• Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Sounds like a reasonable decision. The Hamas-run label was used to denote that the death toll coming out of the Gaza Health Ministry was not very trustworthy. The numbers have since been declared trustworthy by pretty much any credible agency around the world but the most invested hasbaristas. Therefore today the label has become misleading when it comes to this information. It adds uncertainty to trustworthy information which only serves the goals of the hasbaristas who seek to convince that the death toll is significantly lower.

    • ashar@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The 40,000 killed statistic is reliable in that the killed persons name, identity number etc are reported to MoH officials and recorded by them, and the dead are seen by the officials. However the figure is a small subset of the actual number dead. 200,000 to 300,000 dead in Gaza in the past year is a conservative estimate.

  • mhague@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    By the end of the article they’ve framed much of this as being pro-Hamas / anti-Israel when a collaborative encyclopedia was seemingly worried about appearing neutral.

    There’s enough there to have a good argument about sources and consistent wording but the article keeps highlighting people who think it’s purely political and even that people probably didn’t read the issue, they just wanted to be pro or anti Israel.

    There’s still a lot of people who call this a genocide because they feel / think it’s a genocide, not because they’re on a side. Having consistent wording is important because you should be able to speak the truth and still feel whatever you felt… it’s not about hating Israel. I guess the beginning of the article sort of captures that mindset.

    • granolabar@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      it’s not about hating Israel.

      Israel is working hard to turn the world agaisnt itself.

      Once you learn the history, it is very hard to seeing aa anything but a brutal colonial project.

  • rhacer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    45
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Why? Is it not Hamas run? If it’s not Hamas run, then it shouldn’t be called Hamas run, but if it is Hamas run what’s the issue?

    • acargitz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      So we should also be calling it the Otzma Yehudit-run Ministry of National Security of Israel?

      Heh, might as well have some fun with it: The Jewish-Power-run National Security Ministry of Israel. Sounds pretty fucking fascist.

      And the Religious-Zionist-run Ministry of Finance of Israel.

      They start sounding pretty cooky aren’t they?

    • Sundial@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      72
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      There was also a question of redundancy, as editors against the qualifier opined that it’s implied that Hamas runs Gaza and noted that Wikipedia doesn’t refer to the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as the “Israel-run” or “Netanyahu-run” IDF or the State Department as the “Democrat-run State Department.”

      There’s a clear implicit meaning when saying “Hamas-run” that a lot of people in western countries would use to help discredit what’s actually going on there.

    • tate@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It would be like calling FEMA ‘democrat run’ when talking about the latest hurricane recovery efforts. It is literally true, but it is not relevant. To add it would only serve an editorial purpose, not a factual one.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Just shows that there’s no such thing as neutrality on anything contentious (wikis are in any case systemically unsuitable for contentious issues). Even when and how often to mention indisputably true things can be a form of taking sides.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 hours ago
    Jewish Jounral - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Jewish Jounral:

    MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America


    Wikipedia search about this source

    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/376157/wikipedia-editors-place-a-near-total-ban-on-calling-gaza-health-ministry-hamas-run/

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support