Talk:Al-Sardi school attack

Background relevance

Hey @Dylanvt: Since you have restored the background, you need to do one of the two following things by the end of the day preferably:

1. Expand it to make it relevant
2. Explain on here why the current background is relevant

It might seem blunt-ish, but as two editors disagreed that it was not relevant (myself and Personisinsterest: Personisinsterest added the relevant template/tag to it and I removed it hours later after no improvement occurred), a single editor restoration means it is slightly opposite the current consensus. All of that means action needs to be seen. If nothing is stated on it or added to it by the end of the day, I shall re-remove it as per the current consensus of it being irrelevant to the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It's too short a time to speak of consensus. And you don't place a tag and act on it within 2 hours. All these articles have background contextaulizing what follows, i.e. the event. This is obvious. A developing article of a recent event requires several days.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Typically I agree with that. However, per WP:ONUS, the responsibility of providing proof as to why X content should be in an article is on the person who added it. In this circumstance, two editors questioned why X content was in the article, so it was removed. It was then re-added, no improvements or additional information whatsoever. My question seems highly relevant to ask of the person who readded the information. Why is it relevant to the article? If that answer cannot be given, then per ONUS, it should be removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

For this reason. I.e. these are almost identical incidents, and the Tel al-Sultan article, conforming with precedent, does what we are beginning to do here.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2024

Please change the lead-section to reflect the following info:

The hospital initially reported that nine women and 14 children were among those killed in the strike on the school. The hospital morgue later amended those records to show that the dead included three women, nine children and 21 men. It was not immediately clear what caused the discrepancy. An Associated Press reporter had counted the bodies but was unable to look beneath the shrouds.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-news-6-6-2024-3d07e712f8abc1e08339163180823fb8 SorghumBean (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Move to: Al-Sardi school MASSACRE

No need to pad down atrocities, just because they’re Israeli and just because the idf provided some half-arsed infographic alleging “khamas presence” does not change the fact that bombing a school, knowing it serves as a refuge for displaced civilians, is a massacre. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we’re familiar with your propaganda campaign masquerading as some sort of neutral position. KronosAlight (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Who said anything about neutrality? I have my (fair) opinions on this conflict. In this case however, however is not an issue of “bias” or “propaganda” but rather common sense. Intent is established, bombing a school holding countless displaced refugees and knowing this would result in a massacre, hence requesting the page to be moved The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose — The fact none of the 27 sources have “massacre” in the title is a very clear sign that it wasn’t a massacre. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2024

Al-Sardi school attack → Al-Sardi school airstrike – For starters, the attack itself was an airstrike, so it would be a more precise name. Secondly, there seems to be a lot of sources not saying “attack”, but rather “strike” as in airstrike.

1. Associated Press — “Israeli strike”
2. BBC — “Israeli strike on UN school”
3. The Guardian — “Israeli strike on UN school”
4. ABC News — “Israeli strike on UNRWA school”
5. CBS News — “Israel says deadly strike on Gaza school”
6. CNN — “Israel strike on UN school”
7. The Washington Post — “Israel used U.S. munition in deadly strike on U.N. school”
8. UN News — “Israeli airstrike on UNRWA school in Gaza”
9. Reuters — “Israeli strike on UN school”
10. Australian Broadcasting Corporation — “Israeli strike kills”
11. Fox News — “IDF says terrorists hiding in UN school killed in strike”…”The predawn strike hit the al-Sardi School run by UNRWA”

Even clear-bias sides note “strike”:

1. Al Jazeera (pro-Hamas) — “Israeli airstrikes on UN-run school”
2. Times of Israel (pro-Israel) — “IDF strikes UN school in central Gaza”

