Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed __NEWSECTIONLINK__

Gaza Health Ministry
Some non-involved editors would be welcome at Gaza Health Ministry.

The context is essentially
 * Israel and the US expressed unspecific doubts about GHM's casualty data.
 * Organizations like the UN say the GHM's data has historically been reliable.
 * Two peer-reviewed articles published in The Lancet did not find evidence of inflated or fabricated data. (Edit: turns out the articles are "correspondence" and not peer reviewed, see here and here.)
 * Later, statistics professor Abraham Wyner wrote in Tablet (magazine) that the data contained irregularities, such as a strong negative correlation between male and female deaths.
 * Later still, Michael Spagat wrote about GHM's "declining data quality", explained by a shift to user-submitted reports as hospitals have closed.

The current lede is unbalanced, emphasizing the sources that say the data is reliable, while not mentioning opposing viewpoints at all. My various attempts to include brief mentions of the latter (even just "received significant attention and scrutiny") have been reverted.

The argument seems to be that the two peer-reviewed Lancet articles trump non-peer-reviewed sources, making opposing viewpoints somewhat fringe. However, the two Lancet articles are older, and focused on very different aspects of the data. In some sense they support opposing narratives, but they absolutely don't contradict one another.

The current article also quotes a blog comment by "Ken M", with speculation about how the irregularities noted by Wyner might be explained. My attempt to remove that was reverted as well. — xDanielx  T/C\R 17:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think you might want to reflect on the concept of Materiality (auditing). No source I've seen thinks the GHM data is dramatically wrong.  It's even possible that it's an undercount (e.g., bodies that haven't been found in the rubble yet). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree an undercount is plausible. No reliable sources really claim that the total is clearly inflated, just that it shouldn't be considered very reliable, especially recent data from the current war.
 * Some milder versions of this viewpoint are very mainstream, even uncontroversial. E.g. The Telegraph factually notes that (at the time) ~54% of the data was from hospital sources, with the rest coming from a combination of media sources and a Google form.
 * I suppose reasonable editors can disagree about materiality, but I think there are also very objective problems here, such as
 * Framing Roberts' article as a refutation of Wyner's, when it doesn't discuss Wyner's arguments at all, only mentions it once in passing
 * Using two blog comments to counter some of Wyner's arguments, one from an anonymous "Ken M" with unknown credibility
 * There has been significant resistance to fixing even the most clear issues like these. — xDanielx  T/C\R 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those blogs are by professors, the first by Lior Pachter, a professor of statistics who dismissed the first argument. The Ken M comment is not in because of whoever they are but because James Joyner, a professor of security studies, said it showed insight. Professor Les Roberts, who is an expert in such matters, has like you say just one comment on Wyner's article - right in the lead: "Israel’s U.N. ambassador and online pundits have purported that the numbers are exaggerated or, as a recent article in Tablet alleged, simply faked. Actually, the numbers are likely conservative. The science is extremely clear." Professor Wyners article was the one in Tablet (magazine) and if that is okay then they're okay too in the article. None of this should be in the lead. NadVolum (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As we discussed on the talk page, Joyner included the "Ken M" blog comment in a compilation of quotes and referred to it as an "insight", but didn't engage with it at all beyond that. It still seems like a pretty clear WP:USERGENERATED violation, since the argument is still from "Ken M", not from Joyner.
 * Right, Roberts mentioned Wyner's article once, and in some broad sense he's arguing in a different direction, but he doesn't respond to any of the specific points Wyner made. I think that makes "Wyner [...] wrote [...] to which [...] Roberts responded" rather misleading.
 * Not to mention that Pachter's blog post is framed as a refutation of Wyner's "main point", when it really only applies to a single figure. (The text of Wyner's first argument refers to variance in daily deaths, not the cumulative sum that Pachter argues is misleading.) — xDanielx  T/C\R 01:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lior Pachter, Les Roberts (epidemiologist), and James Joyner all have their own articles and I would hope that they have some idea of what they're doing when they bother to write things. Just seen Wyner also had something from Joshua Loftus, professor of statistics and data science at LSE, saying "One of the worst abuses of statistics I've ever seen" and "shockingly irresponsible" about the article NadVolum (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn't negate the problems I mentioned. Of those three authors, only one actually engages the content of Wyner's article at all, namely Pachter's criticism of one particular visual that Wyner used. — xDanielx  T/C\R 18:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See the convo I linked below, Wyner's article is a minority view and critiqued. Time to drop this. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Four with Joshua Loftus. NadVolum (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And quoting professor Michael Spagat about the data quality declining doesn't justify anything Wyner did. NadVolum (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see why Abraham Wyner's article should be given any special prominence over any other sources. It's just an article in a magazine. To make it any more prominent than that seems like a violation of WP:DUE. Silver  seren C 18:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the Gaza Health Ministry section (where Wyner's magazine article is mentioned) should be in the article at all. The article feels a bit more like a deep-dive into details and he said/she said bickering, instead of an encyclopedic summary of the subject.  Also, the article is wildly unbalanced; there are ~1300 words on casualty counts and ~200 words total on everything else.  Don't they have, like hospitals and budgets and employees and things like that?  We're treating them as if their sole purpose is to count deaths. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 Selfstudier (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I suspect the vast majority of coverage of them is in relation to their casualty counts. BilledMammal (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you only look at coverage during the last six months and in the popular press, you might be right. But in the 17 years before that, I think there was other coverage.  The 2007 doctor's strike gets a few sentences; perhaps someday this, too, will get just a few sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right, there should be a lot more about it like how many hospitals and doctors it has/had and it's record in looking after health issues. Do you know of some sort of tag for that kind of issue? NadVolum (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Remember this convo? Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431 Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I remember that okay. There's been responses by academics now so perhaps the business can end. NadVolum (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One would hope so. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be in favor of a WP:SPINOUT article called "Reliability of Gaza Health Ministry casualty data" to correct the balancing issue.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Might be a good idea, put a stop to all this "Hamas run" discussion every ten minutes. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Gaza Health Ministry is fairly short and is a natural place to look about that if a person is bothered. I'm not keen on such a split, at least not without a lot more development of the article. NadVolum (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To me, this would be an inappropriate split, especially because the article is not long. Further, splitting it off would make it more difficult for due weight discussions, as they would have to occur over multiple articles. If the information isn’t due weight to include in the main article, then a split doesn’t make it due weight. If the main article is too long as a whole, then a split can be considered.
 * I also find problematic the splitting of scientific studies from the section below where people voice their support/concern with those articles. This basically gives “double weight” to the scientific studies compared to the governments. Ideally, the most important/discussed studies would be given a sentence or two each, and immediately be followed by at most a sentence or two of that study’s analysis by other academics, etc. Very, very rarely would it be due weight to give credence to someone’s opinion of a study when the study itself isn’t due weight to be included in the article. And even then, only significant criticisms or adoption/agreement should be covered - some studies may not have any significant criticism/adoption and thus would only be covered themselves.
 * Perhaps the solution here is to condense the “analysis” into two sections - governmental (and intergovernmental such as UN) analysis, and then a section for academic/independent analysis. Neither section should be too long, and care must be taken to ensure that the balance of general academic consensus is reflected in the article. This is a discussion that should continue on the talk page regarding how to handle that section - with a link to it from here - and only brought here if the talk page fails to come to a consensus.
 * To summarize my view: American and Israeli government analysis is too big for now and needs to include information about other bodies, and there is no reason that people repeating scientific papers needs to be in the article - the papers themselves and a summary of their proponents can be covered in a single section. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The sentence If the information isn’t due weight to include in the main article, then a split doesn’t make it due weight doesn't sound quite right to me. It's obvious that information could be an undue level of detail for our article about History and still a completely appropriate level of detail for our article about History of Gaza.  Similarly, something could be undue for Gaza Health Ministry and still appropriate for an article about a subtopic like Gaza Health Ministry casualty data.
 * However, I agree that even in a subtopic, it is possible to overemphasize certain things or to go into an unencyclopedic level of detail. We are looking for the Goldilocks balance, even in a specialized subtopic article.  I think your suggestions are sound overall.  Especially if the content stays in this article, condensing it and removing anything that looks like a "me too" duplication or endorsement would help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it’s not a subtopic being proposed but a content fork. I agree that I could’ve been much clearer that my comments applied to content forks. Summary style still does apply when a split/sub article isn’t a content fork.
 * I tend to think that, at least at this point, there is not a real need to split it off for size, and I’m not sure the casualty data can be covered in its own article without it turning into a POV fork. If and when the article becomes large (adding more history/operational/etc information, if possible), then the casualty data would be a good option for a split and summary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's no WP:SIZE problem here, but I'm not sure that it's actually possible to create a POV fork about casualty data. The only reason to split it would be that it's overall too detailed (i.e., about all of the POVs) for the general article, not that there isn't enough room for extra details about a single viewpoint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If it’s too detailed about all of the POVs, that’s a sign that we may be being too broad in the coverage. Everyone and their mother can publish an opinion about the evidence/beliefs - but not all of them should be in the encyclopedia. Not even all of the authors/academics with articles who have opined should be covered. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's foolish to assume we'll know anything for sure while the situation remains live and articles could avoid all of this by observing that, in my view. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have removed all mention of Wyner from the article as despite what is here has started trying to dress up what he did as an actual analysis and is saying criticism would be a BLP problem. NadVolum (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @XDanielx has re-added this disputed content under the guise of "balance". I think it's a false balance, and I think it should be removed.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for any kind of equal weight here, but I believe the consensus (considering all past discussions) was that this is a significant (non-fringe) minority view.
 * We should probably discuss mainly on the article's talk page (RfC?) or a new thread here, since this will be archived soon. — xDanielx  T/C\R 21:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * At the moment, threads on this page are archived 21 days after the most recent comment (not the first one). We therefore have another 21 days to go.
 * I think we should remove all of the non-official (e.g., government) and non-scholarly responses.
 * Separately, I also think we should say less about this. Supposedly this article is about a 17-year-old government agency, but you can't really tell that because it's turned into a coatrack article about bickering over how good they are/aren't at just one of their less important duties during the last nine months (4% of its existence).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps GHM reliability is a notable enough topic to get its own small article? In which case the main GHM article could have just a brief summary section on it. Not a typical WP:SPINOFF but it might make sense here? — xDanielx  T/C\R 01:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It might make sense, but even then, it might not make sense to include Wyner, and it probably wouldn't make sense to include Wyner as if his were just one of many equally valid views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Laken Riley Murder
I feel that there is heavy bias in the Killing of Laken Riley article which I and at least one other editor tried addressing, but were predictably ignored. Just move down to the "aftermath" section and read the main points in order:

