wrong to make that argument. KronosAlight (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal:, what about adding "Netanyahu-run" in front of IDF? Who runs IDF changes quite often depending on internal Israeli politics and RS do often mention Netanyahu (and sometimes also Gallant) when discussing IDF decisions.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  If reliable sources commonly use such a qualifier, then we need to do the same. I encourage you to open a discussion on that if you believe it is common. BilledMammal (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Uh, we do say stuff like "Obama administration" or "Bush administration", basically all the time, no? jp×g🗯️ 04:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Don't use as it gives a neutrality problem, imho. Secondly, is there any need for this department to be distinguished from other departments? The Banner talk 14:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't be bothered to read the discussions, so I'll just add this as a potentially dumb comment. Does this need to be a binary choice? If policy compliance depends on what sources do, then shouldn't we also sometimes include and sometimes exclude the qualifier in roughly the same proportion as the sources? Imagine having perfect information rather than the imperfect information available to us, an AI for example with access to every single RS that mentions the Gaza Health Ministry in the context of the war, with an understanding of our policies and an objective to optimize policy compliance across the topic area. What would it do? I'm not sure it would treat it as a choice between 0 or 1. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Use when mentioned for the first time in an article or section. We should follow the sources and u:BilledMammal showed that most of use this qualifier (more can be added The Guardian The NYT. It's not obvious at all to the reader that there are two different health ministries in Palestine and it's better to clarify the source of data. Alaexis_¿question? 19:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Using a NYT article from October 2023 is misleading as they have shifted to not saying Hamas run for months now. See for example this article from an hour ago where the ministry is attributed as "the Gaza Health Ministry" without any qualifier. nableezy - 03:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Not Use. Whether we like it or not, Gaza is a part of the Palestinian Territories, which, in principle, are run by the party elected to administer them (or, in the West Bank, bits and pieces). In the last election (2006) Hanas was democratically elected (it is irrelevant that a coup and counter-coup occurred. The coup was lost by the PA minority, and Hamas resumed its administration). We do not say that hospitals like the Al-Hussein Governmental Hospital in the West Bank are run by Fatah. We do not write of the Fatah-run Al-Quds University, or the Fatah-run Palestinian Ministry of Education etc.etc. The function of any qualifier is to isolate as a distinctive attribute what a writer thinks is an important characteristic, of the noun it precedes. Since 'Hamas' is almost exchangeable with 'terrorist'. what 'Hamas-run' does is to insinuate that every institution in the Gaza Strip has a terrorist operational administration. Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Do not use. Its inclusion is a violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels because Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization in the US, Israel, the UK, the EU, Japan, etc. The "Hamas-run" qualifier qualifies as a contentious label because it implies that the Gaza Health Ministry is a terrorist arm of Hamas. This is the exact rhetoric employed by Israel and US lawmakers to discredit the GHM's compilation of casualty data in the conflict, despite its acceptance as unbiased by others, such as the UN and the Biden administration. While Hamas being associated with terrorism is indisputable, any identifier suggesting direct influence over the GHM (as asserted by Israel and its political allies) is a blatant attempt to cast doubt on an otherwise reliable source. Unless the "Hamas-run" label for the GHM is immediately followed by a counterargument noting its recognition by other organizations or indicating which sources use the "Hamas-run" qualifier, it is extremely counterproductive. The widespread use of "Hamas-run GHM" in mainstream Western sources, including those deemed "generally reliable" on Wikipedia, is not an excuse for Wikipedia to accept their rhetoric wholesale (WP:VNOT). If there is a clear phrase of propaganda, we should either avoid it or attribute it to the source, as instructed by our guidelines. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Do not use: The Associated Press, Reuters, and The Guardian no longer include it. Also, this boilerplate has been used by the U.S. State Department to emphasize Hamas wrongdoing for 15 years ("Hamas-run" has shown up in every human rights report from 2018 to 2022, and as early as 2009). Using it makes articles appear biased. RAN1 (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Use - when the source of the data is affiliated with one of the belligerents we should strive to use other data where possible. When that is not possible, making clear to our readers that the data comes from an organization affiliated with a belligerent in the conflict is required per our policies. Readers should not be expected to click on the link Gaza Health Ministry to find out that the data they read came from an organization affiliated with Hamas. This is no different than a qualifier that a certain media is state-run being in the prose, because that shouldn't be something that a reader is expected to know. By not including the qualifier, we are making the assertion that the Gaza Health Ministry is an independent, trustworthy, and non-conflicted in interest source for the data. Which is in and of itself us introducing our own bias into the article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Berchanhimez: By not including the qualifier, we are making the assertion that the Gaza Health Ministry is an independent, trustworthy, and non-conflicted in interest source for the data. Attribution undermines that assertion pretty thoroughly, or else we'd have a lot of problems considering how many subordinate, untrustworthy and conflicted sources we cover. RAN1 (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  But attributing just to Gaza Health Ministry obfuscates the fact that it's not truly an independent organization. Attribution should not obfuscate/make something appear like something it's not, and when attributing to just Gaza Health Ministry the true provenance of the data is obfuscated. This isn't necessary with many attributions (such as IDF numbers), because that attribution makes clear it is from a conflicted party. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is no such thing as an independent ministry, and I expect that anybody who doesn't know will, at a minimum, skim the preview. RAN1 (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  We don't expect our users to even hover over a blue link to determine its true linked article, yet you think we should expect them to go read an entire article preview to determine that we're hiding pertinent information? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think you understand what I'm saying, a Gaza ministry must be subordinate to a Gaza government. There's nothing hidden about that. Those who aren't familiar with the term should find that out from Gaza Health Ministry, if not a dictionary. RAN1 (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is that attempting to obfuscate that Hamas is the government in Gaza does our readers no favors, and is obfuscating that pertinent detail from them. If it was called the Hamas Health Ministry for example, that would not require any additional qualifier. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's absurd, everybody who sees "Israel–Hamas war" is going to understand that Hamas ran Gaza, the qualifier's redundant. RAN1 (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am not sure which policies require an association qualifier. Even if there is one, it would still be deemed contentious due to Hamas's designation as a terrorist organization. More importantly, the GHM is not a belligerent in the Israel-Palestine conflict (a belligerent is one that performs direct aggression in a conflict), which means the "Hamas-run" label is malicious and misleading due to its implication of direct participation in aggression or terrorism. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• not required as it can be covered in the article on the topic. The Health ministry is part of the Hamas terrorist administration, but no need to state it all the time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use as a general rule, egregious adjective use detracts from the credibility of prose. Adjectives will be helpful in some situations, prose is infinitely variable, but that would be as a general prose consideration. Not even sure this adjective provides much clarity to a reader; is there a health ministry not run by its relevant government? CMD (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use As previous discussion and RS have shown, GHM figures are generally regarded as being the most reliable available, and are widely used by RS and various institutions worldwide, including I believe some Israeli ones. The addition is therefore redundant at best and at worst is intentionally discrediting a (broadly) reliable source - Since 'Hamas' is almost exchangeable with 'terrorist'. what 'Hamas-run' does is to insinuate that every institution in the Gaza Strip has a terrorist operational administration. Crediting to GHM is sufficient, just as we credit to IDF, not a 'loaded' characterisation of IDF's political pay-masters.Pincrete (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your analogy, Pincrete. For the IDF, what qualifier would be analogous to "Hamas-run"? Who are the IDF's political pay-masters? I don't think you're suggesting "Israeli-run Israel Defense Force". Not a rhetorical or antagonistic question... I wonder how Wiki designates agencies of other terrorist-designated entities, which could be used for guidance here. The only one I can think of that has operational administrations is the Taliban; unsure if they're still terrorists though.--FeralOink (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Likud? Not everyone in the Knesset talks about Amalek, or at least I'd hope not. NadVolum (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure that a 'loaded' descriptor of the current Israeli administration could be arrived at - the Israeli govt's present reputation for factual accuracy generally is probably lower than GHM's reputation for accurate casualty figures (as far as such figures can ever be accurate in an ongoing conflict zone). Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Use limited I agree with Alaexis's suggestion, to use only when mentioned for the first time in an article or section.--FeralOink (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use routinely. The information that the health ministry is an organ of the Hamas government is fair game for mention, but attaching it to each mention as a badge of shame would be a serious NPOV violation. Zero^talk 10:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use: Because of the strong negative association of Hamas, to avoid a blatant NPOV violation we'd have to also mention that GHM is regarded as generally reliable by the UN and most media. Obviously we can't say that GHM statistics are accurate, given the inhuman conditions for their work caused by the Israeli attacks, but there seems to be no evidence that any inaccuracies are intentional. The best way to avoid an NPOV violation is not to use the qualifier at all. NightHeron (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't necessarily use. I oppose Alaexis' and FeralOink's suggestion that every article must use "Hamas-run" on the first mention of GHM. In some articles, there is no reason to mention GHM's connection to Hamas. In other articles (such as Gaza Health Ministry's own article) we might need to repeatedly explore this connection.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Use at first instance, supporting the arguments made by @BilledMammal and @Berchanhimez. I see no strong policy-based arguments for its complete removal. Doing so would result in relevant information being hidden from readers, and result in a source (the GHM) being presented as neutral when it is known not to be. It has been argued that there is no prefix for the IDF, but this is obviously unnecessary. The current system follows reliable sources, such as the BBC and a host of other sources. I implore the closer to disregard arguments that such sources are 'biased'. An RFC is not the place to cast aspersions on sources widely deemed reliable, and such remarks should not be used to justify dismissing such sources here. I also oppose the argument that stating it is Hamas-run is counter to WP:NPOV. This is a useful, factual and (as deemed by a host of reliable sources) necessary prefix when first identifying the GHM, and aids readers in understanding the provenance. Domeditrix (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Which reliable sources claim the GHM is not "neutral"? (Neutral in the sense of not intentionally inflating the death toll to make the public sympathize with Palestinians much more instead of Jews.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Analysis from Action on Armed Violence indicates that the death tolls provided may be inflated.

  "the announced total number of Gazans killed in the war, now exceeding 33,000, may seem plausible but it is not a documented fact. This figure includes roughly 13,000 deaths that have, apparently, been entered into an unavailable database using an unknown methodology. The short description of sources contributing to this figure has just shifted from “reliable media sources” to that plus first responders. First responders can, potentially, provide useful estimates of numbers of people, (e.g., trapped under rubble). However, victims covered by such estimates might eventually be captured by the hospital system and/or be reported through the publicly available form. Thus, we should dismiss the common claim that, because many of the dead are trapped under rubble or are missing for other reasons, the announced totals are undercounts. To the contrary, there seem to be at least two channels, aside from hospitals, through which such deaths can be captured."

  [3]https://aoav.org.uk/2024/analysis-of-new-death-data-from-gazas-health-ministry-reveals-several-concerns/ Domeditrix (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  And this report says nothing about the GHM not being neutral or "Hamas-run". And being published in April 2024, this report is kinda dwarfed by Lancet's estimated actual death toll of more than 186k published on July 5, 2024.[4] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  'The Lancet' did not estimate 186k casualties. It was a letter published in The Lancet. The letter was neither peer-reviewed, endorsed or verified by The Lancet. To frame it as "Lancet's estimated death toll" is entirely disingenuous and I request that you retract this comment. Domeditrix (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am not retracting it. The letter was accepted by The Lancet and published on its website, after all. Why would The Lancet bother to publish it if it's a careless multiplication as criticized by Spagat? As if the whole war in Gaza hasn't attracted enough controversies already. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  The Lancet regularly publishes letters. They are not in the same section as it's peer-reviewed papers, nor are their contents verified or 'accepted'. Many journals and newspapers publish letters, this is nothing new. The argument that the publication of a piece of correspondence constitutes an endorsement of any and all figures contained within that correspondence is entirely disingenuous. I could go on, but won't, as we're verging into WP:FORUM. I only hope the closer sees the quality of arguments such as the above for what they are, appeals to authority that don't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Domeditrix (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  First thing first, my original reply for you was a demand for a reliable source which directly criticizes the GMH not being neutral. The AOAV opinion is utterly irrelevant because it does not say Hamas is the reason for what Spagat perceived as "straining credibility". If you want quality argument, come back with a reliable source which explicitly condemns proves Hamas's tampering with the GHM's death toll. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC) 22:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Guess we could drop any further stuff into the discussion section at this point? Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  How can it be “neutral” when it’s administered by an armed terrorist group currently a belligerent in an ongoing war? KronosAlight (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  This Fathom article seems to be one of the more credible sources alleging manipulation, not so much in the data reported by hospitals and morgues, but particularly in the recent data from media sources and the Google form. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  Still an outlier (see the NYT report below, it falls in the category "While the health ministry’s tally is broadly accepted, its ability to keep records has been undermined by the severe damage to the health sector caused by Israeli airstrikes and fighting, and some experts have questioned elements of the ministry’s methodology and data." (my bolding). Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  An this is another reason to properly explain this issue somewhere in articles and not simply use the blunt instrument, "Hamas-run", which explains nothing at all. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  The AOAV report unfortunately made a wrong assumption as far as I can see. If you look at Israel-Hamas war: Gaza's morgue network has effectively collapsed - how are they recording their dead? the forms can only be used to identify dead people. They do not contribute to the total recorded deaths. It is an easy mistake but it makes most of what is said above invalid. One can have identified dead people who are not amongst the recorded deaths. NadVolum (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Another difference between recorded deaths and identified deaths, as far as I'm aware, is that identified deaths can include people buried under the rubble whereas recorded deaths is only for bodies which have actually been seen. The systems are for different purposes - the recorded deaths is for overall statistics whereas the identified deaths is to give closure and also is used to help widows claim support when their husbands die. Their 'unidentified' figure of recorded minus identified is rather hazy in meaning as it leaves out the different contribution of the missing on each side. NadVolum (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Don't use - and the claim that it is most commonly used in reliable sources may have once been true but it no longer is. Recounting a prior comment I made about this issue, most reliable sources have dropped the "Hamas-run" for the health ministry. For example, from that comment, the Washington Post stopped using it, as did the NYTimes, same for Reuters, neither does CNN, nor NBC News or Al-Jazeera, or the AP or al-Ahram. The weight of sources has shifted here, and as reliable sources have largely acknowledged both the accuracy of the material coming from the GMH along with the fact that it is staffed by medical professionals they have simply attributed to the Health Ministry sans any "Hamas-run" well-poisoning. Of course Hamas is the government of Gaza, and of course a government's ministries are run by that government, but the same is true for all the Israeli ministries we cite for the number of dead or held hostage or whatever else. But we simply say "Israel Ministry of Health" or "Israeli Ministry of Defense" and so on. nableezy - 22:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not accurate. For example, even in the Reuters article you quote, a qualifier is used: the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory said

I'm not set on qualifying it as "Hamas-run", but some qualifier is warranted. BilledMammal (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the territory of Gaza is run by Hamas, the GHM however is run by professionals. And sources of all stripes have found their reporting to be accurate and to, at this stage, attribute it just to the ministry. nableezy - 03:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I wonder which article mentioning the GHM isn't about the Gaza Strip and its governing body, except for disambiguation page (and disambiguation page would not justify such qualifier due to its ever-changing governing body.) If you really want a qualifier, I would suggest a qualifier which highlights the global recognition of the GHM for reporting unbiased casualty data in conflicts, much less contentious and readily supported by a lot of quality sources. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This is approaching a farce. When we speak of Mao, should we add the prefix of the "the all-knowing, gracious, kind and loving"? There are a lot of sources that describe him as such. Domeditrix (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ll also add that we don’t preface Israeli settlement with "illegal" whenever it is mentioned, we don’t do this type of attempt at poisoning the well with anything really. We have wikilinks and when a user wants more information on what an Israeli settlement is they click the link. The same is true here. nableezy - 13:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Do not use - from the evidence I've seen, the description is more misleading than it is accurate. Further, the fact that it may have been prominent in RS for a certain period (i) is no longer true and (ii) has been shown by higher-quality sources to have been part of a strategy of othering and marginalizing one party (and viewpoint) in the Israel-Paleatine conflict by another party in that conflict. Surely by now we know better and can achieve a higher level of WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use, given that New York Times, Washington Post, CNN etc. do not use it either. --Andreas JN466 05:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is simply not true, see these 2024 articles [5] [6]. Alaexis_¿question? 06:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  These are old. I checked articles published in the last month. Andreas JN466 09:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Here's (NYT today) No "Hamas-run" anywhere, instead

  "The Gaza Health Ministry on Tuesday said that more than 38,000 people had been killed in Gaza since the start of the conflict, and nearly 90,000 others had been injured. The ministry does not offer separate counts of fighters and noncombatants, but it has said consistently that most of the dead have been civilians.

  Just as with the numbers cited by Israel, there was no way to independently confirm the ministry’s. Those numbers also showed that the rate of deaths in the war had slowed in recent months.

  While the health ministry’s tally is broadly accepted, its ability to keep records has been undermined by the severe damage to the health sector caused by Israeli airstrikes and fighting, and some experts have questioned elements of the ministry’s methodology and data. The ministry has periodically cautioned that there are doubtless bodies under the ruins of collapsed buildings that have not been found and added to the toll."

  This is a more nuanced assessment of the case and is the sort of thing that could be included in a Background section, say. Selfstudier (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  I will add one more thing. MOS:LABEL requires us to lean towards avoiding contentious labels. "Hamas-controlled" (incl. "Hamas-run" and variants thereof, applied to the ministry or the territory) is a label that clearly is contentious. We have sources taking the view that it dehumanises Palestinian victims and characterising it as a part of Israeli propaganda transported by many Western sources (Germany being a particularly extreme example) – even though the UN, the WHO, human rights organisations, and indeed the Israeli intelligence services, judge the Gaza health ministry' figures (as distinct from the Hamas government media office's figures) to be reliable and to reflect a bona-fide effort by Palestinian medical professionals to arrive at accurate data on the death toll. [7]

  Given that BilledMammal's research has shown that a majority of recent English-language articles do not use the qualifier, we should follow their example.