So, I propose and support a renaming of this article to “Al-Sardi school airstrike” to more closely match RS and common naming/description of the event. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Weather Event Writer: Did you check the articles text? For instance, Aljazeera uses "attack" in the body of the text. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Also checked the Guardian, and Reuters put forward by you. Both insist on using "attack" in the body. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose moving to a title that does not mention a massacre. Reliance on English RS is not sufficient, I have brought up the issues a few time based on the two points that 1) western news sources rarely mention Israel as a perpetrator (Palestinians have died as a result of strikes), as well as referring to Palestinian victims of massacres in the passive sense (using “died” instead of “killed”) while including the obligatory “Khamas-run health ministry” prefix at the beginning of any mention of civilian casualties. Therefore it is not an expectation that they would call a massacre perpetrated by Israel as a massacre. This goes well before this war, for example Zeitoun killings, or Beit Hanoun April 2008 incident, all of which use (and in the case of the second one, an incredibly disrespectful) euphemisms. This has reach a point where onlookers have begun making a mockery of the fact that Wikipedia articles cannot bring themselves to admit that Israel committed a massacre

https://x.com/seamus_malek/status/1799576207433834514?s=46

https://x.com/zhang_sharon/status/1800159518208434541

with that being out of the way, several non-English sources do in fact refer to it as what it is: a massacre

In these citations, each one of these either calls it مجزرة مخيم النصيرات or مجزرة مدرسة السردي (Nuseirat camp massacre and al sardi school massacre respectively)

https://web.archive.org/web/20240606055729/https://asharq.com/sub-live/politics/22761/مكتب-الإعلام-الحكومي-في-غزة-يتهم-إسرائيل-بارتكاب-مجزرة-بعد-قصف-مدرسة-السردي-بالنصيرات/

https://palqura.com/village/1470/مجزرة-مدرسة-السردي

https://asharq.com/amp/sub-live/politics/22761/مكتب-الإعلام-الحكومي-في-غزة-يتهم-إسرائيل-بارتكاب-مجزرة-بعد-قصف-مدرسة-السردي-بالنصيرات/

https://nabd.com/s/138248722-4c886b/عاجل-..-في-تحديث-جديد-...-ارتفاع-عدد-ش.هداء-مجزرة-مدرسة-السردي-للنازحين-وسط-قطاع-غزة-الى-30-شهيد،-بعد-استهداف-الاحتلال-لفصول-دراسية-تأوي-النازحين

https://www.aljazeeramubasher.net/amp/news/politics/2024/6/6/الاحتلال-يرتكب-مجزرة-في-مدرسة-تؤوي The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria: — For starters, tweets are not considered reliable sources per WP:RSTWITTER, so those references are automatically ignored for considerations. Secondly, that leaves 3 media outlets saying “massacre” vs 11 listed above (including a pro-Palestinian/pro-Hamas outlet) not saying massacre. A quick note, none of those are also listed at WP:RS, meaning the community has actually not decided whether those outlets are reliable or unreliable sources. Every source listed in the proposal is a reliable source per WP:RSP. Do you have any non-Palestinian sources saying it was a massacre? That would go along way to others (like myself) seeing it. Honestly, given that even a pro-Palestinian source listed above called it a strike and not massacre hurts your idea. A few sources (three is what you listed, all pro-Palestinian) do not trump the bulk of sources (pro-Palestinian, pro-Israeli, and Western). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 10:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The last source is RS I believe, and it also explicitly uses the word مجزرة, which is the word for "massacre". As for RS, I do not believe the two points I have brought up were negated and the tweets do not serve as a source but rather a general reaction. These RS (the BBC or CNN I believe) At one point stirred controversy because it used 'killed' for Israelis and 'died' for Palestinians in the same sentence, so how would one expect those RS to call a massacre perpetrated by Israel for what it is? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Those reactions are negated in my opinion, as anyone can write a tweet, just the same as anyone can write an blog post. They weren’t used a sources, but saying two tweets are a “general reaction” to Wikipedia is a big no-no. Weird mix of WP:RSTWITTER and Cherrypicking.