"Riley's killing became a "national political case" during what Forbes' Sara Dorn called a "historic surge in border crossings during Biden's tenure"

"Former U.S. President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social: "Border INVASION is destroying our country and killing our citizens! The horrible murder of 22-year-old Laken Riley at the University of Georgia should have NEVER happened!" He later met with Riley's mother and stepfather before his campaign rally in Rome, Georgia on March 9, 2024." (awww)

"President Joe Biden mentioned the killing of Riley during the 2024 State of the Union address, mistakenly calling her "Lincoln Riley". The unprepared remarks came after Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene shouted Riley's name at the president" (what a hero)

Where to begin unwinding this disaster..

First, sources were produced that characterize this homicide as an episode of politicization by anti-immigration activists. The reason why this tragic murder became a national story and other tragic killings that happened around the same time did not (see first link) had less to do with concern over violence against young women, which is a noble cause, and was more about demonizing migrants, which is not. This speaks right to the notability of the subject, yet all requests to add this context to the article have so far been ignored in talk.

Secondly, NPR is one of several sources that's discussed Laken Riley's killing in the context of crime rates among the undocumented population. Pretty much every objective researcher who's analyzed this subject is aware that undocumented migrants (ie "illegals") are significantly less likely to commit violent crimes than American citizens (both American-born and legal immigrants), so what we are dealing with here is a situation where activists are cherry-picking anecdotes to sway public opinion, quite literally the only reason Riley's case met notability criteria.

CNN talked to criminologists about this in the wake of Riley's homicide, and here's what they said.

First, here's what the general public thinks:

"In a recent Pew Research Center report about the situation at the US-Mexico border, 57% of Americans say the large number of migrants seeking to enter the country leads to more crime. In other words, most people in the US are now tying crime to recent increases in immigration'."  '

Versus mainstream experts:

''
 * ''"When I heard about the New York incident, the first thing when I hear about this on the news is like, “Oh, God, here we go.” Because these anecdotal instances — not to minimize the seriousness ever — but the rare occurrences where individuals who are foreign-born, let alone undocumented, are engaging in crime, and it makes the news, I worry about the cascade effect of these incidents overshadowing what we know in the broader context about immigration and crime."