  And by leaving the label off, what is the worst charge that can be laid at our feet? That we are following the same policy as Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN. Pshaw! I say we are in good company. Andreas JN466 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is no basis in policy to prefer English-language sources - and to do so would be WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS (further, the preference is solely among American English-language sources, and referring to such sources to the exclusion of the rest of the world would be highly problematic.) BilledMammal (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Do not use, the ministry is run by professionals and its data has been considered reliable by all parties in the conflict. Singling out the ministry as "Hamas-run" makes it appear like the terrorist group has more influence on the ministry's data than it actually has. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Use in first instance per BilledMammal. — Czello ^(music) 07:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Do not use Although this qualifier has been repeatedly added across a number of articles, it is notable that the most well attended article of them all, the main war article, Israel-Hamas war, and where there have been several discussions about the matter, does not, despite it's size, contain a single usage (other than in some references). I posit that is because there is no consensus to add it, it's not helpful, the purpose seems only to be to cast doubt on the casualty figures. Personally, I have no objection to an explanation, such as "Gaza’s ruling authority, Hamas, controls the Health Ministry" appearing once in some suitable place (Background, for example) but not the mindless application of "Hamas-run" at every conceivable opportunity or even at first mention of "Gaza Health Ministry". Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  It was removed, despite an RFC consensus to include it, a couple of weeks ago, apparently without anyone noticing. I’ve now restored it. BilledMammal (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, you can edit war to your heart's content, it could be a good idea to wait for the outcome here, tho, don't you think? Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  A single edit to restore an RFC consensus isn’t edit warring, although attempts to edit against the consensus after the consensus is restored would be.

  Plus, a general result here isn’t going to overturn a specific result - any specific consensus to include or exclude can't be seen as having been overridden by a general consensus which fails to consider the specific circumstances, such as if the ministries credibility is seen as particularly dubious for a specific event. BilledMammal (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Notice that your reversion was immediately challenged, that consensus was not focused primarily on the "Hamas-run" aspect and there have been several discussions since end 2023, so WP:CCC, why we are here. Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  People can challenge all they like, but they will need a specific RFC to overturn the existing consensus - this general one won’t, even if it finds a consensus to not use, any more than it would overturn the specific RFC consensuses that some editors have alleged (but never proven) to exist that say not to use. BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the RFC opener here is the same that opened that other RFC and I am sure they will specifically rule on that entirely dubious claim. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  lol, if this finds to not use the qualifier it will certainly be applied, and no amount of wikilawyering is going to trump that. You can try, but I would have no problem reporting tendentious editing if I saw such a thing. nableezy - 14:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is a broader community consensus will supplant lower level local consensus, per WP:CONLEVEL. The purpose of this RFC is to avoid arguments over local consensus all over the place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't believe an RFC at NPOVN has a higher WP:CONLEVEL than an RFC at an individual article.

  Note that I'm only talking about formal discussions; while this won't prevent those - and can't prevent those, both because it isn't policy and because the specifics are relevant - it should settle the vast majority of discussions which are informal. BilledMammal (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  How could a centralized noticeboard RfC not have a higher level of consensus than an RfC at an article Talk page? WP:CONLEVEL seems rather clear about this. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  As centralized noticeboards go, this is a minor one. For example, there are more active page watchers at Talk:Israel-Hamas war, where one of the RfC's was held, than at this noticeboard.

  However, my main point is that we are not writing policy. Guidelines allow for exceptions, and this, as something below a guideline, will allow for even more; any consensus we form here will be able to overruled by more specific dicussions, and thus cannot overrule former more specific discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Good luck with that one. nableezy - 00:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  BilledMammal, what you describe is simply not the way WP:CONLEVEL works. Depending on the way the present RfC is formally closed, it can "vacate" the results of prior LOCALCONSENSUS RfCs that conflict with the closure. That's one of the main purposes these noticeboards serve.

  In particular, this RfC is very likely to result in the exclusion of "Gaza-run" from the footnote to which you restored it in Israel-Hamas war. In that instance, the two or three options editors considered in the RfC all included "Hamas-run", so editors were not actually expressing an opinion about the descriptor in the RfC process. It is therefore difficult to see even a plausible LOCALCONSENSUS on that issue.

  (Dark kudos to whoever formulated that RfC, which channeled editors to select among options that could be taken as endorsing "Hamas-run" without actually asking them to consider the question.) Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like that was @Nableezy: who wasn't intending to mean about the Hamas-run part of the edits they were pointing at as they have a definite don't use above. Pity, I'd like to have an identified agent of the dark side :-) NadVolum (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  At the time the sourcing was more supportive of the usage of such a label, but that’s changed. The NYT and Washington Post have both changed since then for example. The articles that have found the ministry’s data both accurate and not subject to some nefarious influence by Hamas have come out. And, for the purposes of that RFC the question was only about placement of the attribution, and at the time the attribution was Hamas-run GHM or there abouts. The RFC was not about Hamas-run, it was about how each party’s numbers should appear in the infobox. And nothing about it should be presented as support anything other than attributing the numbers in a footnote and not inline. nableezy - 20:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's always reassuring when the work of possible dark side agents turns out to be simply a sequence of innocent mistakes. :) Newimpartial (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am still waiting for a link to this supposed RFC consensus, as every discussion I can find, including in the Israel-Hamas War article, either ended in no-consensus or consensus to not include the descriptor. --Cdjp1 (talk) 13:40 19 July 2024 (UTC), 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose use as this is unnecessary; the Gaza health ministry figures are reliable according to most scientific papers that have dealt with the topic, including the prestigious Lancet, as well as the US and even Israel itself (contrary to their public denial). Makeandtoss (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use. Qualifiers and hedges like this aren't appropriate unless there's a really strong majority of RS that do the same. The evidence furnished by other participants (particularly RAN1 and Nableezy) demonstrates that sources are not using this qualifier widely enough for Wikipedia to be able to neutrally adopt it; in fact, the evidence shows that even sources that have previously used it are beginning to move away from that practice. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use As articulated by Bluethricecreamman, the Gaza Health Ministry is already understood to be run by the area's governing authority, Hamas. Arguments for including this descriptor claim that the GHM inflates Palestinian deaths, but if editors truly believe that the GHM's figures are objectively incorrect, then they must focus on depreciating GHM as a reliable source, rather than resorting to associating the area's only governmental health authority with a designated terrorist group. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use by default. It can be mentioned when it is directly and demonstrably relevant to the context. Typically, we should only mention it when a Reliable Source has explicitly claimed that it forms the basis of a conflict of interests concerning the specific matter we are covering. In such cases we should explain the alleged conflict of interests explicitly, not merely imply or insinuate it. It should not be mentioned gratuitously. In many articles even a single mention would be undue. We should not take our steer from the way that some media outlets are repeatedly using the term, which is a form of well poisoning. They should know better and we do know better. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use by default per DanielRigal unless directly relevant to the context. Nableezy and RAN1 have demonstrated that reliable sources have moved away from the term despite using it in the past. We should mirror them. Meanwhile VR in the below discussion shows the lack of context of using the term due to the structure of the ministry not being fully under Hamas. starship.paint (RUN) 00:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Use in first mention in all sections. Many users point to sources that rely on the figures, however, every source that uses this preface does so for a good reason- to give the reader the facts on the ground so they can decide what they think of the info on their own, and Wikipedia should do the same.
  

As far as whether the wording is redundant and therefore biased (like 'Netanyahu run IDF' would be)- that's simply untrue. There's an important distinction: Hamas' designation by many as a terrorist organization. The average reader is not familiar with terrorist groups running countries, but is quite familiar with most regular countries and ministries, regarding which their opinion on the trustworthiness of ministries may be greater. This reality leads to a real possibility of subconsciously, or even consciously, disassociating the GHM ("Ministry") from Hamas ("terrorist group"). By reiterating that designation, we're allowing for a fully conscious opinion to be formed as the reader's personal decision on whether to trust those numbers (by the way, I suspect many users who voted 'use' had this logic at heart, it's just difficult to verbalize). JoeJShmo^💌 04:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

There are many unsupported assumptions in your comment.

• "...every source that uses this preface does so for a good reason- to give the reader the facts on the ground..." - unsupported assumption
• "that's simply untrue" - not possible to know whether it is true or false
• "The average reader is not familiar with..." - unsupported assumption
• "...but is quite familiar with..." - unsupported assumption
• "...leads to a real possibility of..." - unsupported assumption
• "...I suspect many users...had this logic at heart" - unsupported assumption

This doesn't seem like a good way to make content decisions because it has no dependencies on sources, policies and guidelines. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Use in first mention because that is how it's commonly depicted in sources and because it's accurate. Not liking it is not a reason to omit this. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Unnecessary there is no other Gaza Health Ministry with which this one can be confused. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Always use in first mention, use sometimes in other cases (when related to the conflict, broadly construed) We should use in the first mention, particularly if any (even one) RS uses it for this case (english-speaking or not, to the best of my knowledge, there is no significant distinction in it's meaning). Per the arguments made above, particularly by @Alaexis, @BilledMammal and @Domeditrix, the qualifier has broad support by RS, and an argument can be made that many of the more "sophisticated" newspapers simply believe that everyone who reads them is already aware of the connection, an assumption we cannot make. Arguably, an exception can be made in the rare cases where there is no relation to the conflict, insofar as it also does not include any internal conflict, like against Fatah. Regarding RS use, International sources continue using the qualifier, for example in Germany:

1. Hamas kontrollierte Gesundheitsministerium by Deutschlandfunk
2. Gesundheitsministerium in Gaza, das von der Hamas kontrolliert wird by Der Spiegel (website)
3. Hamas kontrollierte Gesundheitsministerium im Gazastreifen by Tagesschau (German TV programme)
4. das von der radikal-islamistischen Terrororganisation Hamas kontrollierte Gesundheitsministerium by ZDF
5. der Hamas kontrollierten Gesundheitsministerium in Gaza by Neue Zürcher Zeitung
6. Hamas geleitete Gesundheitsministerium by Jüdische Allgemeine
7. von der islamistischen Hamas kontrollierte Gesundheitsministerium im Gazastreifen by Die Zeit
8. Hamas geführte Gesundheitsministerium Gazas by Frankfurter Rundschau
9. Hamas kontrollierte Gesundheitsministerium by Stuttgarter Zeitung
10. Hamas-Gesundheitsministeriums im Gazastreifen by Rheinische Post
11. Hamas kontrollierte Gesundheitsministerium by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

(Text added for German speakers, but the relevant words mostly translate well)

To ignore it would be a Wikipedia:Systemic bias towards English-language sources, which is already an issue on enwiki.FortunateSons (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

See #Responses to FortunateSons vote, moved down. RAN1 (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Use on first mention as that is how RS depict the ministry, and there isn't any reason not to spell it out for those who may not be aware of the connection. Let'srun (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use, though the affiliation can be mentioned nearby if it's directly relevant. The reason for not using is a combination of reliable sources having moved away from this description, the WP:NPOV issues with requiring a specific WP:LABEL for every mention of a certain source that is nevertheless generally considered reliable even by sources that do use the label, and the point by VR below that to say it's run by Hamas ignores that Fatah has significant influence over it in ways that are not usual for a government body. Loki (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• I think it's generally okay to refer the GHM without such qualifiers, however it might be important to include for balance in certain cases. For example, Gaza genocide currently says "deemed reliable by prominent and independent organisations"; changing that to "which operates under the auspices of the Hamas government, but has been deemed reliable ..." would certainly be more neutral. I'd prefer just leaving out both bits of information (in most articles, besides Gaza Health Ministry), but if or when we do get into GHM reliability at all, we should include some relevant facts on both sides and let the reader decide. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  "operates under Hamas, but is reliable" is a prime example of MOS:OP-ED, as it suggests that Hamas is not reliable (which is likely not what sources say). — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  MOS:OP-ED is more about wording, not so much which facts are included. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Don't use. Civil service ≠ party. At most, say: "the Health Ministry of the Hamas-administered enclave" or similar; but this would also be poor style, as that would be akin to sticking in "Democrat", "Labour", etc., when referring to the US or UK public administration. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hamas isn't equivalent to the Democratic party or the Labour party, as in Gaza the lines between the party and state are blurred, to the extent where Gaza doesn't have an army but Hamas does. The closest equivalent would the Nazi or Iraqi Baathist parties, and it wouldn't be poor style or uncommon to stick "Nazi" or "Baathist" when referring to the German or Iraqi public administration. BilledMammal (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  Argumentum ad Hitlerum is always poor style, and let's don't argue which country is termed as apartheid state or viewed as carrying out a genocide. However, comparisons of the Gaza resistance movement with Sinn Féin/IRA or with Polish Underground State/Polish Home Army seem more apt to me. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstood the point, which is that when the lines between the party and the state become blurred it stops being poor style or uncommon to clarify the parties involvement in ministries and departments.

  However, even if we consider your examples, if the IRA or the Polish Underground State controlled a ministry, it would not be poor style to clarify that with "IRA-run" or similar, as readers are likely to assume otherwise. BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Depends on the perspective. Communities fighting for survival usually can't afford political pluralism, and simply support and empower the strongest leader. That's perfectly normal (also it's a phenomenon widely employed around the world, when external threats are used to cement the community around its current leader). Pluralism and participatory democracy are not a good system during wartime. I'm far from blaming the Gazans, living in an open prison, that they've centred around, and empowered, a single leader.

  By the way, Gaza administration is a mix of officials who include both people supportive of Fatah and those supportive of Hamas.[8] Still, it's not something I'm willing to spend much time on. As long as our countries are ruled by unelected kings and queens, Britain maintains an unelected upper chamber, US Supreme Court judges pledge allegiance to their respective political parties, and members of Germany's Federal Constitutional Court are appointed by the ruling politicians – we have no moral right to complain about Gaza administration. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Don't use per Bluethricecreamman and others. M.Bitton (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Stick to the sources if the source uses it, an editor may use the qualifier if they wish. If the in line source for the information does not qualify Hamas, stick to the source and don’t use it. Using the qualifier all the time in an article is redundant.Wafflefrites (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use seeing that usage is mixed in RS's per Andreas JN466 and Selfstudier. Additionally, per ChaoticEnby, as the GHM has been deemed generally reliable by Israeli and international parties, I fail to see how the addition of "Hamas-run" would be an improvement to relevant articles. Clarification of the GHM's political status are (presumably) well-covered in its own article. ArkHyena (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Use in first mention per billedmammals. FOARP (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Use the qualifier. Yes, everyone participating in this discussion knows the relationship between the government of Gaza and Hamas, but this is an encyclopedia read by (English-speaking) people throughout the world and we shouldn't assume that what is familiar to us is known to everyone else. Not everybody pays attention to this sort of thing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Even though you're not the first one in this RFC to use this argument, it is unimaginable that it comes from an active admin. This is one of the weakest excuses to justify a qualifier. Not only is this not tangibly supported by any of our editorial guidelines or policies, but the NPOV requires us to think critically about all information in the cited sources. The appeal to readers' ignorance is a sure way to encourage all kinds of POV qualifiers as long as the editor feels it would "benefit our readers." We don't do that for other terms, but suddenly it is justified for the GHM when the label only tells a deceptively partial truth. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Using the qualifier is consistent with the guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources, which says, "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in 'The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...'; 'According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...'; or 'The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...'." By the same token, it's not wrong to call the Gaza Health Ministry "Hamas-run". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oh my eyes. You are altering guidelines to fit your stance. WP:INTEXT only requires a statement to be attributed, not the attribution itself. All examples given in the in-text section do not have any qualifier to the attribution, e.g. the acceptable expression John Rawls argues that, to reach fair decisions, parties must consider matters as if behind a veil of ignorance do noy have any qualifier for "John Rawls". The same guideline also stresses that do not make misleading in-text attribution, and the Hamas label fits this description. You are citing a guideline which works against yourself, and your way of argument truly gives me shivers. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody is altering guidelines. You are attempting to deflect by referencing a completely different guideline and saying "but this other guideline that isn't about attributing the bias of a source doesn't say we should attribute the bias of the source!" Well, duh. Our guideline on reliable sources isn't going to address behavioral problems, but that doesn't mean they aren't problems. The three examples given by WP:BIASED are as follows: "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". - note how all of them include "charged" labels to adequately identify the bias for those who, for example, don't know Betty Friedan was a feminist, or Harry Magdoff was a Marxist, or Barry Goldwater was a conservative/Republican? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  All these examples are people's names and do not have their provenance or positions spelled out in their names, unlike the "Gaza Health Ministry". WP:INTEXT makes it very clear that When using in-text attribution, make sure it doesn't lead to an inadvertent neutrality violation. If our readers don't know about "Gaza", quite frankly they are unlikely to have heard about Hamas either. Of course this argument is equally outrageous based upon an unfounded assumption of our reader's ignorance. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't a neutrality violation. In fact, trying to obfuscate their provenance by saying "Gaza" is sufficient, when in reality, the bias comes from the fact they are controlled by one of the belligerents in the conflict - that is the neutrality violation. It does not matter what you assume our readers have/have not heard of. If there is a bias, we identify the bias with an identifier before attributing the source if it is not already attributed. If they were entitled the "Hamas Health Ministry" then sure, that would be adequate. But they aren't, and by claiming "Gaza" identifies their bias enough for our readers, you are trying to obfuscate the potential/actual bias that exists. Thus, you are the one arguing to violate neutrality, simply because you don't like the fact that the numbers should not be trusted as entirely independent. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  The majority of sources explicitly say the GHM is not biased. It is getting very very old. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  If there is an organization deserving some kind of qualifier much more than the GHM, it should be the Anti-Defamation League. In both antisemitism and BDS movement, the ADL is not attached by any qualifier at all, even though its name doesn't imply their primary field of anti-antisemitism and the widespread criticism against ADL for conflating any genuine criticism against Israel with antisemitism. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  The same guideline also stresses that do not make misleading in-text attribution, and the Hamas label fits this description.