As for the sources, that last source might be RS. From what I can tell, only Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English have been discussed formally for the reliability of Al Jazeera, so Al Jazeera Mubasher is in the same boat as the other sources. No discussion has decided whether they are or are not reliable. Either way, let’s assume it is reliable for the same of argument. That would be one reliable source vs the 11 above, which do not mention it as a “massacre”. Per WP:CONSENSUS, editors and sources do not have to be in agreement, but it is still obvious that the majority of sources, from all three groups (pro-Palestine, pro-Israel, and Western) say “strike” rather than “massacre”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 10:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The list of sources is incomprehensive, there are more but wether they are RS or not means I didn't list them. There is a RT article but I believe that source is deprecated, so I did not count it. On the first two pages, I found 14 Arabic sources that all describe it as a 'massacre' (I will link them individually if I have to). And all in all, the verbatim search for مجزرة مدرسة السردي yielded 27,000 results.

as for the tweet, one on its own may not be even worth looking at, but a tweet regarding Wikipedia with over 200,000 views, 9,000 likes and 1,500 reposts is worth at least mentioning, though not a source in any ways, shape, or form The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

As an additional note The Great Mule of Eupatoria, given what you stated “Therefore it is not an expectation that they would call a massacre perpetrated by Israel as a massacre”, where “they” is “English RS”, means you would also say reliance on pro-Palestinian English RS, like the Al Jazeera article linked above is bad, despite Al Jazeera being often one of the few English RS saying something is a “massacre”. I do find that ironic, since you just elluded Al Jazeera, a pro-Palestinian source is not a good source to use…lol. You basically say English sources cannot be used at all and only Arabic sources can be. All sources are looked at mind you. Your comment/!vote is very skewed and very clearly biased it appears. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 10:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Al jazeera is adressed and linked in my reply, I hope pointing this out isn't 'foruming' as I've fallen into that before The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. The new title would give greater clarity to the specific nature of the attack. KronosAlight (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:PRECISE. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRECISE doesn't apply here because there are no other articles on a different attack on al-Sardi school. WP:PRECISE says "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that". VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, the sources cited by the OP don't all say "airstrike", some say "strike". An "airstrike" and "strike" are not the same thing. If they are, then why is the OP not seeing to move this article to "strike"? Secondly, far more sources say "strike" than "airstrike": The Guardian, BBC News, CBS News, The Telegraph, Associated Press, NBC News etc. Even the IDF has called it a "strike". I'm ok with both "attack" and "strike", but not "airstrike". Its also worth noting the parent article for this is Attacks on schools during the Israeli invasion of Gaza.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

In this context, they are the same. An airstrike is a type of military strike. So “airstrike” is the more precise term. Some say “strike” other say “airstrike”, but both mean the exact same thing — “military strike”. Since an airstrike is even more precise & it is used by sources, it is the more appropriate name, especially over “strike”. Similar that we say a “tornado” destroyed a building, rather than the “severe storm”. A “tornado” is a type of “severe storm”, but it is the more precise term in context over “severe storm”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh also @Vice regent: Ain es Saheb airstrike and the recent Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus are named “airstrike”, with the latter having several big-name RS not saying “airstrike” but rather “strike” (TWP, BBC, NYT). Those three sources actually say “strike”, but despite that, Wikipedia consensus renamed it to “airstrike”. Any military strike done from the air is, by definition, an “airstrike”. Hopefully that helps. The “strike” vs “airstrike” argument has already been solved, more or less, on Wikipedia. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRECISE only applies if there are other wikipedia articles that can be confused. It specifically says "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." In this case there are no other strikes on Al-Sardi school, so what you're suggesting is WP:OVERPRECISION. Putting details such which military vehicle carried out the strike, when such details are not yet confirmed, is also possibly wrong. For example, some sources suggest Israel used GBU-39 for the attack, but Israel has not confirmed that yet.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• It is worth noting the consensus at Talk:World_Central_Kitchen_aid_convoy_attack#Requested_move_18_April_2024. The article was formerly named "World Central Kitchen drone strikes" but there was unanimous consensus to change that to "World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack ", even though in that case Israel confirmed drones made the attack.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• I also note that Wikipedia:Article titles says, down in the "See also" section, "Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Headlines, on the unreliability of news headlines for sourcing". Indeed WP:HEADLINES says "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source." So expanding the search to the body of news articles, we find that "attack" is indeed a WP:COMMONNAME:

