Talk:Gaza Health Ministry

adding references to GHM death data

The summary and listed deaths data appears to be published in PDFs in the news feed - The news feed is here - https://www.moh.gov.ps/portal/category/%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a3%d8%ae%d8%a8%d8%a7%d8%b1/%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ae%d8%a8%d8%b1-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b1%d8%a6%d9%8a%d8%b3%d9%8a/ The data is (for example) in the PDF at the bottom here https://www.moh.gov.ps/portal/%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b5%d8%ad%d8%a9-%d8%aa%d9%86%d8%b4%d8%b1-%d8%a3%d8%b3%d9%85%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b4%d9%87%d8%af%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d9%88%d8%aa%d9%86%d8%af%d8%af-%d8%a8%d8%aa%d8%a8%d9%86%d9%8a-%d8%a7/ Peterxyz (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute

@Mistamystery you seem to be reverting several users' edits (multiple reverts in the last couple of hours alone). Can you explain your reasoning for removing sourced content added by myself and nableezy? VR _talk 20:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not revert anything Nableezy added, merely shifted content to appropriate paragraphs as the section evolved.

The other revert is technically a single revert (as explained in edit history, I hit post too soon, self-reverted, and then completed the original single edit in one revert as per the description).

All other edits or the revert are explained in detail in the edit history. Please let me know if there are any further questions and happy to talk further here. Mistamystery (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

And to be clear, you are not abiding by NPOV standards in your recent edits, and your most recent addition is another example:

You just inserted the provision that the Italian Foreign Minister made comment “without providing any evidence”

That is a fundamental mischaracterization of the article, which does not state the above as you inferred, but merely points out the minister did not “say what evidence his comments were based on”. It does not imply in any way that the Minister was not in possession of either evidence nor intelligence on the matter.

I recommend you self-revert this addition, and please show a bit more restraint, double checking, and ensuring neutral contribution in making further edits on this article. Mistamystery (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

But I never wrote that the minister was not in possession of any evidence, rather the minister simply did not provide it. Does the RS not say exactly that? VR _talk 20:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article relating to him even being asked to provide evidence. It is standard for Foreign Ministers to be making official comment in relation to intelligence briefings that are not automatically provided nor made public. The article is abundantly clear - he simply did not identify the evidence he was basing his assertions on. If anything, that makes the case that the journalist believed the Minister *was* basing his comments on evidence. Mistamystery (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Its not that he didn't make evidence public that he was basing his comments on, he didn't even mention it. Contrast this with when Biden said that Al-Ahli explosion was caused by a Palestinian rocket - Biden pointed to info from US intelligence, who then pointed to infrared imagery. The Italian minister provided nothing, it seems.VR _talk 21:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is up to the journalist to ask about the evidence, not for us to infer whether or not the evidence exists, or whether or not the official was withholding it (or didn’t have it)

That said, we have one paragraph for critics and one paragraph for supporters. Let’s just keep the arguments to the appropriate place and stop trying to chip away at sections from the inside

Mistamystery (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Would it be an acceptable compromise if we used the same wording as the source, like “without saying what evidence the comments were based on”.VR _talk 21:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes you reverted content Nableezy added[1] too. They added "the Washington Post, the figures provided by the ministry are considered reliable by many experts", which you removed entirely in this edit[2]. You removed HRW's explanations on why the statistics should be considered reliable[3].VR _talk 20:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The above section you added is specific to the numerous agencies stating as to the reliability of the numbers. We cannot have two redundant sentences saying the exact same thing, so I moved the Washington Post citation up to the sentence re: US, UN, etc. As well, the HRW sentence said nothing but that it considered it to be reliable - again redundant.