  How is it misleading? Sources are in agreement that the Gaza Health Ministry is administrated by the Hamas government. Further, this argument seems solely focused on a single form of attribution - "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry" - and cannot apply to alternatives, such as "the Gaza Health Ministry, an agency in the Hamas-controlled government". BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Because Israeli official openly forced journalists to attach the Hamas label in an attempt to discredit the GMH's figures, when the GHM's figures are in fact considered reliable. When Hasan refused to comply, his show got terminated by MSNBC. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  That doesn't explain why it is misleading, and we don't exclude information on the basis that the Israeli's want it included, any more than we exclude information on the basis that the Palestinians want it included.

  Instead, we conform to reliable sources, excluding information that reliable sources exclude and including information reliable sources include. In this case, with a substantial majority of reliable sources including a qualifier, that means including a qualifier. BilledMammal (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am not repeating the same thing over and over again. If our policies demand us to regurgitate everything written by the reliable source without critical thinking, this RfC wouldn't even be allowed to proceed at all. VNOT: A source being considered "generally reliable" does not guarantee inclusion. The Hamas label is solely for conforming to Israeli propaganda to downplay the casualties of the Palestinians. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  VNOT only means that verifiability alone is not reason to include information. It doesn’t permit us to exclude information that reliable sources collectively think it’s important, but we dislike because it doesn’t advance our POV.

  What you are advocating here is for using the judgement of editors to decide what views and aspects are and aren’t significant. NPOV explicitly forbids this.

  If you have evidence that including a qualifier isn’t the majority view, then present it and we can discuss - otherwise, I’m going to step back from this discussion, as your arguments are contrary to policy and aren’t worth engaging with. BilledMammal (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Nah. According to that POV, we don't need editors, robots (or AI) could decide the issue. We have editors for a reason. Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey - Gaza Health Ministry qualifier - Break One

• Don't use: it's unnecessary; as demonstrated by others already (even, ironically, by proponents of using it, as noted below), RS generally don't use it, and outside of the article on the ministry itself — which can go into reasonable detail about its governance (which is notably much more complex than just "Hamas runs it" / "it's Hamas-run") — such a descriptor would AFAICT generally be an UNDUE detail and also improperly introduce bias, as other editors have amply discussed above. Some editors favoring using the descriptor have shown that some RS have used it (often just single wire-service articles which they erroneously seek to present and count every copy of as a separate source), but since other editors have shown that many of those RS no longer use it, or didn't actually use it before (e.g., below it is discussed that an editor counted sources that said the ministry didn't distinguish types of death as if those sources supported saying the ministry was Hamas-run, but...those are obviously different statements), even the evidence provided by proponents of the qualifier actually (embarassingly) supports the idea that the qualifier is unnecessary. In addition, as other editors noted with regard to the few RS which do use the descriptor, it's OK for RS to have biases and use biased language (as long as they are still reliable), but we are required to maintain a 'Neutral' Point of View i.e. one based on the perspective of the totality of sources, which consider the ministry's data reliable and have not been shown to consider qualify in this particular way. I see some concern has also been raised about the fact that the descriptor is somewhat inaccurate or misleading, since as mentioned above, the running of the ministry is rather more complicated than just "Hamas runs it". In general, the case for using the qualifier, at least as presented by its proponents here, is weak and even illusory, based on misrepresentations, whereas the case for forgoing it seems firmly grounded in our sources and policies. -sche (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think you’ve misunderstood the evidence presented. Currently 58% of reliable sources use some form of "Hamas-run" - in other words, RS generally do use it. (And 68% do when we consider a less Anglo-centric sample of sources Added 13:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)) BilledMammal (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  The idea that it is possible to quantify the percentage of sources here is preposterous. You don’t include OCHA, or academic experts or any number of reliable sources. The very most any person can say is that among the sources they have themselves selected to survey, they have found some percentage of those to use such a thing. Anything beyond that is an absurd claim to make. nableezy - 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  My selection was of all sources listed a "generally reliable" at WP:RSP. If you believe you have a better method of selecting a representative sample of reliable sources then I encourage you to use it - but until then to the best of our knowledge a majority of reliable sources use a qualifier, and our articles must reflect that. BilledMammal (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  But it doesn’t include Amnesty International. It doesn’t include OCHA or any number of reliable sources. And RSP is about sources that have perennially been discussed, not a listing of ones that are reliable. nableezy - 17:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  The large majority of reliable sources are not on WP:RSP. RSP contains very few local papers and basically zero peer-reviewed scientific sources. It's great for major mainstream media but it should not at all be taken as a list of all reliable sources out there. Loki (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  using a percentage like this is ludicrous, unless if you have a full sheet available showing your search criterion, inclusion/exclusion criterion, and how you set it up. WP should also not be doing what the majority does, the community should do what is correct according to our own guidelines anyways. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  The search criterion was to search each sources website for articles from the past week using "Gaza" and "Health Ministry". For example, the BBC. Text articles were reviewed, with ones that were opinion, or syndicated (per Nableezy's previous arguments, and the more recent arguments by editors like sche), were excluded.

  NPOV requires us to treat aspects in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. In this case, where there is a simple question of whether to include or exclude the aspect, we do that by following the majority of reliable sources; to do otherwise would be to treat the aspect disproportionately. BilledMammal (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  You keep talking about balancing aspects, and it’s actually enlightening as to why this is a thing. You are presenting "Hamas-controlled" as though it balances the MOH's statistics, but those are not balancing aspects unless one is attempting to poison the well. And straightforwardly so given your claim that this is needed for balance. But one thing has nothing to do with the other, and given the wide acceptance of the MOH's stats, which is relevant to a discussion of those statistics, there is greater cause to include that they are seen as reliable than there is to include the Hamas-run meme. A meme that reliable sources have largely abandoned. nableezy - 10:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Maintaining a neutral point of view requires that, when the information we present to readers may be biased, we identify that potential bias. As an extreme example, no qualifier is needed to attribute "the Earth is a sphere" because there is no legitimate, scientific dispute to that claim. Those arguing the Earth is flat are doing so based on unscientific data that is not accepted. However, in this case, the data being presented is sourced to an organization that is controlled by a belligerent in the conflict, and, while considered reliable, is also questioned as to the impact the belligerent has on the staffers producing this data. So in fact, it is not "neutral" to avoid the qualifier - it is supporting the one side by eliminating the qualifier. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 08:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear: you are arguing that the Gaza Health Ministry is a belligerent in the conflict? I don't see it listed as such in the infobox. Newimpartial (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Please feel free to point out anything I said that makes you think I’ve claimed that the organization themselves is a belligerent. I’ve made very clear that we must not consider only whether the organization itself is a belligerent, but whether their financial, administrative, or other control is a belligerent. Attempting to misrepresent what I’m saying like this is disruptive. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 09:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  To answer that: what B. said was, ... is also questioned as to the impact the belligerent has on the staffers producing this data. So in fact, it is not "neutral" to avoid the qualifier - it is supporting the one side by eliminating the qualifier. In this context it sounded to me as though you were suggesting that the GHM is, or might be, releasing data that has been "impacted" by the propaganda goals of "the belligerent". To me this is hard to distinguish from treating the GHM as a belligerent.

  In any event, I haven't seen any RS support for the idea that GHM data has been "impacted" in this way - this appears to be a talking point introduced by one of the actual belligerents in the conflict. Thinking about this issue as prompted by B.'s most recent comment, I conclude that repeating the talking point in Wikipedia's voice, in the face of better sources showing that the talking point is unfounded, would be a transparent violation even if most of the recent RS were to uncritically parrot the talking point (which I believe no longer to be true, anyway). Newimpartial (talk) 10:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  So Gaza has a Hamas-run population and Hamas-run children and Hamas-run buildings and Hamas-run fields and Hamas-run cemeteries. NadVolum (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  And there it is, ludicrousness exposed.:) Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  You beat me to it. Plus "questioned" without identifying the questioner...oh, Israel (and the US). Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Don't use: It's POV, unnecessary and a poor, one-dimensional substitute for readers simply clicking on Gaza Health Ministry for more information. The use of the qualifier is clearly intended to cast doubt on figures attributed to the GHM (perhaps a niche case where MOS:DOUBT should be considered to apply outside of the usual suspects), which is reliable according to almost everyone, including the Lancet. Before the toxic and propaganda-laden coverage of the present conflict, even the US state department and the Israeli military both used to refer to GHM numbers – in the case of the Israeli military to check their own numbers on the collateral damage they predicted from a given attack. That these two parties have changed their tune in the present conflict is a function of narrative, not the GHM. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use: It's not at all neutral wording, it's loaded and it's contentious. If people want to read more about the Gaza Health Ministry, anytime it's referred to, they may simply go to the article and read it. Tacking on "Hamas-run" onto the front of the agency's name makes out that it is an arm of Hamas, an organisation which is considered by many governments to be a terrorist one, and not a civil service agency. Were we to take this tact, then perhaps tacking Tory run or Labor run onto the front of National Health Service might be fair-game anytime there's some significant failing in the UK health system that makes its way into an article. TarnishedPath^talk 13:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use as it is simply POV and adds undue weight as most sources paint Hamas as just a terrorist organisation. I've also denied a few ECP edit requests from IPs and new users trying to add the qualifier (e.g. "clarify that the Gaza Health Ministry is run by Hamas") as a violation of WP:NPOV. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 15:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Use in first mention because that is how reliable sources use the term. Otherwise mentioning it elsewhere can stirr up more discussions which we do not need at all. Toadette^Edit! 09:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Use the qualifier per WP:SPADE. Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use Most mainstream media (AP, Reuters, NYT) don't use it as standard, and it doesn't serve a purpose aside from delegitimizing it wholesale without proper cause. If there's any specific concerns about specific Gaza Health Ministry figures or claims, that can be discussed in the proper place backed by reliable sources.Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use. It does nothing but cast doubt on their data which has historically been deemed as accurate (and if anything, their focus on accuracy means their figures are lower than the actual casualties). If we are not using Likud-run then there's no reason to use Hamas-run or similar. Doing so is POVish and UNDUE. - Ïvana (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use GHM already has the word Gaza in the title, making a qualifier redundant since most readers already know by now that Hamas controls Gaza. I did find that a mention of the Ministry of Health (Palestine) in the Al-Shifa Hospital article did come with a qualifier, and not as a prefix, probably to distinguish it from its more famous sibling:

In 2009, the Palestinian Health Ministry, run by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, accused Hamas members of taking control of wards in Shifa Hospital.

I subscribe to the notion that adding a qualifier to GHM is a NPOV violation. Havradim leaf a message 23:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Use it's not a condemnation it's a caveat. While the medical professionals may indeed include some Fatah aligned or independents, note what the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has to say "Hamas fighters took control of the Gaza Strip, while Fatah officials were either taken as prisoners, executed, or expelled." Furthermore, serious mainstream commentators, who support Ukraine, for example, urge us to take their figures "with a pinch of salt." While the health ministry has been reasonably accurate in the past, these were situations where the truth would come out quickly and so there was little incentive to have misleading figures. Whether or not pressure is being brought to bear on the health ministry we cannot say, but it would seem naïve in the extreme to believe that Hamas would balk at doing that if they believed it would help.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC).

• Dont use Everything already said here . it casts unnecessary doubt , nowhere else is this language type used (no-one is saying Labour-run NHS) , some RS do use and some do not but per our definition of RS they do not need to be unbiased, so this doesn't say anything about NPOV. VR's example of Islam is a very good counter-argument. (Also demonstrates WP's pro-West bias) AlexBobCharles (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Use on first instance per BilledMammal and FortunateSons. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Don't use As per all of the ink spilled above, I won't make the closers job that much harder. It's POV, it's unnecessary, and it shouldn't be included. Parabolist (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Don't generally use I want to be clear that there are times it would be quite appropriate to include this, so I don't think the outcome of this discussion should be "never use". For example, in the article on the GHM, it will probably be mentioned more than once. But I don't think the first use in each article needs it. It seems it's not being used in most newer articles. And MOS:TERRORIST would seem to apply. Hobit (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Don't use: nowhere else is there a need to qualify the party currently in charge of a government when discussing simple reports coming out of its civil service. The figures reported by the Ministry are considered reliable and independent as the work of civil servants, and is not related to political leadership. The inclusion of "Hamas-run" (which is not used by reliable sources, only by Israeli partisans) is solely to demonize the Gazan civil service and cast undue doubt on the figures in readers' minds. Dan • ✉ 23:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion - Gaza Health Ministry qualifier

This has been a recurring issue across many articles in the ARBPIA space, where NPOV concerns have been presented both in support and opposition to the Hamas-run label. Rather than dealing with establishing a local consensus each time this arises I am seeking a broader community consensus on using a qualifier with Gaza Health Ministry. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As a significant portion of this discussion deals with how sources are handling the name, and how that has changed, providing some links to support those arguments will be very valuable for new participants and the eventual closer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, BilledMammal, Nableezy, Sameboat, and FortunateSons:, you're collectively responsible for ~250 of the ~400 replies in this RFC. Please disengage from the RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If you say so, but I’m counting about half as many replies from me as from others. nableezy - 12:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What Nableezy said, we are both below 10% by number of comments, which isn't nothing, but also not over where I perceive the line to be. FortunateSons (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish were you just going to let this slide for one user, the one with by far the most comments and amount of text added? nableezy - 17:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Did I miss someone back in July? I haven't looked in on this too much in the past few weeks. It's certainly possible I did. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No, just one person continues to add to the count. Ill let you guess who, that or just look at the history of this page. nableezy - 17:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about the two edits from BM? BilledMammal, one demerit for posting after my request. Everyone else, I can't communicate sincerely enough how much I appreciate that you disengaged. I'm sure you all had points you wished to make, but you held off and this RFC didn't balloon excessively. Thank you all, @Selfstudier, Nableezy, Sameboat, and FortunateSons:. No joking, I really appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and that puts him at nearly double the number of comments I've made, but the way you presented this was all four of us were bludgeoning. nableezy - 18:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I made two (now three) comments after the request; one in response to a direct question, and one after which I intended to disengage completely. In contrast, Nableezy has made four. I saw my actions (and his) as within the bounds of the request, but apologies if you saw it otherwise. BilledMammal (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

BM shows up for at least 93 replies of the alleged 250 (40%) before the call to disengage from SFR. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

None of mine are in the above sections, thats a ridiculous comparison. All of my comments after that request are in response to it, not continuing to argue above. nableezy - 22:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about the qualifier at Talk:Gaza genocide#Violation of WP:NPOV on recent edits was the immediate precursor for this RFC. Also note that there is a discussion Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Gaza Health Ministry currently on this page.Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: as far as I know, every previous RfC on this question has found consensus to include it., can you link to these, as the only one I can find was never concluded. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There are two that I know of; one at Talk:Israel-Hamas war and one somewhere else. I don’t have time now, but I’ll try to get them for you tomorrow. BilledMammal (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up RFCs, there was an RFC at the war article about attribution in infoboxes in which you pressed, unsuccessfully, the "Hamas-run" trope. Selfstudier (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And then there was Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 33#"Hamas-controlled" attribution, also not conclusive. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 28#RFC on infobox casualties and Talk:Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike#RfC: Should the first mention of the Gaza Health Ministry disclose that the same is a subagency of Hamas?. BilledMammal (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The former was strictly about whether or not attribution should be inline or in a footnote. Not about what that attribution should be. (Personal attack removed) <edit after disputed rpa> The claim that an unrelated RFC provides backing for the position advanced here is pure fiction.</edit> nableezy - 14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You were the editor who origionally argued that the discussion was relevant to this question. BilledMammal (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I already commented on this, that RFC was not primarily focused on that question, that was just a by product of the way the RFC was set up. Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes insofar as an inline attribution was rejected. Not that it endorsed the specific attribution. nableezy - 14:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I encourage all editors in this discussion to review what "neutral" means. Neutral means we do not take a side - unless something is widely and consistently considered to be without bias, we identify that potential bias and attempt to present all sides (in accordance with WP:DUE). By arguing that a qualifier should not be used here, information about the ultimate control of the source of the data is being intentionally obfuscated from our readers. And that is not only non-neutral, but is the worst kind of non-neutral - an intentional misleading of the readers who may not know the Gaza Health Ministry is controlled by Hamas, a belligerent in the conflict. This is not an issue for most other conflicts because the name of the source of data will almost always identify the country it comes from. But in this case, there is not a conflict between "Gaza" and "Israel", but between Hamas and Israel. A reader cannot be expected to "know" that numbers sourced to the Gaza Health Ministry come from a source that is funded by and controlled by Hamas any more than a reader should be expected to know that a (hypothetical) number sourced to Rosatom are from a source that the Russian government controls, for example. To summarize this comment: If the name of an organization/group/person/etc. that originates a piece of information does not directly and clearly indicate their control, and that control is relevant (as is the status of 'belligerent' when reporting death counts), then it should be qualified every time. To not do so is a violation of neutrality - taking the side of the controlling government/people - in saying that their numbers should be seen to be completely unbiased/independent when they are not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 08:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Your last statement has demonstrated your bias towards Israel because Israel and its political allies are the only ones who say that GHM's figures are not trustworthy, yet they fail to produce any evidence to support their claim. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

That is the entire intent and purpose of "Hamas-run", an Israeli sponsored attempt (supported by the US) to cast doubt on the figures produced by GHM, even tho there is an abundance of sourcing saying that GHM is reliable for these figures. The argument that it is factual is baloney, if it is factual now, it was factual in the past and yet we did not have any need for this discussion then and nor do we need it now. As for the contorted "neutrality" gymnastics argued above, just take the promotion of the Israeli narrative that this is not a war against Gaza that they continue to put out while literally flattening Gaza. Selfstudier (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of GHM as a source

This issue is intimately linked to source reliability, many discussions have established that the GHM is considered a reliable source, including at the RSN noticeboard here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Why? The source being reliable would appear to have no relevance to what information is WP:DUE to include about it. BilledMammal (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, what is the purpose of the qualifier? You say it’s obvious that Israel runs the Israeli Defence Forces but it doesn't say "Likud-run" which would be the corresponding qualifier The purpose of this qualifier is to cast doubt on the reliability of GHM, as can be seen in the RFCbefore discussions. It is exactly like my adding "right wing extremist" as a qualifier for Israeli government. Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hamas’ relation to Gaza isn’t equivalent to Likud’s relation to Israel; that is a straw man argument.