1. The Guardian: "Unrwa, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, called for an investigation into the attack"
2. Times of Israel: "Hagari said the military was working to identify the other terrorists who were killed in the attack."
3. CBC News: "condemned the attack on a facility sheltering so many people"
4. UN News[1]: "Local officials in Gaza reported that 37 people were killed in the school building attack in the Nuseirat refugee camp"
5. CNN: "Thursday’s attack came after the IDF ramped up ground and air assaults in the center of the strip"
6. Palestine Chronicle: "The Israeli army admitted to carrying out the attack"
7. Washington Post: "The nose cone of a GBU-39 small-diameter bomb, which is manufactured by Boeing, was visible...in the aftermath of the attack"
8. France24: "a separate attack Thursday on a UN-led school in Nuseirat refugee camp"
9. New York Times: "B'Tselem, a leading Israeli human rights group, said the Israeli attack on the school turned shelter could be a war crime"
10. The New Arab: "were among 33 people killed in the Israeli attack"
11. Reuters: "in an Israeli attack on the Nuseirat school in the Gaza Strip"
12. Ashaq al-Awsat: "contradictory accounts of the school attack"
13. Dawn: "Video footage showed Palestinians hauling away bodies after the attack"
14. NBC News: "...dozens of displaced civilians, including children, were killed in the attack"

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

distinguishing between combatants and civilians

Neither source cited for the claim has anything to do with the topic of this article, making it SYNTH and wildly UNDUE for the lead here. nableezy - 15:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This is equally true as the below question. Throwing random sources from 8 months ago about a government ministry into an article about an attack on a school is insanely WP:UNDUE and basically the definition of WP:SYNTH. Dylanvt (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hamas-run

The sources generally do not refer to the Health Ministry as "Hamas-run", and the source cited for it has nothing to do with this article. @WeatherWriter can you explain why you reverted to include that? We have a wikilink to the page on the ministry where the government it operates under is discussed. nableezy - 15:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the insistence to add in something from November about a completely different topic is very strange. Put it in the Gaza Health Ministry article if anywhere, as that article is actually about the Gaza Health Ministry. Dylanvt (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a well-known fact the Health Ministry is an organization of the Hamas government. So, I cited a source with directly stated it is an agency (i.e. "run") by the Hamas government. It is no different than saying IDF is run by the Israeli government. Both IDF, Health Ministry, and the U.S. Department of Defense are all run by their respective governments, as they are branches of the respective governments. In the infobox, it is important to always note if a specific government is claiming something. I would honestly prefer of the IDF death toll was also included in the infobox, with a similar note of "(Israeli military)" or "(Israeli government)". It is saying what it is. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dylanvt: I am curious why you say that AP news specifically talking about the "Who is the Gaza Health Ministry" is "a different topic" from mentioning that it is "Hamas-run". Somehow you do not seem to understand why that is important to note. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The current ruling political party of the government which the health ministry is a part of is not relevant in an article about the bombing of a school. It is relevant in an article about that health ministry. Dylanvt (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources you cited have nothing to do with the topic of this article. That is poisoning the well and a straightforward SYNTH violation. It is already very obvious that a government ministry is a ministry of the government. But your sources have nothing to do with this article and your edit is a SYNTH violation. nableezy - 15:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. It is not a SYNTH violation as it is listed the government associated with X government-organization. That is not a SYNTH violation, just like saying the United States Department of Commerce is "United States-run". There is no SYNTH violation. Like I said, respectfully, you are wrong. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It is definitionally a synthesis violation. You are taking an article not on the subject of this article, an airstrike on a UN run school, to include material that is not about this article. The sources cited that are relevant to this article do not say anything about this subject. It is literally the definition of WP:SYNTH. You take one source that says the MoH is part of the Hamas-run government (A), and another source saying that the MoH reported the number of dead here, B, and combine those to say the Hamas-run MoH reported the number of dead (C). That is literally A+B=C. There is zero question on if this formulation is synth, and if you dont get that then we can raise that issue elsewhere. nableezy - 16:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The sources generally do, as I demonstrated in our other discussion.