These are merely structure and formatting changes. There is no fundamental change in the assertions being made in the paragraph. You are not reviewing the edits being made in any consideration of good faith, and recommend you review all changes being made thoroughly before you respond or edit further. Mistamystery (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll tag nableezy and let them determine if you partially reverted their addition or not.VR _talk 21:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why you removed HRW's evidences on the reliability of GHM? VR _talk 21:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Very simply its redundant to have two sentences in a row with the word “realiable” or “reliability”. You added a more powerfully worded and cited sentence regarding potentialy reliability, so I folded the previous statements into the new sentence you had wrote. If anything, I beefed up your addition. Mistamystery (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Mistamystery, we seem to have a difference in approaches to the content. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you prefer the following structure: <all the negative allegations against GHM>, followed by <all the positive counter-arguments about GHM>. But I don't agree with that approach. I think each "issue" regarding the GHM should be treated separately. One issue is whether Hamas allows any dissent in the GHM. Baker says it doesn't, but the ABC News quotes sources that say that in the GHM, Hamas employs its rivals and independents (possibly because Fatah funds part of the GHM). This info should be together in one paragraph. The next paragraph can contain historical accuracy of GHM. Then a paragraph of who considers GHM reliable and who doesn't. Etc.VR _talk 21:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think there’s a very good point being made here so far as the historical reliability of the GHM is concerned. I don’t dispute that remotely.

  That said, given that reliability only came into question as a result of this conflict - and specifically the hospital incident - the question emerges as to where is the appropriate place in the section to point out that, outside of this moment, the GHM statistics have historically been considered reliable.

  I would say at the end of the section, and simply so because the initiating cause to question the reliability came about as a result of this recent incident.

  A fundamental issue here that is important to both preserve and distinguish, is that the doubts about the GHM’s reliability are explicitly as a result of this particular conflict. Just because the GHM has been considered to be reliable in the past has little bearing given this specific conflict, and that the Hamas government is in a position to be playing a numbers game. They did play - I don’t think anyone disputes this, and have now thrown the repute of the ministry into question. I don’t think we should be conflating the history of reliability of the ministry as having any impact as to how much the GHM is believed at this moment in time. It has already been thrown into doubt, and - very simply - is now up to independent observers to confirm numbers. There are currently no independent observers in Gaza, so (and this is somethign we must keep in mind) will have to wait until then to really crunch the numbers on which count to truly stand by.

  Mistamystery (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thats a bunch of unsourced opinion. Also, please self-revert your 1RR violation. nableezy - 22:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Self reverted. That said - plenty of source to back these assertions up (if we are to expand the section to include opinions as to *why* there are reliability issues currently with the GHM). Historical reliability means very little in the face of a war of casualty counts (which has never been the case up until now).

There is no dispute that the GHM reported non-factual information to such an extent to the point that many critics have thrown its reliability into question. Mistamystery (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Restored reverted edits (per Nableezy request)

Just want to be clear as to why I reverted the assertions regarding the Ramallah based Health ministry. There is only *one* agency confirming and reporting fatalities out of Gaza at present: the GHM. They are providing information to the UN, HRW, EU, US, and - obviously - the Fatah-run Health Ministry in the West Bank. That the West Bank ministry was reported to in no way affects the central issue here: that there is no independent verification of the numbers the GHM is providing. Mistamystery (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote (and the sources[4]), then you can see that West Bank ministry has personnel on the ground in Gaza who verify the Gaza Ministry's counts. VR _talk 22:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I did read the source. Merely affirming that there too are Ramallah-associated staff also isolated in Gaza does not account for the potential misreporting and potential political interference in this specific case. The statement by the former Reuters bureau chief cannot be so easily written off, if we are to merely entertain the notion that people are misreporting numbers under threat or duress.

And just to make a more personal observation: what are we to desire more here as the outcome? A larger number of confirmed dead, so it proves that the GHM was telling the truth. Or a lower casualty count, but confirms that the GHM was inflating numbers (or was forced to do - or rushed into premature reporting - so by the Hamas government?

This is why I stand on waiting for independent confirmation. Doubt has been introduced, and no one should be operating - on either side - as if casualty numbers are hard facts for the time being until there is third party, independent verification. I am not trying to win a numbers war ultimately, so I don’t see a problem with it.Mistamystery (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Look, all we do is report competing information and structure it in a coherent manner. Then we let the reader decide. I suggest this: "Former Reuters regional bureau chief Luke Baker said that the Ministry’s death tolls are no longer trustworthy and “any health official stepping out of line and not giving the death tolls that Hamas wants reported to journalists risks serious consequences.”[7] Yet, other sources argue that Gaza's Health Ministry also includes officials from the secular Fatah party and independents." How would you modify it? VR _talk 03:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