The purpose of this qualifier is to cast doubt on the reliability of GHM

That’s WP:OR on your part, but even if it was, it’s irrelevant. We don’t get to decide to exclude significant information because we think it is included for a reason we disagree with, and to do so would be a clear WP:NPOV violation. BilledMammal (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You have your opinion and I have mine. WP:VNOT also applies here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

VNOT isn’t a rebuttal to WP:DUE; since no one is arguing we should include it merely because it is verifiable, it isn’t relevant here. BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You sure are a lot of levels of reply deep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You can see the differnt viewpoints in these two articles Responsible Reporting: Citing the Gaza Health Ministry from the Anti-Defamation League and for example Why News Outlets Are Avoiding 'Terrorist' Labels in Israel-Hamas War from Voice of America or Western media’s reference to the ‘Hamas-run’ Health Ministry is another dehumanizing tactic enabling Israel’s genocide from Mondoweiss. NadVolum (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

ADL should generally not be considered reliable especially with regards to WP:ADLIPA. id argue their reporting guidelines on the conflict are not reliable either Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think what it says shows the reasoning okay. Various of the media have been asked why they say Hamas-run but they have not bothered to answer. The only other stuff I've found on that is various chat groups discussing it. NadVolum (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources are allowed to be, and frequently are, biased. We are to consider their potential/confirmed bias when we use information from the reliable source. Merely attributing something to a biased source in the prose does not suffice for NPOV when the attribution to the source does not give any indication of its bias. To quote directly from our guideline on reliable, but biased sources: Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". - note that all of those do not merely attribute to the person's name, but they identify their bias directly as well ("feminist", "Marxist economist", "conservative Republican", "presidential candidate"). The same needs to be considered here. For those who do not already know the Gaza Health Ministry is affiliated with Hamas, merely attributing something to them does not adequately identify their bias in prose.

There is a valid question of how to identify that bias in prose. Hamas-run, Hamas-affiliated, controlled by Hamas, etc. are all valid options and can be discussed. But if they are an unbiased source, then attributing the numbers to them in text is not necessary. There is no middle ground when a source is biased - the in-text attribution must identify not only the source, but the particular bias. For unbiased sources that are simply in disagreement, then in-text attribution of only the source is possible. But this is not one of those cases. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

merely attributing something to them does not adequately identify their bias in prose. No. The GHM is deemed generally reliable, but Hamas is not, due to its terrorist designation by Western authorities. Associating a reliable source with an unreliable one by default is a sneaky way to suggest the former is unreliable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It is worth noting that the Gaza Health Ministry and the Hamas Government Media Office both sometimes provide casualty data. They are not the same thing; the Health Ministry's data are superior. Andreas JN466 05:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

GHM run by a mix of Hamas and Fatah officials

Sometimes an overwhelming amount of RS will parrot a misleading statement. For example, Joan Donoghue pointed out how most of the media wrongly interpreted the provisional ruling in South Africa's genocide case against Israel. Likewise, in this case:

• (1) the Gaza Health Ministry is run by a mix of both Hamas and Fatah officials[9][10]
• (2) the salaries of GHM are paid, partially, by the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, as opposed to Hamas.([11][12])

So NPOV issues aside, "Hamas-run" is somewhat misleading.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

'somewhat misleading' is of course putting the most generous light on what is a gross caricature of how the Health Ministry functions (as your links corroborate) Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Before countering this portrayal of the facts, I'd like to point out that if this is a plausible theory (namely, that the health ministry is not Hamas run), and apparently it is, as 2 editors here believe it, then that tells us that if we can indeed show that it is Hamas run, we need to use that language in the article, as it is apparently not so clear that it is run by Hamas (which makes sense in light of the strange political climate over there where power may come from outside sources).

As for the facts on the ground. The GHM is Hamas run, as many sources refer to it as such. The partial salary claim does not need to be addressed, as that does not imply that the PA is involved in running the GHM. The 2 links provided is really 1 link, the AP article (cbc is a mirror). Even if we don't simply nullify this view in scope of the major amount of RS that claim the GHM is RS, the argument itself has little merit. They quote a source that a portion of the senior members of the ministry are oriented with the Fatah party- this doesn't change the fact that the Ministry is factually Hamas run. Besides the fact that a significant amount of members are not Fatah affiliated, all the members of the ministry answer to the Hamas government, and even if they wanted to do something differently, its not like they wouldn't bend to the will of a government that arrests and tortures political opponents (as someone else provided links to below). So in context of where these numbers come from, its safe to say the Ministry is Hamas run.

And one final point- even if it were true that it was partially Fatah run, that would be something we should also mention in the article, or in the case of ambiguity, mentioned in a note. However, I don't believe there's any real ambiguity here, although there potentially could have been. JoeJShmo^💌 05:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

What on earth? An egregious strawman argument. Is anyone denying that Hamas does run the admministrative apparatus of the Strip it governs? No. You have made a caricature of the objection, by transforming it into q denial of the obvious. The point is why should we use prose to inculculate the hammering pleonastic drone that the governing power in Gaza is Hamas, so 'Hamas-run' must be attached to every reference to hospitals, schools, etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

"(cbc is a mirror)". Both links are from AP, but they are different articles, not a mirror. Just compare the text.

"The partial salary claim does not need to be addressed, as that does not imply that the PA is involved in running the GHM". Not true. In 2007, Fatah threatened to withold the salaries of GHM workers if they did not go on a strike to protest Hamas. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hamas did not tolerate any dissent in Gaza (per [13] Hamas authorities detained opponents and critics for their peaceful expression and tortured some in their custody). Saying that the health ministry is controlled by Hamas is a useful short-hand even if it's partially financed by the PA. Alaexis_¿question? 20:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

China, Iran, Russia + scores of states do not tolerate dissent, and crack down violently on anyone in the state apparatus who is ideologically suspect. But we do not write the Chinese Communist run National Health and Family Planning Commission, or the Pasdaran-Islamic-run -Iranian Educational System etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about "Hamas-run", but I don't think such comparisons are useful. In most other cases, it's obvious which governing entity runs such ministries. This case has much greater likelihood of confusion, particularly between Ministry of Health (Gaza) and Ministry of Health (Palestine), which used to be a single PA-controlled entity. That would be the argument for clarifying that the former is now Hamas-controlled. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Or Gaza controlled? nableezy - 21:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

They have detained some opponents, sure. Arresting political opponents happens in pretty much all countries[14]. But do any sources deny Fatah and PA involvement in GHM? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

As if Hamas's prosecution of dissents has anything to do with the GHM's reliability. Do you have any evidence that the GHM is involved in Hamas's prosecutions? Smells like red herring. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 21:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that Palestine unusually has 2 ministries of health controlled by different governments and the reader should know from which of them data originates. In China there is just one National Health and Family Planning Commission. That's why many sources add "Hamas-run"

I mentioned the suppression of dissent as a counter-argument to the argument that since some Fatah people work there and it gets money from the PA it's not controlled by Hamas. Alaexis_¿question? 12:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The "Gaza" in Gaza Health Ministry (not to mention the wikilink itself) makes it clear, if the reader knows what Hamas is, they also know what Gaza is. Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Some more sources:
  • Yara Asi, Assistant Professor of Health Management, University of Central Florida, writes: "The physicians, nurses, paramedics, midwives, and other health workers in Gaza belong to no specific party; some may be affiliated politically with Hamas, others with its rival Fatah, and others do not consider themselves politically aligned, or may just be affiliated with a third party."
  • She adds that "While the government in Gaza appointed its own alternate health minister, the [Fatah] PA’s Health Minister, Mai al-Kaila, has a deputy minister as well as staff on the ground [in Gaza]. The PA pays the salaries of the employees at public facilities..."
  • Finally, "the PA oversees public hospitals in Gaza (which make up the minority of health care centers, the rest of which are private or funded with humanitarian aid)"
  • An article in Le Monde makes similar claims: "The local [Gaza] Ministry of Health is a mixture of employees recruited since Hamas came to power in the enclave and former civil servants affiliated to Fatah, the rival party that governs the Palestinian Authority, including the deputy of Mai Al-Kaila, the Minister of Health in Ramallah."
  • It adds, with respect to casualty counts, "The Palestinian Authority (PA) in Ramallah has also claimed ownership and accuracy for these figures. It pays the salaries of the civil servants who compile the data in Gaza, and insists that they are supervised."
  • Mona Jebril, in a report published by CBR of the Cambridge Judge Business School, writes "The financing of the health sector under the government of Hamas in Gaza relies on a variety of sources: (1) transfers from Ramallah-PA which pays “tens of thousands of salaries” to its employees from those who are “loyalists” to the PA..."
  • Vox media reports, "Health ministry employees come from a mix of factions, including Hamas but also the secular nationalist Fatah party, and some are independent. Hamas does not pay their salaries, nor, they say, does it influence the casualty figures they report."

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Three of the four sources you present say that the Ministry is Hamas-run; the CBR report says Hamas-run MoH, Vox says the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health and Le Monde says the Ministry of Health in the Palestinian territory, de facto under the control of Hamas. Only Asi doesn't make such a statement, but she also doesn't make a statement to the contrary. BilledMammal (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

No one denies the connection between GHM and Hamas. But above sources also show a significant connection between GHM and Fatah. Should we also mention Fatah too?VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

No one denies the connection between GHM and Hamas.

Then we agree that "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry" is not an inaccurate statement?

But above sources also show a significant connection between GHM and Fatah. Should we also mention Fatah too?

Per BALASP, we should treat the aspect that is the connection with Fatah with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. That means giving it some prominence, but less so than the connection with Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

As discussed here such weight should ideally be determined from sources that give a comprehensive treatment to a topic. Your criteria below is to consider only "articles published in the past week". For this subject, and most other subjects, that is going to give horribly skewed results.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 09:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

You’re welcome to conduct a review over a longer period, but considering the comments made by several editors here - including, I believe, you - the only change that might make is the proportion of sources using such a qualifier will increase. BilledMammal (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Responses to FortunateSons vote, moved down

WP:NONENG: because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. I could show Arabic language sources do not use such a phrasing, or Japanese sources for that matter. But when we have sources in English that are of equal quality and relevance we prefer those. nableezy - 09:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but we hear about a supposed bias of mainstream English-language sources, so this list serves as a proof that this is not the case and non-English media also use this qualifier a lot. Alaexis_¿question? 09:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it shows that it's a mainstream position (for those unfamiliar, the above include almost all german newspapers of record and main state media) at least in the german-speaking world. While I think Hebrew and Arabic sources are unlikely to provide any novel revelations, Japanese (or French, Italian, Spanish, Russian, etc.) ones might be interesting, and thereby of enough relevance to fulfil the requirements regarding an english-language bias (and even if they didn't, they are citable RS, and therefore 'count')

At the very least the newspapers of record (FAZ, Zeit, Spiegel) and BBC equivalents (Tagesschau, ZDF, Deutschlandfunk) are are arguably a lot better than what can be cited here in English, and would therefore be specifically permitted even if NONENG did not allow for other sourcing. FortunateSons (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I provided a NYT analysis from today above, that is a properly nuanced statement of the matter. Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but don’t really understand the relevance? FortunateSons (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the German Wikipedia. nableezy - 10:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Really? Couldn’t tell FortunateSons (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

What about Arabic sources? Or Japanese ones? Or whatever other language? You're taking media from one of Israel's closest allies and portraying it as some neutral arbiter here. It is not. In fact, one major German media conglomerate has an avowedly pro-Israel editorial policy. Portraying German sources are somehow unbiased here is silly. nableezy - 10:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Which of the cited sources are AS? I’m aware of that stance, and I think I avoided all of them, but I could have missed one, they are rather pervasive. Per my statement above, other sources outside the Arab-Israeli sphere might be of interest too, regardless of language. FortunateSons (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

How about taking all this stuff to the discussion , it's just cluttering up the !votes. Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to cleanly move this down, but anyone else is welcome to. FortunateSons (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Done, is this legible and properly formatted for everyone? FortunateSons (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

+1 as well, number two arms supplier to Israel after the US, birds of a feather and all that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

German sources are citable and represent a significant view outside one of the parties of the conflict, and are therefore relevant. FortunateSons (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

And totally one sided, Germany’s Unwavering Support for Israel: A Matter of State "German papers across the political spectrum continue to back Israel wholeheartedly." (seen one, seen them all) "Axel Springer, which publishes two of the most important papers, Bild and Die Welt, demands journalists defend Israel. They require all of their employees in Germany to sign up to their constitution, which defends the right of Israel to exist." Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

(ec) It's worth reminding ourselves that "defends the right of Israel to exist" is commonly interpreted by defenders of Israel to mean defending the right of Israel to use whatever tactics it chooses against Hamas, including tactics that cause large-scale killing of civilians. NightHeron (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The Axel Springer issue is genuine, which is the reason why their papers (despite probably being citable) weren't cited by me. It is (in my opinion, but I do have my own bias) an adequate overview over the german media landscape, and an objection the media landscape per se has no encyclopaedic relevance, except noting the well-known bias, which I would describe as a lot less significant than a certain state-owned broadcasters bias. FortunateSons (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

All the German press is the same, identical on the issue. We can cite it as one source, the view of the German state (which permits pro-Israeli marches and bans those in support of Palestinians among other things) duly parroted by the press, fascism basically.

Notice that no-one here has cited AJ at all but, since you bring it up, in common with the NYT and other reliable sources, it does not use the qualifier. Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there a fringe for politics? Because calling the very blandly liberal German state basically fascist pretty surely would meet that. There are pro-Palestinian marches btw., they are banned if they violated laws and ordinances, not in general. Trust me, I had the displeasure of their noise being the ambiance for eating lunch at a restaurant, they are able to speak their mind. The press is free, and (with the exception of AS) can write what they want, as long as they don’t break the law. FortunateSons (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not calling the state fascist, I am calling their behaviour in regards to IP fascist, which it is. Holocaust guilt given as the usual explanation for this tawdry state of affairs. Selfstudier (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

(CNN) "German politicians have repeatedly stated that Israel’s security is Germany’s "reason of state." "In Berlin, pro-Palestinian marches have been limited and schools have been granted the power to place bans on Palestinian flags and keffiyeh scarves" " "Israel’s right to exist" as a prerequisite for German citizenship." It just goes on and on, pitiful. Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Political symbols, particularly those of groups considered extremist, are often banned from schools, that’s normal. For those unfamiliar, a wide range of slogans and actions are banned in Germany, mostly based on historical reasons. It would be improper to apply an American legal view to Germany, the law and culture are very different.

Germany can make their own reasons for accepting citizenship, and it definitely does not impact the reliability of non-state or independent state media.

Fortunately, none of those actions are basically fascist. FortunateSons (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't exactly line up with Gaza war: Germany's crackdown on Palestine solidarity does not spare even anti-Zionist Jews. Germany has fully adopted the 2016 Working definition of antisemitism in its entirety like the ADL with no if or buts about the examples. NadVolum (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Not the protest I witnessed, but they do happen regularly, example.

Yea, the working definition is broadly accepted in Europe, it’s just the standard version used here. For rather obvious reasons, that isn’t even close to an adequate reason to consider a source less reliable. FortunateSons (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The definition is, not the examples. Selfstudier (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought most countries did it fully, but I could be misinformed? FortunateSons (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Biased doesn't mean unreliable. Just for your information. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but All the German press is the same, identical on the issue. We can cite it as one source, the view of the German state (which permits pro-Israeli marches and bans those in support of Palestinians among other things) duly parroted by the press, fascism basically. would be unreliable FortunateSons (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Find me German press not using the qualifier and I might buy that. Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s incredibly annoying to search for, but I will try. What are we counting as press? Does it need to be a main-stream newspaper of record, or can I used some leftist weekly? FortunateSons (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

More use:

Hamas geführten Gesundheitsministerium by Süddeutsche Zeitung

No use:

Bericht das Gesundheitsministerium in Gaza an. by Die Tageszeitung

Can we put this to bed now? FortunateSons (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No because Taz is also mentioned in that article "Nominally left-wing media, like Die Tageszeitung, commonly known as ‘taz‘, also backs Israel almost unconditionally". I already put it to bed afaiac, German press on this subject is hopelessly unrepresentative. Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The might in Find me German press not using the qualifier and I might buy that sure is doing heavy lifting here. FortunateSons (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the difficulty. Much easier to find such sources outside of Germany, wouldn't you say? Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it’s just annoying to search for, as in, literally search for. I can’t exclude Hamas as a search term because the word is in every article, and so I manually have to key word search both words in any article to make sure it isn’t used. While German media (and much of English-speaking media since oct 7.) have broadly used the term, German and English-language sources also haven’t. It’s the opposite side of the genocide debate, where it’s a lot easier to look for sources that use the word than sources that don’t. FortunateSons (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, you know, it was my argument that it’s the standard term in German language media, great that we agree, considering that Germany does host some of the more significant newspaper RS in Europe.