However, perhaps we can compromise - I understand you think "Health Ministry in Hamas-run Gaza" contains excessive detail, but otherwise is unproblematic. Can we use that format? BilledMammal (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No, you did not demonstrate that at all. And like I said previously, what government the MoH runs under is a topic for the article on the MoH. We dont say most right-wing government in Israel's history when we introduce anything from them either. We dont say convicted terrorist led Ministry of National Security for Ben-Gvir either./ nableezy - 15:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

We can throw sources at each other again, and continue debating whether to use "Hamas-run" or nothing, but I don't think that will be very productive.

Instead, I want to focus on the compromise I proposed. You have repeatedly cited sources giving context in that manner as evidence against using "Hamas-run", suggesting you have no issue with it, while I feel it would address my concerns and hopefully the concerns of Weather Event Writer as well.

I understand you think it is excessive detail, but that is a minor issue if it would let us resolve this dispute without drama? BilledMammal (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I already responded to that. The material on the MoH that is not relevant to this article belongs on the page about the MoH. We dont specify "illegal" settlement everytime an Israeli settlement is mentioned either. nableezy - 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If relevancy is your only concern, then surely you can agree to the compromise? A little bit of irrelevant information to avoid significant drama is a minor price to pay. BilledMammal (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I assume you will be accepting of prepending "illegal" every time an Israeli settlement is mentioned? nableezy - 16:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how common it is for reliable sources to mention the legal status of settlements when mentioning them, but if it is at least half as common as it is to mention that the GHM is "Hamas-run", then of course - although in this case, can we agree to use "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry" rather than "Health Ministry in Hamas-run Gaza", since that seems to be more equivalent to "illegal settlement" (the equivalent of the latter would probably be "settlement, which the international community considers illegal under international law, though the Israeli government disputes this")? BilledMammal (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Every BBC article that even mentions a settlement says it is illegal. Considerably more common than "Hamas-run" for the MoH numbers, which as I have demonstrated previously is not nearly as often said as you claim it is. nableezy - 16:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If that's accurate then as I said, of course.

I take it we have a compromise? I'll support prepending illegal, you'll support prepending Hamas-run? BilledMammal (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If things only depended on you perhaps, but they dont. And no, I do not support prepending Hamas-run here at all, it isnt true and it isnt relevant. The MoH is run by healthcare professionals, it is under the Hamas government but it is not "Hamas-run". nableezy - 16:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

In that case, why did we get into this tangent regarding the settlements?

Regardless, lets get back to the original proposed compromise, "Health Ministry in Hamas-run Gaza"; as I said previously, unless you have concerns other than it adding some information you consider irrelevant, can we agree on this if only to avoid continuing drama and disruption? BilledMammal (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Because we dont prepend illegal to every mention of a settlement, because it isnt relevant to every mention of a settlement and we have wikilinks for a reason. I already said I do not agree to your supposed compromise, I have no idea why you are seemingly unable to read my responses, but I will try one more time. The material on the MoH that is not relevant to this article belongs on the page about the MoH. We dont specify "illegal" settlement everytime an Israeli settlement is mentioned either. And what government the MoH runs under is a topic for the article on the MoH. We dont say most right-wing government in Israel's history when we introduce anything from them either. We dont say convicted terrorist led Ministry of National Security for Ben-Gvir either. Maybe my position will be clearer in green font? nableezy - 16:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Given that those quotes appear to be arguments again using "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry", rather than "Health Ministry in Hamas-run Gaza", not much clearer, but obviously we aren't going to agree even though as far as I can tell you have no objection to using the latter beyond finding the information it adds a little irrelevant. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I have repeatedly voiced an objection to it. nableezy - 18:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Nableezy, Dylanvt, and BilledMammal, with your permission, since we are basically two vs two, I propose we open a discussion on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. I would be willing to open the discussion, but I wanted to get y'alls permission or thoughts on that first. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Im opening a thread at ORN over the very blatant synthesis violation here. nableezy - 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Go for it. I can link WP:RSP then as you are directly saying citing a quote from the Associated Press is something original research. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Have you ever read WP:SYNTH? nableezy - 16:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not synth; many sources make it clear that the Gaza Health Ministry is run by Hamas in their reporting on this topic. For example, BBC, Politico, CBS News, Sky News, Saudi Gazette, etc. BilledMammal (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Citing those sources would not be synth, citing the AP one is. nableezy - 16:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Synth at Al-Sardi school attack nableezy - 16:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Nableezy: I removed the AP News article. I did, however, leave the "Hamas-run" statement, as you yourself acknowledged the BBC article, which is cited at the end of that sentence in-fact, is not "synth" for them being "Hamas-run". I still want the ORN discussion to go on, as I want an administrator (not you) explain how the AP is original research but the BBC isn't OR how you are just wrong. Either way, that is a good discussion noticeboard to have.
  With that fix, I mean this with all respect, shut up on SYNTH issues as now you have basically stated "Hamas-run" can stay in the article as it is cited by a source you, myself, and BilledMammal find acceptable for the article. Discussion here as good as over. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Im going to give you a bit to refactor that prior to reporting you to arbitration enforcement. And no, it is still UNDUE in this article. And I welcome anybody revert your edits here as I think they are uniformly poor. nableezy - 16:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Say what now? I fixed the issue you stated "AP being synth" by removing that issue. You acknowledged the BBC article mentioned above by BilledMammal is not synth material for citing "Hamas-run". I legit don't understand why there is a problem. Like what? Timeline as I see it (please correct me where I am wrong or what I am missing on why I need to be "reported":