List of ministers of health - sourcing issues

I was able to find an acceptable source for Mufiz al-Makhalalati's appointment, but struggle to find one for Medhat Abbas. I'd appreciate some aid in this regard. I'd also like to question the reliability and validity of the source used for Basem Naim's appointment, Oman Tribune. There's barely any information about this newspaper online and the Wikipedia article for it has three sources total, all now broken links, one of which being Oman Tribune's now-defunct website and the other two belonging to a study listing newspapers in the Middle East and a description of it by "HotNewspapers.Com" respectively. It doesn't help that two sources also weren't archived, so two out of the three already broken links aren't viewable anymore. Cadenrock1 (talk) Cadenrock1 (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Great find on the second Health minister appointment.

How do you feel about the sources listed on the Basem Naim main article? Mistamystery (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think they're generally acceptable. This one in particular, published in the NIH, seems more reliable and valid. It also confirms Basem Naim's appointment, although falls short of providing a specific date.

This source provides a more thorough description of his appointment and provides the year of his appointment, yet the site itself seems shoddy. A quick search returns more favorable results for using this source, I personally wouldn't mind either way and would love to see other editors thoughts on it. A good source with a precise date is always preferred. Cadenrock1 (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Biased edit

This recent edit stating in the lead that "there were concerns raised regarding the accuracy of the death toll reports provided by the ministry", should be reverted. The sources cited only discuss/analyze the reliability of the GHM, simply saying that some doubt the reliability and that others consider them reliable. In the sources, only US President Joe Biden, the state of Israel itself, and former Reuters journalist Luke Baker are cited as doubting the reliabilty of GHM—definitely not WP:DUE.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The updated version special:MobileDiff/1185199963 still doesn't belong in the lead. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

At this point I suspect it would qualify as a prominent controversy. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I still don't agree that it belongs in the lead, but thank you for the improvements you have made. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Bias

This page currently has issues with bias, in that it seems to promote the discrediting of the casualty reports of the ministry. From weasel words in the lead, "concerns have been raised" (by who?), to saying "The US [...] has doubted its reiability", when in fact only Joe Biden expressed that doubt. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

errant Palestinian rocket strikes being considered to be due to "Israeli aggression".

There is not a single citation supporting this, yet the moderators are claiming this garbage is a “well-sourced claim”. That is like saying “it isn’t taking into account people who had a heart attack before the airstrike hit them” an edit like this serves no purpose other than a pathetic attempt to downplay the disgusting war of revenge against civilians, and has no place on a Wikipedia page of all places The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

How about check the source cited in the article, which says exactly that? AP --Orgullomoore (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I was not aware of the citation The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

How is the political party of Gaza Health Ministry officials helpful or relevant?

There has only been one party in charge of the Gaza Health Ministry, and it's made clear in the lede. It's redundant to list each minister's party affiliation when the agency and region itself is ruled by a single party. Cadenrock1 (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Technically, the Ministry is still a constituent agency of the Palestinian Authority. In spite of the single party rule of Gaza, neither the agency nor the territory are declared independent to the point that removing the party affiliation would be appropriate. Mistamystery (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Casualty reports controversy in lead

I removed from the lead: "The GHM's affiliation with Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist group by Israel and most of the Western world, has led to controversy and disputes surrounding the Palestinian death tolls that it has reported, particularly during the 2014 Gaza War and the 2023–2024 Israel–Hamas war."

Though I'm not sure if this information belongs or not.

This ideally should be discussed.

@TheDoodbly, as you reintroduced this to the lead. I say reintroduced as the page previously contained that information before I removed it here: [5]

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent change to lead

Is this recent addition due/appropriate for the lead? "GHM's casualty reports are considered credible by several scientific studies." -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Casualty Count Revisions

The casualty count revisions specified here are not corroborated by the Telegram links provided.

”The Ministry further clarified in reports made on April 1st and April 4th that it had “incomplete data” for 12,263 (later reduced 11,371) of its 33,091 reported fatalities.”

The Telegram citation for April 1, for example, makes no such claim. Should this be removed? Farazy (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes they do. Please refer to translations requested and provided at Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war#Translation requested. Mistamystery (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2024

Permalink Michael Spagat Charley.exe (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)