I found you a proper newspaper of record, are your concerns about the rise of fascism gone? FortunateSons (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The otherwise sensible German press is on this subject, basically crap. Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

If you say so FortunateSons (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It took the German media until June to report that there weren't actually any decapitated babies. And to this day the only article reporting it to my knowledge is a taz article authored by an Israeli, as German journalists are scared to death that reporting such things will see them being branded as antisemites and end their career. Germany is NUTS. Andreas JN466 07:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised by that march in Frankfurt okay, it was definitly a straightforward free march even if that paper hated it. I don't know why the newspapers go on about the GHM not distinguishing between combatants and civilians - why should they?, it's not their job. Anyway Israel would simply take their records if they did, medical intelligence could well have been a secondary reason for taking over the Al Shifa hospital and I definitely wouldn't have wanted to be there with a record saying I was affiliated to Hamas! NadVolum (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

If I were to speculate, I would say that the issue with not separating out combatants is that from the perspective of international analysis, almost any killed combatant will likely be legal, while dead civilians require justification. In addition, the ratio of civilians to “militants” is used as an indicator for how well the distinction is done between both groups, which is part of the debate around past casualties during the conflict as well (like the police officers that were killed in a strike, and the border protests, where both groups had a disproportionately high membership rate for Hamas/other groups compared to the general population) FortunateSons (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's back to the topic and make it clear that we are not discussing the reliability of certain source, but how their bias against Palestine has skewed their neutrality when citing the GHM by adding an unnecessary qualifier in the name of "for the benefit of readers" but turns out the label is nothing but a badge of shame to cast doubt on the severity of destruction on Palestinians in Gaza. Their reliability is not the excuse for Wikipedia to parrot their bias against Palestine. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in response to the comment on being arms suppliers, the U.S. and Germany were the top 2 donors to UNRWA in 2023, 2022, and 2021. Germany was the #1 donor in 2020 and 2019. In each of the years they donated, they have given in the 200-300 million dollar ranges. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

What's UNRWA got to do with arms sales to Israel? Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought people in the discussion were talking about arms sales as being signs that US and German sources are not neutral. I was talking about donations to UNRWA because Germany and the U.S. are helping / have helped both Palestinians and Israelis, so they are not as un-neutral as you think. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Uh the US has cancelled donations to UNRWA? Anyway the complaint is that German news sources are useless on the IP matter, nothing to do with UNRWA, Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

They resumed funding [15] Wafflefrites (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The US has passed a law banning contributions to UNRWA. Do keep up. https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-bans-unrwa-funding-until-at-least-2025-while-leaving-room-for-flexibility/ Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

My source is from April and yours is from March. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The law (which is also mentioned in your source) applies as follows "The approved legislation banned UNRWA funding “for any amounts provided in prior fiscal years or in fiscal year 2024, or for amounts provided in fiscal year 2025, until March 25, 2025."

As I said, do keep up. Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

And if you want an up to date source, here it is in all the gory detail as of June https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12316 Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me add that all countries other than the US and UK have now resumed UNRWA funding.[16] Still, we use sources from both. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

UK announced resumption of funding today. Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Please don't do this. Someone has to read this entire thing later. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That makes sense, the US does have a $35 trillion national debt. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC) I'm sure they'll be glad with Israel paying for arms. And soon possibly they will be safe from hearing about any consequences US House votes to block State Department to use Gaza Health Ministry statistics. All very hermetic. NadVolum (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Yes, the US stopping payments until March 2025 would give the other countries a chance to pick up the historical slack. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Take another look at that link I gave you, US contributions in 2018 $65mm, 2019 zero, 2020, zero. Historical slack based on what criteria? GNP? Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC) My answer to your question is: See my comment at 15:46 and links to UNRWA funding charts. And here are all the charts: https://www.unrwa.org/how-you-can-help/government-partners/funding-trends/donor-charts. The US has always been the top/ one of the top donors except when Trump was president. But even if the US stopped payments, the US news sources are still reliable. You can look at the historical numbers there and calculate the proportions based on GNP and in comparison to other nations yourself if you’d like that answer. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Ya didn't answer the question, And no-one here is complaining about US sources, just German ones. Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC) You constructed a strawman that was proven wrong and are now moving on to other off topic arguments of a similar quality. Regardless, WP:NOTFORUM, this is an utter waste of time and whatever admin started this RFC would be wise to put a pin on this distraction and collapse this whole pointless tangent. nableezy - 19:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Are we also going to be collapsing the comment on arms supplying and other similar forum comments from other editors that started before my “straw man”? Wafflefrites (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Those have the benefit of not being completely made up whereas yours does not, but yes that stuff isn’t relevant either. nableezy - 20:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Not made up, Germany has been the second highest donor to UNRWA historically. We were talking about arms supplying in this discussion of bias in German sources, but the country of Germany has also been a top aid donor to Palestinians.Anyways,you can say this off topic and not related, but it’s not completely made up in that Germany has been a significant donor to Palestinians. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC) UNRWA USA is a US 501c3 organization that fund raises for the UNRWA. That is not the United States funding anything. nableezy - 18:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Back to the newspaper business, there's lots of analysis of what's up with Germany. Here is an interesting one from Haaretz for instance Opinion - Absurd, Clumsy, Racist: Germany's Taboo Against Criticizing Israel Must Stop. NadVolum (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s an interesting piece (to be fair, with which I was already familiar). The Bild issue is -well, an issue, and I’m generally happy to discuss it elsewhere, as it has limited relevance to the cited source and (IMO) no relevance to their reliability. FortunateSons (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

How about ’They confuse it with antisemitism’: The German media and Israel ? Doesn't seem to be marked as opinion. NadVolum (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is an interview. I must admit I’m not familiar with the source, but am aware of the “journalist”, who got into a questionable scandal, so I would be rather cautious with that one. In this particular case, the Haaretz piece is a lot better FortunateSons (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

To reply to a few points made here; I am doing so in a single comment to avoid making this discussion even longer and harder to follow.

First, we have no preference for English-language sources. WP:NONENG only tells us that when verifying information, after determining what is WP:DUE, we should prefer English-language sources to improve their accessibility to readers. When determining what is WP:DUE any reliable source can and should be used, and that includes German sources, particularly since their journalistic culture favors accuracy and thus tends to produce reliable sources. Doing otherwise would increase WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS and has no basis in policy.

Second, we determine WP:NPOV and minimize bias by looking for significant aspects and views, as determined by their prominence in reliable sources, and including them. We don't do it by excluding aspects and views that we consider are biased, or even that a minority of reliable sources consider biased - the latter being an NPOV violation because we are giving excessive weight to a minority position.

Third, the argument against using German sources is that this is too significant of a view among such sources. Effectively, the argument is that we shouldn't reflect the majority position because it is too large of a majority - the issues with this argument are obvious.

Fourth, no-one here has cited AJ is false. See Nableezy's !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll cite AJ in a relevant way then for this section. Critique of German media's handling of Gaza Conflict, Why is Germany so viciously anti-Palestinian?, ‘We are scapegoats’: Arab journalists fired by Deutsche Welle, Watching the watchdogs: Fear in newsrooms silences pro-Palestine voices and opinion pieces Germany’s crackdown on criticism of Israel betrays European values, Germany’s anti-Palestinianism is escalating. You might find German memory culture, anti-Semitic Zionists and Palestinian liberation interesting by, um, should I call them a self-hating Jew? NadVolum (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't dismiss a significant viewpoint because a minority viewpoint is that the significant viewpoint - or the reliable sources that support it - is biased. Because of this, those only are relevant to this discussion in so far as they are weight against this being a significant viewpoint, and being opinion pieces from a single source they have minimal weight towards that. BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that is a caricature of the argument. The argument is that sources have largely abandoned the Hamas-run meme, and your repeated claim that it is the "majority position" is pulled out of somewhere the sun dont shine. The nonsense about German sources being relevant here is likewise nonsense. But if you really were serious about looking at other language sources, as though we don't have enough English ones, El Pais attributes to El Ministerio de Sanidad gazatí for example. But that isnt really all that relevant here, now is it? nableezy - 22:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The argument is that sources have largely abandoned the Hamas-run meme

That isn't the argument presented in relation to the German sources - and is evidently false, as demonstrated by the English and German language sources that continue using the term.

But that isnt really all that relevant here, now is it?

Why isn't it? Spanish sources don't have quite the same reputation for reliability that German ones do, but El Pais appears to be a high-quality source. BilledMammal (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I just realized that the source you provided actually does include such a qualifier; in the next paragraph they say el organismo, que está controlado por Hamás (the organization, which is controlled by Hamas). Further, while that article is from February, more recent articles do the same, such as one from today, which says El Ministerio de Sanidad gazatí, controlado por Hamás (The Gaza Health Ministry, controlled by Hamas). BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Youve done this before, but thats from Reuters not el Pais. And here and here and here are el Pais articles attributing to the ministry without any "controlled by Hamas". nableezy - 00:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that's from Reuters and el Pais. Importantly, the translation is done by el Pais; if they didn't support the use of a qualifier they would have removed it when making the translation.

Further, while they do sometimes exclude the qualifier, it's far more common for them to include it, even when writing independently, such as here, here, and and here.

This is particularly the case when we consider the difficulties you had finding them; initially you provided an article that served as evidence for use of the qualifier, and then you provided articles where the oldest is from April. BilledMammal (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it is from Reuters, and Reuters also publishes in Spanish. And who said I had difficulties lol? Maybe dont make things up? nableezy - 01:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Reuters is the author, el Pais is the publisher. And translating the article is typically the responsibility of the local publisher.

And who said I had difficulties lol? You did, when rather than providing an article that supported your position you provided one that supported mine. BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, Ill let a closer evaluate the mendacity of the claim that a wire article reproduced in a number of websites has multiple publishers and each of them is their own source. As far as your repeated attempt at claiming some difficulty, still no. But toodles, I dont find engaging in such silliness to be all that constructive a use of my time. Especially when much of what you write seems to be made up on the spot (eg translating the article is typically the responsibility of the local publisher). nableezy - 01:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the argument about Germany was that the German sources are still using the qualifier because they’re biased , but French sources are still using the qualifier too [17][18][19]. This section we are discussing in is about how German sources are biased for still using Hamas-run /controlled in some of its articles. Here both nableezy and BilledMammal have shown Spanish language sources still using it at times, and I provided three sources in French. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Le Monde Selon le ministère de la santé à Gaza, l’attaque sur le camp de tentes a fait 45 morts et 249 blessés, no Hamas run there. Cherry picking sources that support one view or another is pretty easy. Not all that enlightening, but easy nonetheless. nableezy - 01:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Le Monde uses it here [20]. You have made my point exactly, which is sometimes foreign language sources still use a qualifier and sometimes they don’t, and my RfC vote reflects this: editors should be able to use the qualifier if they want if the source they are using is using it. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like inciting source-shopping which could lead to unnecessary edit-war. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It does not. The sentence is:

• « Le ministère de la santé de la bande de Gaza, administrée par le Hamas ».

What is administered by Hamas in that sentence is the Gaza strip: "administrée" has a feminine ending that makes it clear that it refers to "la bande" and not to the masculine "Le ministère". Andreas JN466 06:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

here le monde uses masculine [21] but instead of Hamas, says it’s administered by the “ Palestinian Islamist movement” Wafflefrites (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That refers to "territoire" – the territory is administered. It is much the same with your other French examples above. They are references to the fact that the Gaza strip is governed by Hamas, not statements that Hamas controls the ministry. Andreas JN466 07:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

My French is too A1/A2 to argue this either way, but they are definitely saying it in the direct context of the health ministry, which would be part of administration (as far as my limited french law knowledge helps me, this is the case in their understanding of law and language too). FortunateSons (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I only took American high school French, but look even Al Jazeera has used “Hamas-run health ministry”[22] That’s why I think using it not biased and we should stick to the sources. If fewer and fewer sources are using a qualifier as time goes on, then naturally the Wikipedia articles will not use it per our verifiability policy for the in line citations.If Gaza changes governments, then it would be the Fatah-run health ministry or the PA-health ministry. Wafflefrites (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That link is from March. Google finds no occurrence of "Hamas-run health ministry" on Al-Jazeera in the last four months. [23]

As for the French sources, they are saying "the health ministry of the Hamas government for the Gaza strip" [24], "the Ministry of Health of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip" [25], "the Hamas government's Ministry of Health" [26]. Andreas JN466 09:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

“ Hamas government's Ministry of Health”, ,"the Ministry of Health of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip", "the health ministry of the Hamas government for the Gaza Strip,” all of them linked the ministry in some way to Hamas whether directly or indirectly.

Yes, AJ used “Hamas-run” in March. If that source is being used in an article, then an editor can choose to follow the wording used in sources. For more recent articles not using a qualifier, they should not be adding “Hamas’ Mimistry of Health” since it would not be in line verifiable anyways. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Systematic review of reliable sources

To determine the collective position of reliable sources on whether we should include or exclude a qualifier, I've reviewed all text articles published in the past week from all sources considered "generally reliable" at WP:RSP and returned by a google search limited to that source and "Gaza" "Health Ministry". I've excluded opinion articles and, per Nableezy's above comments, syndicated content.

Source review

ABC News (United States) - Zero articles The Age - One article, which qualifies with "Hamas-run health ministry" Agence France-Presse - Twelve articles, all qualify with "health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza" Al Jazeera - presumed not to qualify Associated Press - Fourteen articles. All qualify with "which does not distinguish between combatants and civilians" The Atlantic - Zero articles The Australian - Six articles. All qualify with "Hamas-ruled territory's health ministry" or "the health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza". Axios - One article, which qualifies with "the health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza." BBC - Six articles, all qualify with "Hamas-run health ministry". Bellingcat - Zero articles Bloomberg - Four articles (1, 2, 3, 4), all qualify with "Hamas-run health ministry" CBS News - Zero articles The Christian Science Monitor - Zero articles CNN - Five articles. Three do not qualify, two qualify with "which does not differentiate between civilians and combatants" Coda Media - Zero articles The Conversation (website) - Zero articles The Daily Telegraph - Zero articles Deutsche Welle - Six articles, all qualify with "Hamas-run health ministry" The Diplomat - Zero articles The Economist - Zero articles Financial Times - Zero articles Forbes - Zero articles Gazeta Wyborcza (Searching for "Gaza" "Ministerstwo Zdrowia") - One article, qualifies with "kontrolowane przez Hamas Ministerstwo Zdrowia" ("Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health") The Globe and Mail - Zero articles GQ - Zero articles The Guardian - Twelve articles. Two qualify with "Hamas-run health ministry", three qualify with "health ministry in the Hamas-administered territory", seven don't qualify. The Hill (newspaper) - Two articles (1, 2), neither qualify The Hindu - Zero articles Haaretz - Eight articles, six qualify with "Hamas-run Health Ministry", two don't qualify The Independent - Six articles, two qualify with "Hamas-run Health Ministry", one qualifies with "health officials in the Hamas-run territory", three qualify with "which does not distinguish between combatants and civilians" The Indian Express - Two articles (1, 2), neither of which qualify The Intercept - Zero articles Jacobin (magazine) - Zero articles The Jewish Chronicle - Two articles (1, 2), both qualify with "Hamas-run health ministry" Kommersant - Zero articles Los Angeles Times - One article, does not qualify Mail & Guardian - Zero articles Le Monde diplomatique - Zero articles Mother Jones - Two articles (1, 2), does not qualify MSNBC - Zero articles The Nation - Zero articles National Geographic - Zero articles NBC News - One article, qualifies with "Hamas-run enclave" The New Republic - Zero articles New York (magazine) - Zero articles New York Daily News - Zero articles The New York Times - Fourteen articles. Five qualify with "do not distinguish between civilians and combatants", nine do not qualify New Yorker - One article, does not qualify The New Zealand Herald - One article, qualifies with "Hamas-run Gazan health ministry" Newslaundry - Zero articles Newsweek - One article, qualifies with "Hamas-controlled health ministry" NPR - One article, does not qualify OKO.press - Zero articles Pink News - Zero articles Politico - Zero articles ProPublica - Zero articles Radio Free Asia - Zero articles Rappler - Zero articles Reason - Zero articles The Register - Zero articles Religion News Service - Zero articles Reuters - Fifteen articles, six of which qualify with "do not distinguish between civilians and combatants", nine of which don't qualify. RTÉ - Zero articles Sky News - Four articles, three of which qualify with "Hamas-run Gaza health ministry" (1, 2, 3), one of which does not qualify (1) South China Morning Post - Zero articles Der Spiegel - One article, which qualifies with "Das Gesundheitsministerium in Gaza, das von der Hamas kontrolliert" ("The Ministry of Health in Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas") The Sydney Morning Herald - Zero articles Time - One article, which qualifies with "Hamas-controlled health ministry" The Times - Two articles. Qualifies one with "the health ministry in Gaza, which Hamas has controlled" and the other with "Hamas-run Gaza health ministry" U.S. News & World Report - Zero articles USA Today - Zero articles Vanity Fair (magazine) - Zero articles Voice of America - Three articles. One qualifies with "Hamas-run health ministry" (1), and two qualify with "which does not distinguish between combatants and civilians" (1, 2) Vogue (magazine) - Zero articles The Wall Street Journal - Two articles, one doesn't qualify, the other qualifies with "who don’t specify how many were combatants" The Washington Post - Eighteen articles, eleven of which qualify with "which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants", and seven of which don't qualify The Wire (India) - Zero articles

From this, we see ten generally do not qualify, compared to twenty-one that generally do; thirteen with Hamas-run or similar, five with in Hamas-run Gaza or similar, and three with which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants or similar. While this doesn't settle which qualifier we should use, it should settle the question of whether we should use a qualifier; since a systematic review found that a clear majority of reliable sources consider it appropriate to qualify information, particularly figures, provided by the Gaza Health Ministry, it would be an WP:NPOV violation for us to fail to do the same. BilledMammal (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Associated Press - Fourteen articles. All qualify with "which does not distinguish between combatants and civilians" Duh. Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The RFC question is should Gaza Health Ministry have a qualifier such as Hamas-run or Hamas-controlled, not I would like to qualify GHM somehow with something, anything to make it look bad. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The long-running dispute is over whether we should qualify the Gaza Health Ministry with anything. If we contain the scope of this discussion solely to the question as written then we will fail to resolve that dispute. In any case, the evidence provided would appear to support qualifying with something between Hamas-run and in Hamas-run Gaza - but that is less important than that it proves a qualification is required to comply with WP:NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I already suggested that what is needed is a proper explanation (like the NYT gives) somewhere in any article where the GHM data has some relevance, not some two word qualifier jammed in front of a wikilinked Gaza Health Ministry (wikilinked because first use according to one set of responses, parroting your idea). Selfstudier (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If I just take the US biggies, AP, Reuters, CNN, NYT, WAPO, NBC, they don't do the two word qualifier thing. Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

As to that 'which does not distinguish between combatants and civilians' boilerplate they stick in, in what country does anything except the defence department issue details of military casualties? It's just ridiculous. NadVolum (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Billed Mammal. However, I would offer a different analysis.