1. AP News article added along with "Hamas-run" text
2. Discussion started on Talk Page
3. Long debate begins
4. "SYNTH" template added along side AP-News citation
5. ORN discussion started to figure out if citing the AP News article is SYNTH
6. BilledMammal mentions an article (currently cited in the Wikipedia article) from the BBC which states the Health Ministry is run by the Hamas government
7. Nableezy agrees that a citation for the BBC article would not be a synth violation for "Hamas-run"
8. WeatherWriter removes AP-News citation and attached "synth" tag
9. The BBC article is cited for the sentence containing "Hamas-run", therefore, three editors seem to be in agreement saying "Hamas-run" is not a synth violation
10. WeatherWriter agrees the ORN discussion is needed to solve truly if citing that AP News article was a synth violation
11. WeatherWriter believes discussion is over, as the original reason for the discussion being opened by Nableezy was regarding a synth issue with the AP News article. That issue has now been fixed.
12. Nableezy gives WeatherWriter a chance to strike part of closing remarks before being reported to administrators.

Honestly, I mean this as respectfully as I can, what did I do wrong? What am I missing? Like actually, I was thinking we were all in agreement, and then all of a sudden, a random "I am going to report you" comes out of nowhere. I am not being hostile or anything. I am honestly confused by how the discussion (1) isn't over, given the SYNTH issue was solved and (2) what I did in order for a report to be filed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Im waiting on your refactoring your "shut up" outburst. Ill give it a few more minutes. nableezy - 16:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment struck. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Nableezy is correct on this. The insistance that any institution in Gaza is 'Hamas-run' is tediously simplistic in its insinuendo that everything is run by terrorists. The healthcare system has or rather had numerous highly qualified doctors and administrators before Hamas took over, who remained there. In the US, the booty of winning an election means the victor finds places in an administration for 20,000 of its close supporters, Democrats or Republicans, the spoils system. We do not thereby state that the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is the 'democratic/republican'- run EPA. It's POV contamination at its worst. NPOV is violated, because of the superfluous adjectivalization.Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This point should be very clear and easy to understand. It's hard to grasp why anyone would earnestly believe that it's NPOV to append it like some sort of brand of unreliability every single time it's mentioned, especially given the fact that the health ministry has been repeatedly found to be extremely reliable. Dylanvt (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the obvious lack of consensus for it, Ill remove it later if somebody else doesnt get to it first. nableezy - 13:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

What a frustrating day. No one thanked me for my Joycean neologism. Life's full of disappointments.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)