By my count, your list covers 148 articles, of which you say

• 33 use "Hamas-run" or "Hamas-controlled" or some variation thereof applied to the health ministry, and
• 24 of which make a reference to the territory being Hamas-run (12 of which are from AFP, and 6 from The Australian).

That means articles describing either the ministry or the territory as "Hamas-run" or "Hamas-controlled" or some variant thereof are actually in a minority (57 out of 148, not counting another 24 articles published by Al Jazeera in the past week).

I also think a standalone press article is not the same as an encyclopedia. Press articles often repeat background information over and over ad nauseam. I do not think any reader of Wikipedia reading up on the conflict here could fail to learn that Gaza is governed by Hamas.

I am all in favour of pointing out that the data do not distinguish between combatants and civilians, but that is a different issue. Regards, Andreas JN466 11:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The check on the reliable sources is reasonable and might show something but personally I consider WP:LABEL the relevant policy when the GHM has shown good reliability. Analysis like [27] for instance show it is a label with '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) 11:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL is part of the MOS. Given that the policy we are considering is WP:NPOV it has no relevance in this discussion, particularly since the qualifiers don't express a contentious opinion but instead a factual aspect, and the question is whether than aspect is significant enough for frequent mention.

As for the Codastory article, while that contributes to determining how prominent this aspect is (I'm assuming it, and its newsletters, are a reliable source), it is only one source and we can't give it weight beyond that of a single source. BilledMammal (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

the qualifiers don't express a contentious opinion, but instead a factual aspect Evidence already provided that it is factually wrong (Fatah is involved) as well as misleadingly incomplete, so yea, it's a label alright. Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Your summary isn't quite accurate. The sources provided both say it is an agency in the Hamas-controlled government, although some of the civil servants were hired when Fatah was in power. However, it doesn't matter; NPOV is a core policy, and core policies cannot be overruled by the MOS. BilledMammal (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

In WP:NPOV, "sources" in in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources could be interpreted as meaning one of four things; the work, the author, the publisher, or the publication. In this context, where we are determining how significant the view is that a qualification is required, I believe it makes most sense to consider the publisher, rather than the work or the author.

There are two reasons for this. First, the sources reviewed are a limited sample, and if we expanded the sample we would expect that approximately 68% of the sources reviewed would use a qualifier, 58% using a qualifier similar to Hamas-run or in Hamas-run Gaza. However, there is no reason to expect that the more prolific publishers will continue to prefer no qualifier, and thus adding weighting based on number of works published would reduce the statistical significance of this review.

Second, sources from the same publisher are not independent of each other, and thus considering the number of works from the publisher only gives a weighting to that publishers viewpoint that is unjustified. For example, the AFP published twelve articles saying "the Health Ministry in Hamas-run Gaza", but all that tells us is that the AFP has decided to use that qualifier and it is a prolific publisher. BilledMammal (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

But nobody is suggesting that we say that the ministry does distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, making that "qualifier" completely irrelevant to this discussion. That seems like it was just added to pad the numbers on how many "qualify" the numbers. Unless somebody is claiming we should say the numbers are for non-combatants that has nothing to do with anything here. I also don’t think your systematic review is all that systematic, nor do I think your week cutoff is reasonable. nableezy - 12:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The question would be whether we should explicitly say they don't. However, even if you don't think that qualifier is relevant, there is still a substantial majority that prefers either Hamas-run or in Hamas-run Gaza.

As for the specifics of this review - if you think a week is too short you are welcome to conduct a longer one. Further, if you think the source selection isn't appropriate, you're welcome to provide a different method of identifying a non-cherry-picked sample of reliable sources to review. At the moment, however, this is the best we have, and it clearly supports using a qualifier. BilledMammal (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If we are not saying there is a distinction or the numbers are just civilians then we are already saying there is no distinction. And I don’t see how that question is at all related to should we preface GHM with Hamas-run or similar, which is what this is about. Again, this just seems like padding the stats in a way to portray your argument as supported by some sort of math. Just a different way from counting wire articles multiple times, so same but different. nableezy - 12:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The view that WP:NPOV might require the use of contentious labels, in Wikivoice, seems novel to me and I'd like to hear an explanation why that would be the case. "Hamas-run" is argued to be a simple, factual claim, but ample evidence has been presented in this discussion demonstrating that it is anything but. Even for the inclusion of facts, I have not seen the argument presented before that a numerical threshold of news articles - whether 40%, 50%, or 60% - be used to determine article content. I am unaware of any basis for this in policy, so I am curious where the notion has come from.

(Also, this RfC concerns only whether a qualifier such a Hamas-run or Hamas-controlled ought to be included when data statistics are sourced to the GMH. Decisions about other context that may be relevant in our articles, such as how the data are produced or who is responsible for funding and administering the GMH, are out of scope for this RfC, as are counts of mentions of those factors). Newimpartial (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside, for the moment, the question of whether "Hamas-run" is a contentious opinion or a factual aspect:

The view that WP:NPOV might require the use of contentious labels, in Wikivoice, seems novel to me and I'd like to hear an explanation why that would be the case.

"Pseudoscientific" and "neo-Nazi" are both contentious labels. However, when the majority position of reliable sources is that those labels are correct, we are required by NPOV to use them, as failing to do so would be to give WP:UNDUE weight to the viewpoint that they do not apply. For example, we label Modern flat Earth beliefs "pseudoscientific", and we previously labelled the Azov Battalion a "neo-Nazi regiment". BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

In the article on those topics. I don’t think anybody is saying the article Gaza Health Ministry should not include it is part of the government of Gaza or that Gaza is run by Hamas. You however are arguing on using such a label across a range of articles (hell even sections). nableezy - 12:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the general view is that either factual aspects or contentious labels are guaranteed inclusion at each article where a topic is mentioned based on a threshold of 40% or 50% or 60% of sources invoking the phrase or its synonyms. And the inclusion of a phrase in the specific article on a topic is generally a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the phrase to be included in mentions of that topic in other articles.

Also, the factors I generally see invoked in deciding on qualifiers for a primary topic article mention are (i) is there dispute in the sources about the factual accuracy or the relevance of the descriptor (where there is dispute about one or the other aspect, attribution is generally required) and (ii) is the descriptor laden with "value" or emotion (if it is, attribution is generally required even when the term reflects the perspective generally held by the reliable sources).

In this particular case, it would seem quite peculiar to me to use a "majority of sources" threshold to mandate inclusion, without also considering (i) whether RS agree on the accuracy and relevance of the descriptor and (ii) whether the descriptor invokes values or emotions contrary to WP:NPOV principles. Newimpartial (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A straight reading of NPOV would suggest that we should reflect the majority, including for whether a specific piece of information is crucial enough to providing context to information that it should be included every time a source is referenced (see also WP:BIASEDSOURCES, which speaks to include such clarification). It's not clear to me how NPOV could be read to suggest that we should reflect the minority; could you clarify?

Regarding (i), there isn't a factual dispute. Even the sources presented to support the claim that Fatah members still work within the ministry make it clear that it is an agency in the Hamas-controlled government. In addition, your objection only applies to "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry", and doesn't apply to other qualifiers such as "the Gaza Health Ministry, an agency in the Hamas-controlled government".

Here, we have established that a qualifier is required. With that done we can now determine which qualifier to use.

Regarding (ii), it's not against NPOV to use a descriptor that invokes values or emotions; to interpret it that way would be WP:FALSEBALANCE, requiring us to omit information that presents a topic in a positive or negative light. BilledMammal (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

we have established that a qualifier is required I don't think that has been established at all. Selfstudier (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

To answer BM's question (as briefly as I can), I believe the most relevant principle of NPOV is WP:WEIGHT, which reads, 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. I do not see any competing principle that would suggest mentioning a phrase at each mention of a topic based on a bare majority of sources mentioning that aspect. Leaving information out when it cannot be contextualized appropriately (e.g., by attribution) conforms to NPOV better than taking one side in a dispute, as I understand the policy.

And so the way the WEIGHT principle has generally been understood, I think, is that where multiple perspectives exist, if factuality or relevance is disputed, our articles (i) don't use wikivoice and (ii) include material based on proportion. I don't see that any proposal to include "Hamas-run" at each mention of the GHM could follow these principles, because it is (i) using wikivoice and (ii) adopting a single perspective in a dispute.

Concerning your last paragraph, the principle isn't to exclude value-laden descriptors; it is to attribute them except in cases where the appropriateness of the descriptor is nearly unanimous in the sources. The instance under discussion here quite clearly is value-laden (per HQRS on its function in discourse) and is quite clearly nowhere near unanimous. Newimpartial (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC) Missing words inserted by Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

We're getting too deep here, so to save the closer I'm going to step back after this comment.

WP:BALASP is more appropriate than WP:DUE, but for the relevant part they both say the same thing; in proportion to the prominence of the aspect or viewpoint. In the case of the GHM, to reflect the prominence that reliable sources generally give the relationship with Hamas we would need to include it on every mention.

Further, the factuality of Hamas-run is not disputed (and even if it was, proposed alternatives such as "the Gaza Health Ministry, an agency in the Hamas-controlled government" would address that concern by being indisputably true), only the relevance, and thus Wikivoice is appropriate if it is determined to be relevant.

Finally, regarding relevance; including it will reflect the majority position, while excluding it will reflect the minority position. The former is more compliant with WP:NPOV than the latter. BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I really haven't seen support in other discussions for your "non-inclusion of the descriptor violates NPOV" position, which seems novel. In situations where we have a contentious descriptor included in roughly half the sources, and the relevance of the descriptor is disputed - which by all accounts seems to be the case here - we attribute the descriptor if we include it at all. That is what NPOV requires of us.

Also, saying "the GHM in the Hamas-controlled government" at each mention of the GHM's statistics, as BM now proposes, violates NPOV (and WP:V) by suggesting that Hamas control is relevant to the statistics. This might have reflected the (implicit but partisan) POV of early sources on the topic but it wasn't appropriately neutral then, and it is certainly not neutral now that the balances of sources has changed and better sources are available.

Advocating a nominal numerical threshold to "include always", in the face of shifting evidence and improved source quality, and on that basis writing a clearly partisan position into our articles in wikivoice - well, it seems an odd approach to me, and one clearly at odds with our P&Gs. Newimpartial (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal:, your explanation for why we shouldn't weight sources by their coverage doesn't make sense. In particular, you contradict yourself. If "sources from the same publisher are not independent of each other" then there is indeed "reason to expect that the more prolific publishers will continue to prefer no qualifier".

The bigger statistical issue here is that while Jayen466's analysis effectively uses a continuous linear weighting based on coverage, your weighting effectively uses a step function, arbitrarily set at a frequency of >=1 article/week. If you want a more detailed explanation, post on my talk page. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have been clearer. We can expect that individual sources, including prolific ones, will continue to prefer their current position - but we can't expect that new prolific sources will be less likely to prefer qualifiers than non-prolific ones.

This is particularly the case because we have reviewed most prolific American sources, while most non-American prolific sources remain unreviewed, and American sources are more likely to exclude qualifiers than non-American ones. BilledMammal (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

We have no data on future sources at all. We can only go by what we have.

On language differences, German Wikipedia has "Hamas-controlled" in front of pretty much every mention of the health ministry. We will inevitably find that each language version of Wikipedia will skew towards the habits most common in their media universe. That is arguably more of a feature than it is a bug. Andreas JN466 18:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal, Nableezy, and Vice regent: BilledMammal, you say: For example, the AFP published twelve articles saying "the Health Ministry in Hamas-run Gaza", but all that tells us is that the AFP has decided to use that qualifier and it is a prolific publisher. Could you say which twelve AFP articles those are? If I do a Google search for site:afp.com gaza health ministry for the seven-day period of 13 to 19 July, I only find three articles that are actually about Gaza:

• Video shows Gaza orphans in Jordan, not Indonesia (does not qualify)
• Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry Says 71 Dead In Camp Strike (qualifies with Hamas-run Gaza, this u.afp.com link actually links to an external site)
• Israel's air strikes kill scores in Gaza, Netanyahu vows to continue war on Hamas (qualifies with Hamas-ruled Gaza, this u.afp.com link actually links to an external site)

Did you use a similar method? I noticed that the Google search above catches many other articles about unrelated topics that seem to mention the "Health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza", but that is because afp.com runs a newsticker using that wording at the top of the screen.

So the Google search catches articles like "Topshots of the Week (13-19 July, 2024)" and "Heimdall Power raises $25 Million USD Series B to Accelerate Power Grid Optimization Globally", because one of the newsticker items is the daily update of the death toll in Gaza.

At any rate, instead of 12 articles using "Hamas-run" to qualify I found

• one that does not qualify and
• two that do.

Which leaves the AFP newsticker, which arguably should receive some weight, but I am not sure it is equivalent to ten articles per week, almost doubling the number of articles in our list that use this type of qualification. Andreas JN466 07:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I used a different method. I initially skipped AFP, because most of their articles are inaccessible, but when reviewing Yahoo news I realized that it republished most of AFP's, so I did a new search for site:news.yahoo.com "Health Ministry" "Gaza" "AFP", and then manually excluded the results that weren't republished AFP articles. BilledMammal (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks – that works out (and you did yeoman work there!). I did find an AFP article on yahoo.com that did not qualify but it was the only one, and I found there were at least 14 in the period from 13 to 19 July (roughly matching what Google would have shown for the last seven days at the time you did the search) that did qualify in exactly the way you said. So your AFP findings are broadly confirmed. Andreas JN466 17:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• AP, AFP and Reuters as news agencies should be given much higher weight than others as their work is widely reproduced in newspapers around the world. The discussion is about the "Hamas" qualifier, not about the "does not distinguish between combatants and civilians" qualifier. Those two are completely different. As far as I can tell, of the "Big Three", two (AP and Reuters) don't use the Hamas qualifier and one (AFP) does.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  According to our list of news agencies, there are four news agencies on that list; you've overlooked Bloomberg, who does qualify. BilledMammal (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Bloomberg News is hardly of relevance only been around since 1990, nothing like the big three. Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Only being around for 34 years makes a source hardly relevant? In any case there is no basis in policy to give the AFP, for example, greater weight than we give the BBC, the New York Times, or Bloomberg. BilledMammal (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  There are many small/recent news agencies. Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, but Bloomberg isn’t one of them FortunateSons (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  List of news agencies, a newcomer compared to the 19/20th century biggies, don't think I have ever cited Bloomberg for anything, I could be wrong tho. Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Of course. I likely have, but I don’t think it was on wiki. Maybe the relevance varies highly based on what you write about, but I have found their coverage to be generally decent FortunateSons (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The above source analysis has two major flaws:

1. BilledMammal only considers "articles published in the past week" which lends itself to WP:RECENTISM.
2. A quick skim through the sources indicates they discuss GHM only in passing.

This is not how we determine weight at all. If we did, wikipedia would read like WP:NOTNEWS. To illustrate the first point, consider the following counter-evidence. Going in alphabetical order, we see that all of the sources that BilledMammal says "always" use the Hamas qualifier seemed to rarely/never use that qualifier before the current conflict:

Source review before conflict
The Age - first 3 articles in google[28][29][30], no Hamas qualifiers Agence France-Presse - first 2 articles in google[31][32], no qualifier The Australian - Behind paywall, but no qualifier in first instance of usage[33], no Hamas qualifier Axios - first 3 google results[34],[35],[36], no Hamas qualifier. BBC - first 3 google results[37][38][39], no Hamas qualifier I think you get the point...

I'm sure if we poll news articles on "Israel" for last 9 months, a large number will undoubtedly discuss Israel very superficially and from the perspective of its occupation and killing of civilians. Using this skewed sample to determine weight would clearly be inappropriate.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 10:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal only considers "articles published in the past week" which lends itself to WP:RECENTISM.

Your argument appears to be that it is only within the last nine months that the majority of sources have qualified the GHM's relation to Hamas. When sources show a WP:SUSTAINED change in position we are supposed to reflect that change, and I don't think it can reasonably be argued that nine months isn't a sustained change in position - particularly since there has been orders of magnitude more coverage of the Health Ministry in the past nine months than there has previously.

Increase in coverage
In the past week, the BBC has mentioned the Gaza Health Ministry six times. In the entire year prior to October 7, they mentioned the Gaza Health Ministry only eight times. A similar ratio is true of Axios, AFP, the Age, and every other source I checked. Google Trends also supports the notion that coverage is significantly greater since the beginning of the war than prior to it.

However, can I propose a compromise? We only apply a qualifier when the GHM is mentioned in relation to events that occurred after October 7 2023 - I think that would address your concerns, while still reflecting the circumstances under which reliable sources consider this a significant aspect?

A quick skim through the sources indicates they discuss GHM only in passing

We're trying to determine whether we should include this aspect when mentioning the GHM. The NPOV-compliant way to determine that would appear to be to review whether reliable sources consistently include the aspect when mentioning it. How else would you propose determining whether an aspect is sufficiently significant to warrant inclusion on a mention? BilledMammal (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

In the last 9 months, most mentions of the IDF in news media have been in relation to Israel-Hamas war, with relatively few mentions of the 48, 67, 56, 73 wars. Does that show a "WP:SUSTAINED change in position" that IDF's actions during the current war must be given more weight than the rest of its entire history combined? Can we then also say the same for Israel itself? Likewise, your "Increase in coverage" is incorrect. In the last week, I don't see BBC giving any WP:Significant coverage to GHM in its 6 articles. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If you believe we need to alter the prominence of various aspects of our coverage of the IDF, I encourage you to open a discussion. The circumstances differ - for example, the GHM has almost certainly received more coverage since the war began than in the rest of its history combined, while that isn’t true of the IDF - but it could be worth a discussion.

SIGCOV relates to determining notability, not which aspects should be included - but in any case, they didn’t give any SIGCOV in the eight articles in the year prior either, so I’m not sure what your point is. BilledMammal (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

My point is that your "method" of determining DUE weight is a major distortion of our policies and would be rightfully rejected everywhere else (including at Talk:Israel). Instead of considering in-depth and scholarly studies into GHM and its data accuracy, you have instead chosen to rely on exclusively news articles that merely mention GHM in passing, and that too only the very recent ones.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Review of scholarly sources

I just had a look at the results from Google Scholar asking for results since 2024 for "Gaza Health Ministry". I don't think one can at all call the results scholarly but it should point in that direction and we should prefer scholarly sources. The first instance of "Hamas-run" I got was [40] on page 4 of the results. I think this indicates Hamas-run is not a common thing in that.. NadVolum (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Doing the same search, I get this on the first page, which says the Gaza Ministry of Health is a Hamas-run institution. In addition, most of the results are Gale mirrors of The Washington Post and The New York Times. BilledMammal (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s a pro-Israel lobby organization. Which makes it clear what it is that is being pushed here. nableezy - 14:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed all 11 results of "gaza health ministry" in Taylor and Francis (one was a duplicate):

11 results of "gaza health ministry" in Taylor and Francis

Article	Context	Hamas-Qualifier?	Amount of coverage	year
[41]	Medical stockpiles	No	Little	2020
[42]	Casualty figures in Israeli invasion of Gaza	No	Little	2024
[43]	Medical stockpiles, training doctors, transferring patients abroad, establishing hospital procedures	No	Several paragraphs	2020
[44]	Casualty figures in Operation Protective Edge	No	Little	2020
[45]	Casualty figures in 2014 Israel–Gaza war	No	Little	2015
[46]	Casualty figures in 2014 Israel–Gaza war	No	Little	2014
[47]	Casualty figures in May 2019 Gaza–Israel clashes	No	Little	2020
[48]	Casualty figures in Israeli invasion of Gaza	Yes	Little (2 sentences)	2024
[49]	Casualty figures in Israeli invasion of Gaza	No	Little	2023
[50]	Disease and fuel management during the Israeli invasion of Gaza	No	Little (4 sentences)	2024

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This review is flawed. First, most articles are out of date, and some are essays - essentially, non-peer reviewed opinion articles.

Focusing solely on the peer-reviewed articles that were written since October 7, the two that you say don't qualify the relationship only mention the Health Ministry in footnotes - the one that does mentions it in the article text. In addition, one of those two actually does conflate the Health Ministry and Hamas in the footnote, saying that people affiliated with the Gaza Health Ministry are Hamas.

With all of the recent peer-reviewed articles that mention the Ministry in the body qualifying the relationship, and two thirds that mention the Ministry at all doing so, this is actually additional evidence that we need to qualify it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The position of the Gaza Health Ministry in the area's public administration hasn't changed in almost two decades. No idea what's so "outdated" for you in three year old publications. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources dictate what we say, not how we say it

WP:NPOV mandates that we remain unbiased, even though WP:RS allows (even encourages: "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources...") us to use biased sources. MOS:WEASEL discourages us from using a whole bunch of words that are otherwise very commonly used by RS. Muhammad is widely referred in RS as "prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet", yet MOS:MUHAMMAD tells us to simply call him "Muhammad" in order to be neutral. BilledMammal himself proposed using the wording "Gaza genocide question" and opposed "Gaza genocide", out of NPOV concerns, even though extremely few RS use the former wording but plenty RS use the latter wording. Thus, our wording here must be based on NPOV, and we don't necessarily follow RS as RS can be non-neutral.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

And in this case, reliable sources have dictated that we inform readers of the relationship between Hamas and the Gaza Health Ministry. How we do so leaves a little more room for editorial judgement, though with suitable deference to reliable sources, and I think there are three reasonable options; "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry", "the Health Ministry in Hamas-run Gaza", and "the Gaza Health Ministry, an agency in the Hamas-controlled government".

we don't necessarily follow RS

We don't necessarily follow individual RS, as individually RS can be non-neutral. By definition, collectively reliable sources cannot be non-neutral, as we determine neutrality by the collective position of reliable sources. To do otherwise would involve determining it based on the opinion of editors, or the opinion of a minority of sources; either way, its obvious that doing so would not be neutral. BilledMammal (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"reliable sources have dictated that we inform readers of the relationship between Hamas and the Gaza Health Ministry" and we do exactly that at the article Gaza Health Ministry, like we should. But you are arguing that across wikipedia GHM should be called something like "Hamas-run GHM". I'm saying RS cannot decide names of subjects for us. If they did, we'd be referring to Islam's founder as "the prophet" or "prophet Muhammad". The name we give to GHM across wikipedia must be informed by NPOV instead.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

They can also dictate if we inform readers of the relationship outside that article. This isn't reliable sources deciding the name of the subject, this is reliable sources deciding whether an aspect is significant - a what, not a how. BilledMammal (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"This isn't reliable sources deciding the name of the subject, this is reliable sources deciding whether an aspect is significant" If you're demanding a rule on wikipedia that all (first) instances of "GHM" be replaced by X, then you're asking for a name change.

We don't always qualify Muhammad with "prophet", Jesus with "Christ", Albert Einstein with "physicist", Mary with "virgin", Picasso with "painter", even though I can find you 10,000s (millions?) of RS who do this. On a negative note, we also don't always preface Nazi party with "antisemitic" - yet who can deny that antisemitism was a "significant aspect" of that party? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If this qualifier nonsense (it does not improve the articles imo) should somehow be approved, then it would need to be clarified that many sources do not mindlessly use such qualifiers and that many sources have ceased to use such qualifiers. I still believe that this whole thing is misguided, the status of GHM should just be properly explained in any article where that is relevant and left to the wikilink if it is not. Selfstudier (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The name will still be "Gaza Health Ministry" - adding or omitting contextual information does not change it.

As for your other topics, you're slightly mistaken - our current guidance is that on first mention we should generally qualify Muhammad with "Islamic Prophet". As for the rest, if you believe those aspects are sufficiently significant that they need to be included on most or every mention, then please open a discussion proposing that - it has no bearing on this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

See table below.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the name being different. I did say that the context, the full context, is important. Also we have meta sources analyzing this "Hamas-run" usage, such as VOA which discusses it alongside the use of the word "terrorist" by the media (which we have a guideline about) "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." It's sort of the same thing as the "terrorist" label, unless there is a preponderance of sourcing for the qualifier, we shouldn't use it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The below table shows that the qualifier most WP:NPOV is also the rarest among RS usage, by contrast the qualifiers prohibited by MOS:ISLAM (due to NPOV) far more common among RS.

First mention of Muhammad in an article

Qualifier	JSTOR hits	Taylor and Francis hits	Recommended by MOS:Islam?
"Islamic Prophet Muhammad"	222	54	Yes
"Prophet Muhammad"	17,725	5,218	No
"Holy Prophet"	950	243	No
"The prophet"	32,403	9,777	No

Google books ngrams tell a similar story. Hopefully the above can serve as an example that qualifiers are not necessarily determined based on RS usage.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If you believe our current guidance is incorrect, then I encourage you to open a discussion and to ping me to it - but determining which qualifier for Muhammad is appropriate under NPOV is too off-topic, and too unfair to the closer, to do here. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In my view, this only supports the view that a qualifier here is merited. The majority of sources do not use a qualifier, but to maintain NPOV we do use a qualifier (i.e. we do not call Muhammed "the Prophet" or "Prophet" without specifying that he is an Islamic prophet). The same should happen for the Gaza Health Ministry - even if reliable sources do not use a qualifier, they may not be maintaining a neutral point of view, yet we still should. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 08:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:Islam recommends we use no qualifier at all (recommended action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad"), but says we "may" (not that we "must", as is being proposed here) use a qualifier that is fairly rare in RS.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Systematic review of newspapers of record

Some editors have raised concerns that the list of reliable sources at WP:RSP is not representative. To address this, I've reviewed all sources at Newspaper of record#Examples of existing newspapers, with the same criteria as before; articles published in the past week, that mention "Gaza" and "Health Ministry", and that are neither syndicated nor opinion.

The intent of this is to review a representative sample of sources that are likely to be high-quality, in order to determine whether reliable sources generally do or don't qualify the relationship.

Review of newspapers of record

Country Source Search term Qualifies Notes Argentina La Nacion "Gaza" "Ministerio de salud" Yes (2/2) "El Ministerio de Salud del gobierno de Hamás en la Franja de Gaza" ("The Ministry of Health of the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip") Australia The Age "Gaza "Health Ministry" Yes (1/1) "Hamas-run Health Ministry" Australia Sydney Morning Herald "Gaza "Health Ministry" N/A Austria Die Presse "gaza" "Gesundheitsministerium" Yes (1/1) "Hamas kontrollierte Gesundheitsministerium" ("Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health") Austria Der Standard "gaza" "Gesundheitsministerium" Yes (2/3) "Hamas kontrollierten Gesundheitsministeriums" ("Hamas-controlled Health Ministry") and "Hamas geführten Gesundheitsbehörden" ("Hamas-led Health Ministry") Bahamas The Nassau Guardian "Gaza "Health Ministry" N/A Bangladesh The Daily Star (Bangladesh) "Gaza "Health Ministry" N/A Belgium Le Soir "Gaza" "ministère de la santé" Yes (1/1) "du ministère de la Santé du gouvernement de Gaza, dirigé par le Hamas" ("Hamas-led Gaza government’s Ministry of Health") Belgium De Standaard "Gaza" "Ministerie van Gezondheid" N/A Bolivia El Diario (La Paz) "Gaza" "Ministerio de salud" N/A Brazil O Estado de S. Paulo "Gaza" "Ministério da saúde" Yes (2/2) "ministério da Saúde de Gaza, que é controlado pelo Hamas" ("Gaza's health ministry, which is controlled by Hamas") Brazil Folha de S.Paulo "Gaza" "Ministério da saúde" N/A Brazil O Globo "Gaza" "Ministério da saúde" Yes (2/3) "Ministério da Saúde do território palestino governado pelo Hamas" ("Health Ministry of the Palestinian territory governed by Hamas") and "Ministério da Saúde de Gaza, administrado pelo Hamas" ("Gaza Health Ministry, administrated by Hamas") Canada Le Devoir "Gaza" "ministère de la santé" N/A Canada The Globe and Mail "Gaza "Health Ministry" N/A Chile El Mercurio "Gaza" "Ministerio de salud" N/A Colombia El Tiempo (Colombia) "Gaza" "Ministerio de salud" ? Unable to review; paywall Czech Lidové noviny "Gaza" "Ministerstvo zdravotnictví" Yes (1/1) "Palestinské ministerstvo zdravotnictví kontrolované Hamásem" ("Hamas-controlled Palestinian Ministry of Health") Denmark Berlingske "Gaza" "Sundhedsministeriet" Yes (1/1) "Hamas-kontrollerede sundhedsministerium i Gaza" ("Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health in Gaza") Egypt Al-Ahram "Gaza" "health Ministry" No (0/2) Egypt Al-Masry Al-Youm "غزة" "وزارة الصحة" No (0/11) Finland Helsingin Sanomat "gaza" "terveysministeriö" Yes (1/1) "Hamasin alainen Gazan terveysministeriö" ("Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry") France Le Figaro "gaza" "ministère de la santé" Yes (1/1) "ministère de la Santé du Hamas" ("Hamas Ministry of Health") France Libération "gaza" "ministère de la santé" N/A France Le Monde "gaza" "ministère de la santé" Yes (3/4) "ministère de la santé de la bande de Gaza, administrée par le Hamas" ("health ministry in the Hamas-administered Gaza Strip") Germany Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung "gaza" "Gesundheitsministerium" Yes (5/6) "Gesundheitsministerium des von der radikalislamischen Hamas kontrollierten" ("Ministry of Health controlled by the radical Islamic group Hamas") and "Gesundheitsministerium der im Gazastreifen regierenden radikalislamischen Hamas" (Ministry of Health of the radical Islamic group Hamas, which rules Gaza") Germany Der Spiegel "gaza" "Gesundheitsministerium" Yes (1/1) "Das Gesundheitsministerium in Gaza, das von der Hamas kontrolliert" ("The Ministry of Health in Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas") Germany Süddeutsche Zeitung "gaza" "Gesundheitsministerium" Yes (2/2) "Hamas geführte Gesundheitsministerium" ("Hamas-run Ministry of Health") Germany Die Welt "gaza" "Gesundheitsministerium" Yes (2/2) "Hamas kontrollierte Gesundheitsministerium" ("Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health") Germany Die Zeit "gaza" "Gesundheitsministerium" Yes (1/1) "Hamas kontrollierte Gesundheitsministerium" ("Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health") Greece Kathimerini "γάζα" "υπουργείο Υγείας" Yes (1/1) "Το υπουργείο, που υπάγεται στη Χαμάς" ("Hamas-affiliated Ministry") Guatemala Prensa Libre (Guatemala) "Gaza" "Ministerio de salud" N/A Hong Kong South China Morning Post "Gaza "Health Ministry" N/A Iceland Morgunblaðið "Gaza" "Heilbrigðisráðuneytið" N/A India The Hindu "Gaza "Health Ministry" N/A India The Times of India "Gaza "Health Ministry" Mixed (2/4) "Health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza" and "health ministries in both the Hamas-controlled territory and Israel" Indonesia Kompas "Gaza" "Kementerian Kesehatan" N/A Iran Ettela'at "غزه" "وزارت بهداشت" No Unable to translate, presumed not Ireland The Irish Times "Gaza "Health Ministry" Yes (2/2) "Hamas-run health ministry" Israel Haaretz "Gaza "Health Ministry" Yes (6/8) "Hamas-run health ministry" Italy Il Sole 24 Ore "Gaza" "Ministero della Salute" N/A Italy Corriere della Sera "Gaza" "Ministero della Salute" Yes (2/2) "ministero della Sanità di Gaza controllato da Hamas" ("Gaza Ministry of Health controlled by Hamas") Italy La Stampa "Gaza" "Ministero della Salute" N/A Italy la Repubblica "Gaza" "Ministero della Salute" Yes (1/1) "ministero della Sanità di Gaza controllato da Hamas" ("Gaza Ministry of Health controlled by Hamas") Jamaica The Gleaner "Gaza "Health Ministry" N/A Japan The Asahi Shimbun "ガザ" "保健省" No (0/3) Japan The Nikkei "ガザ" "保健省" N/A Japan Yomiuri Shimbun "ガザ" "保健省" N/A Kenya Daily Nation "Gaza "Health Ministry" N/A Lebanon An-Nahar "غزة" "وزارة الصحة" Yes (2/2) " وزارة الصحة التابعة لـ"حماس" في قطاع" ("The Hamas Ministry of Health in the Gaza Strip") Malaysia New Straits Times "Gaza "Health Ministry" N/A Mexico Excélsior "Gaza" "Ministerio de salud" Yes (2/2) "ministerio de Salud del gobierno de Hamás" ("Ministry of Health for the Hamas Government") Mexico Reforma "Gaza" "Ministerio de salud" N/A Netherlands NRC Handelsblad "Gaza" "Ministerie van Gezondheid" No (0/2) New Zealand New Zealand Herald "Gaza" "Health Ministry" Yes (1/1) "Hamas-run Gazan health ministry" Norway Aftenposten "Gaza" "Helsedepartementet" N/A Pakistan Dawn (newspaper) "Gaza "Health Ministry" No (0/1) Panama La Prensa (Panama City) "Gaza" "Ministerio de salud" N/A Paraguay ABC Color "Gaza" "Ministerio de salud" N/A Peru El Comercio (Peru) "Gaza" "Ministerio de salud" N/A Unable to review this article Philippines Philippine Daily Inquirer "Gaza "Health Ministry" N/A Poland Gazeta Wyborcza "Gaza" "Ministerstwo Zdrowia" Yes (1/1) "kontrolowane przez Hamas Ministerstwo Zdrowia" ("Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health") Poland Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) "Gaza" "Ministerstwo Zdrowia" N/A Portugal Diário de Notícias "Gaza" "Ministério da saúde" No (0/1) Portugal Público (Portugal) "Gaza" "Ministério da saúde" N/A Serbia Politika "Газа" "Министарство здравља" No (0/1) Singapore The Straits Times "Gaza "Health Ministry" N/A South Africa Mail & Guardian "Gaza "Health Ministry" N/A Korea The Chosun Ilbo "가자" "보건부" Yes (2/2) "하마스 통제를 받는 가자 정부와 보건부"("Hamas-controlled Gaza government and health ministry") Korea The Dong-A Ilbo "가자" "보건부" N/A Korea JoongAng Ilbo "가자" "보건부" N/A Spain ABC (newspaper) "Gaza" "Ministerio de salud" N/A Spain El Mundo (Spain) "Gaza" "Ministerio de salud" N/A Spain El País "Gaza" "Ministerio de salud" Yes (2/2) "Ministerio de Sanidad gazatí, controlado por Hamás" ("Gaza Ministry of Health, controlled by Hamas") Sweden Dagens Nyheter "Gaza" "Hälsoministeriet" No (0/1) Switzerland Le Temps "gaza" "ministère de la santé" Yes (3/3) "ministère de la Santé du Hamas" ("Hamas Ministry of Health") Switzerland Neue Zürcher Zeitung "gaza" "Gesundheitsministerium" N/A Thailand Bangkok Post "Gaza "Health Ministry" N/A Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad and Tobago Guardian "Gaza "Health Ministry" Mixed (1/2) "Hamas-run Health Ministry" Turkey Cumhuriyet "Gazze" "Sağlık Bakanlığı" N/A United Kingdom The Daily Telegraph "Gaza "Health Ministry" N/A United Kingdom Financial Times "Gaza "Health Ministry" N/A United Kingdom The Guardian "Gaza "Health Ministry" No (5/12) "Hamas-run health ministry" and "health ministry in the Hamas-administered territory" United Kingdom The Times "Gaza "Health Ministry" Yes (2/2) "the health ministry in Gaza, which Hamas has controlled", "Hamas-run Gaza health ministry" United States Los Angeles Times "Gaza "Health Ministry" No (0/1) United States The New York Times "Gaza "Health Ministry" No (0/14) United States The Wall Street Journal "Gaza "Health Ministry" No (0/2) United States The Washington Post "Gaza "Health Ministry" No (0/18) Vatican L'Osservatore Romano "Gaza" "Ministero della Salute" N/A

Of those sources, 68% (30:14) qualified the relationship between Hamas and the Gaza Health Ministry. It appears that global news sources, which are better represented on this list, are more likely to qualify than anglosphere sources, which are over-represented at WP:RSP.

In line with WP:NPOV, which tells us that on Wikipedia neutrality means reflecting the position of reliable sources and not inserting our own preferences, this should demonstrate that we are required to include the qualifier. BilledMammal (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Editors have been spending a lot of time explaining why that isn't necessarily so. Yet another table isn't going to help. And WP:VNOT is a thing, like or not. If consensus determines that this addition isn't necessary, it won't be going in. A full, proper and contextualized explanation in any article that would satisfy NPOV, sure, no objection to that, if NYT can manage that, so can we. Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting VNOT. It says that Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and WP:CONSENSUS says that consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

What this means is that we can exclude verifiable information, when doing so is aligned with policies such as WP:NPOV. In this case, where to do so would be to reflect the minority view that the information is not relevant, rather than the majority view that the information is relevant, excluding it would not be aligned with our policies. BilledMammal (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

We have discussed this already and I have a different opinion as to What this means. Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion appears to be that, solely on the basis of editors opinions and without regard for non-negotiable policies like WP:NPOV, information can be excluded from articles. If we allow this interpretation to stand we will be effectively legitimizing WP:POVPUSHING; editors who want to exclude information that doesn't align with their POV will be empowered to do so simply by citing WP:VNOT, even when NPOV would require it be included. BilledMammal (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It's like Jerusalem Post's "Hamas-affiliated media" and "Hamas-affiliated news outlet based in Gaza", of course that's exactly the sort of crap I would expect from that source. Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not trying to get around NPOV, I just disagree on what it is that would constitute NPOV in this case, and that jamming a two word qualifier in front of a wikilinked GHM isn't the way to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Then argue that; raising WP:VNOT, which isn't relevant once reasons other than verifiability have been provided to support inclusion, just confuses things.

However, no part of NPOV allows for editorial discretion, and that means that the only way to comply with NPOV is by reflecting, in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, all significant views and aspects. In this case, where our options are to include or exclude a qualifier, that means we need to include it if the majority include it, and exclude it if the majority exclude it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I have argued that, also see MOS:LEADREL. Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

That's the MOS, but relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources would support including it if the majority of reliable sources do so, and excluding it if the majority don't. BilledMammal (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I repeat, for about the fifth time, that I do not object to a proper, complete and contextualized explanation of GHM status in any relevant article, per NPOV.

And I repeat that "Hamas run" or any other incomplete descriptor must not be in the lead of any article at all (which it could be with "add to first mention" baloney), while the above referred to explanation, in line with NPOV, may be added to articles where that is relevant. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Before this closes, I wanted to point out the following:

• Wikipedia articles do not parrot their sources, and editors are supposed to take into account meta-considerations (like HQRS evaluations of source quality and bias) in deciding where WP:NPOV is to be found, rather than aggregating sources mechanistically. If the majority of sources echo a single biased perspective, and are documented by higher-quality sources as doing so, then NPOV does not allow us to place said biased perspective in Wikivoice where other well-sourced perspectives exist. Furthermore, there is no policy-based argument that such a descriptor must be included at each mention of the topic, even with attribution - we don't use scarlet letters here.
• Also, I am unclear whether BM intends the line of argumentation they are making here (about NPOV) to be a contribution to detetmining consensus in this RfC, or if it is meant to provide the foundation for a future argument that, if this RfC is closed with a finding against the inclusion of "Hamas-run", it shouldn't be carried out because it is incompatible with BM's interpretation of NPOV. Or perhaps it is both?

My own view on the latter point is that many editors participating in this discussion have invoked different interpretations of NPOV policy, and however this discussion closes, an end-run to set aside the close in specific cases ("because of NPOV") would be disruptive. Only a review of the close, or another subsequent discussion with a higher CONLEVEL, ought to set aside the result obtained here. Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Newspapers are not the gold standard of sources, and you once again failed to address highly reliable sources like Amnesty International or OCHA. nableezy - 11:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I went through a count of what BilledMammal presented and found 132 articles, of which 62 (46%) use a qualifier and 71 (54%) don't. Such a count weighs sources by their quantity of output. For example, we should indeed give higher weight to The Guardian and Washington Post, which have produced porlific in-depth coverage of the topic, then newspapers that barely report on this. However, as I show below, BilledMammal's table doesn't include articles and sources that don't use the qualifier, so the table itself is distorted.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

VR's count finds that, ignoring accuracy issues in above table, 46% of sources use the qualifier and 54% don't.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC),

• The table is contains errors and suffers from selection bias:
  • Example error: BilledMammal lists Canada's Globe and Mail as "N/A", but that is not true. It says "The war in Gaza, which was sparked by Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel, has killed more than 38,900 people, according to the territory’s Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between combatants and civilians in its count." Another article says "At least 38,848 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s retaliatory offensive since then, Gaza health authorities say." No Hamas qualifier anywhere. It seems the table omits sources that call GHM officials by another name.
  • The list suffers from selection bias. Only 3 sources from the entire Arab world, but 5 sources from Germany alone? This article in The National (Abu Dhabi), which describe itself as UAE's newspaper of record, doesn't use a qualifier. This article in Al Ra'i, Jordan's newspaper of record[51], doesn't use the qualifier. This article in the Daily Jang, also a newspaper of record[52], also doesn't use a qualifier.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

See here for why weighting sources by their quantity of output makes no sense.

The Globe and Mail articles were excluded as syndicated content, from AP and Reuters respectively.

If you have a better method of building a list of sources, please provide it. So far I have used two different methods, and both have produced the same result - it is highly likely that any reasonable method will do the same. BilledMammal (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Or it is highly likely that your methods are unreasonable. nableezy - 15:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Look, a lot of the big hitters are not doing it (nor are people you missed out like Amnesty, OCHA). And apart from that the whole thing of just shoving in Hamas run is just not NPOV at all, contrary to what you are asserting based merely on verifiability in sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The American "big hitters" are not doing it. Non-American ones tend to, and we shouldn't be giving undue weight to American publications. In addition, there is no basis in policy to give the "big hitters", American or not, weight beyond what we give equally reliable "smaller hitters".

As I said to Nableezy, if you have a better method of producing a list, then I am eager to hear it - but at the moment, these are the best we have. BilledMammal (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating the absurdity of claiming something like a percentage of news sources using some phrase based on an arbitrary selection and on demonstrable omissions of data that is inconvenient to the desired outcome. And oh by the way BM, it isn’t that you should exclude Reuters or AP, it is that you should count them as Reuters or AP and not once for every single newspaper that republished the story. nableezy - 15:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Reuters and AP were included in #Systematic review of reliable sources, as they are listed at WP:RSP. They weren't included in this list, because they aren't listed at Newspaper of record#Examples of existing newspapers.

No data was omitted. I reviewed every source listed at two lists that, while perhaps not perfectly representative, are independent of each other and thus the fact that they both produced the same result is solid evidence that they have produced the correct result.

If you have a better method of producing a list, then I am eager to hear it - but at the moment, these lists are the best evidence we have, and in the absence of more compelling evidence are what we must follow. BilledMammal (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If the Globe and Mail cites the health ministry and you say there are no instances then it was, definitionally, omitted. nableezy - 15:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You do realize that you were the editor who told me to exclude syndicated content? BilledMammal (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It isn’t just syndicated data. This is written by the Globe and Mails Jerusalem correspondent. nableezy - 15:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

That's from May. I reviewed articles published within the past week.

If you want to conduct a review that goes back to may, then I encourage you to do so - but if your earlier argument that usage is decreasing, not increasing, is correct, then it won't show a different result. BilledMammal (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s been true for months, and only including stories from the past week is its own selection bias. nableezy - 16:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The label is for spreading Israeli propaganda

When Medhi Hasan was still with MSNBC, he did an interview with Mark Regev, senior advisor to Netanyahu, back in November 2023.(Video on YouTube) At 2:30, when Hasan tried to cite the GHM death toll, Regev would not let Hasan finish his question unless he would say that the GHM was "Hamas-controlled", to which Hasan did not surrender. At 4:50 Regev made it out loud that they don't trust the GHM figures simply because those were "provided by Hamas" and "Hamas controlled the information", even though Hasan retorted that the GHM is widely accepted as reliable. So the Hamas labels in mainstream media reports are really just for parroting Israel's propaganda to sow distrust in the GHM death toll. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

But Wikipedia's decision procedures don't have any dependency on whether that is true or false, do they? Although I suppose it depends on what carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources means precisely. Under Wikipedia's system, I assume content that includes Israeli propaganda can have a higher NPOV compliance score than content that excludes it, because the former might get closer to the NPOV objective of 'complete information'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If we have sourcing that points to it being Israeli propaganda, and we do, then we should also be including that information. Selfstudier (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Assumption of reader's ignorance

There are a good amount of "use" !votes which employ the argument of "not every reader possesses the knowledge of the relationship between the GHM and Hamas". When I ask for any guidelines or policies which explicitly demand we assume reader's ignorance in order to justify the Hamas label, they just offer a completely irrelevant guideline/policy which mentions nothing remotely relevant to the assumption of ignorance. We do have a page Wikipedia:Assume ignorance, but it is an essay about the interaction between Wikipedians and assuming good faith. But back to the main point, assuming readers' ignorance is not a good reason, if not the worst, to employ a contentious qualifier. Again, we don't have any guideline or policy explicitly requiring such an editorial mentality when addressing a term. In the case of the GHM, Hamas is far from the most relevant property. I was not joking about a qualifier that instead highlights the widespread acceptance of the GHM's data.

(i) Gaza Health Ministry being an organization serving the Gaza Strip should be a very good indicator of its inherent empathy for Palestinians in Gaza, which makes the Hamas label redundant in implying their inherent bias.

(ii) If a qualifier serves as a tool for the benefit of readers' ignorance, it should indicate something that the reader is more likely unfamiliar with, such as being accepted as a reliable source globally. This is what readers unfamiliar with the GHM would not expect from the GHM in the face of the relentless military campaign from Israel. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

While it's not a policy, we have the principle of least astonishment. If the reader might think that figures come from a source not associated with the sides of the conflict, it makes sense to mention the relationship between them. Alaexis_¿question? 12:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

We should tell them that the ICJ yesterday confirmed that G is part of a single territorial unit. Just so they are not astonished to learn that Gaza is part of Palestine. What else? Oh, that the IDF is now the "illegal" IDF (good qualifier that, ICJ ratified) in the "illegal" occupation (another ICJ ratified qualifier) of Palestine, they might be astonished to learn that, too. And some other things... Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes. We should be calling the occupation illegal, and we should've been doing so long before the ICJ confirmed it, as the general consensus among international law experts was that it was illegal. Your point proves nothing - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If there are issues of us not using qualifiers elsewhere where we should be doing so to maintain NPOV, then the solution isn't to violate NPOV here too - it's to fix those instances by adding the qualifiers to adhere to NPOV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 08:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to include things, and we often don't, merely because they are verifiable. Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I keep reading "use" proponents arguing that the GHM should be treated as a belligerent in the IP conflict (to justify the Hamas label), which I staunchly disagree with. If that were the case, the GHM would be accounted for in the military strength of Hamas in our Israel-Hamas war infobox, which would be absurd. We don't label other organizations functioning in a country actively participating in a war as "belligerent" unless they directly command any combatants or execute direct aggression. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

But of course I have explained that the "Gaza" part in the GHM is already a good indicator of its inherent bias for the Gaza side, which is completely irrelevant whether Gaza is governed by Hamas or Fatah. The GHM's priority is always Gaza. All "use" proponents fail to provide a single reliable source which proves Hamas's tampering with the GHM's figures when they are so desperately trying to push the POV about Hamas's undue influence over the GHM. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It is WP:ONEDOWN, the guideline is to assume a particular level of ignorance depending on the article topic. CMD (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Closing

• Considering the last few gigantic RFC/discussion pieces about the war, maybe we should consider closing soon? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's only been open four days, and comments - and evidence - are still coming in. I don't think it should be closed yet. BilledMammal (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is already a large and entangled mess. As a reminder,WP:RFCEND suggests "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be." The survey seems one-sided right now with nearly an order of magnitude voting "dont use" compared to "use".

  If you think there isn't consensus yet or that more time will lead to more votes for the other side, then sure. I also think that keeping it open for "more evidence" after 4 days may not be helpful. Couldn't we just open a new RFC if more evidence comes to light? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think letting it run the 30 days so when people point to the consensus it is procedurally sound is for the best. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think your count is correct. I'm seeing 19 people saying "don't use", 10 saying "use", and 8 saying "use sometimes".

  In addition, consensus isn't determined by counting votes, but by assessing the quality of arguments through the lens of Wikipedia policy - and many of the "don't use" !votes are contrary to policy, arguing that we shouldn't use it for reasons other than those compatible with WP:NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  Whatever. I never expect you to agree with our arguments, so all the "don't use" !votes are not convincing is, after all, your personal opinion. I see most editors involved in the IP topics have already expressed their opinions, and more and more !votes are really just endorsing other's arguments, so I don't see the point of prolonging this RfC by another week. I don't mind if you canvass other qualified editors to this page, as long as it is done fairly and transparently. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just a procedural thing, and I'm sure you might know this already, but consensus is not found by tallying votes. An RfC is not a poll. WP:PNSD is a good essay on this matter. For the record, I agree with others that 4 days is far too short. More time is needed, especially when those that found this RfC first may have arrived through Discord servers and may not be representative of editors at large. Domeditrix (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear: this discussion has now been open for seven days, not four. Still a number far less than 30, of course. Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm aware, but the proposal was to close at 4 days. I'd still support leaving it open for the full 30 days. Domeditrix (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'd support closing it after it is inactive for a day, perhaps even discounting people who'd already put in umteen contributions, but it is still only a bit over half the size of the ADL discussion so perhaps there's a while to go yet! NadVolum (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Well it's more than 30 days, hopefully we've just had the RfC's last dying gasp before some brave person comes along and closes it? NadVolum (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Clearly, this RFC can be quickly closed with broad consensus for not using the qualifier. The delay in the close is unfortunate as someone has just added this qualifier to the Israel-Hamas war article's lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• This RfC is close to 2-month long. Can we request an immediate closing by an uninvolved admin? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Notifications

I've added a notification at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#RFC on Gaza Health Ministry qualifier. RAN1 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2024 (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.