 * "Human beings commit crime in pretty much all societies across the globe. But the bottom line is what gets lost in those anecdotal stories — those lead you to a flashpoint of negativity in which you ignore all the potentially good things that immigrants bring to our society. And it’s frustrating to try to bring evidence to the table and try to contextualize things and put it statistically when you’re arguing against this flashpoint that allows people to more or less kind of ignore everything else." (I know the feeling)

''
 * ''"Across a variety of studies that use different years of data that focus on different areas of the United States — with some exceptions, there’s some nuance there. I don’t want to deny the nuance — in general, on average, we do not find a connection between immigration and crime, as is so often claimed. The most common finding across all these different kinds of studies is that immigration to an area is either not associated with crime in that area, or is negatively associated with crime in that area. Meaning more immigration equals less crime."

This is the context in which the notability of Riley's killing is to be understood. By omission, the article takes what was an exploitation of a girl's homicide for political propaganda and turns it into a natural, reasonable reaction to an "illegal" committing a murder against the backdrop of a "border invasion." Or, am I missing something here? Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree. I don't see what relevance social media comments have, especially ones that aren't germane to the actual topic. Bickering between political talking heads has even less reason to be included. I think that entire section can be removed. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But also, and maybe more importantly, the subject is only notable because the suspect in her murder is an illegal immigrant, and that was exploited politically. No mention of this was made, even though sources were provided. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, what you are missing is the fact that the article in question isn’t about crime by immigrants, it’s about a specific murder and it’s impact … and in this case, the political impact of the murder is the key part of the story. What various politicians say about it is what makes this particular murder so notable. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so had the suspect been a local boy from Georgia, what are the odds this murder would've made national news headlines let alone become an issue during the State of the Union address? The reason why reliable sources are discussing the crime rates of illegal immigrants in the context of this case is because the case was politically exploited by anti-immigration activists, and that has everything to do with the subject's notability. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly… which means that the things the anti-immigration activists say about this particular murder are relevant to the article, and should be included. Note, things that pro-immigration activists say about this murder are also relevant, and should be mentioned.
 * Where things get more complicated (trickier) is when we start including commentary about what the various sides said. Discussing “why the anti activists are wrong” is a bit off topic, moving us away from discussing the murder itself (the topic of the article) and more into discussing the broader issue of crime by immigrants. THAT is likely a very notable topic on its own, and I would suggest creating a new article about it (if one doesn’t already exist). A lot of the “why the anti activists are wrong” commentary would probably be better placed in THAT article. Blueboar (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You might be right that the subject is notable enough to warrant its own article. The CNN piece cited the Laken Riley case along with several other examples of "migrant crime" that provoked the same pattern in political rhetoric. The issue in this section is that they quote a rather inflammatory comment made by a former president, where he is trying to link the murder to the situation at the border, as part of a broader argument about illegal immigration and violent crime, which is disputed by academic studies. I happen to agree with two other editors (one here and one on the Laken Riley talk page) that the section in question should probably be removed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think such an article about the "myth of migrant crime," would necessarily consist of articles containing the opinion of random analysts who would be in accord with the opinion of the editor(s).
 * The following is certainly a biased source, but no more than NPR:
 * https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/increased-illegal-immigration-brings-increased-crime-almost-23-federal
 * Certainly the vast majority of illegal aliens do not commit violent crimes, however the issue here are the "bad apples." That's what some are concerned over.
 * Whether you agree with the politicization or not, it is entirely relevant. That is what was covered extensively in the news. Whether you think the claims of proponents of border security are valid or not is irrelevant. The reason (justified or not) that the tragic murder was covered so extensively was precisely because of the immigration debate. Therefore the coverage and responses are entirely needed. TanRabbitry (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that the Heritage Foundation is in league with NPR? They are wholly unreliable on this subject in every sense of the word. As the criminologists in the CNN article explained, there's a large canon of studies on illegal immigration and crime rates, and most of them show either no relationship or a negative one (meaning there's less crime where there are more immigrants, and in fact illegal immigrants are statistically less likely to commit crimes than immigrants who've been legally naturalized, never mind American-born citizens).
 * What we have here is a situation where activists are cherry-picking isolated incidences of migrant crime, and then scaremongering about a "border invasion" and a violent crime epidemic. This is from the University of Wisconsin-Madison: "Undocumented immigrants far less likely to commit crimes in U.S. than citizens".And here's Scientific American: "Some of the most solid evidence to date shows that President Trump’s cornerstone immigration policy was built on a wholly false premise". I really didn't want to cite this stuff because it does not mention Laken Riley and would be undue or even OR if it's used in the article; but the two sources above (NPR and CNN) do mention Laken Riley and cover the same data.
 * The fact that a former president and perennial candidate for president is exploiting these murders to traffic in political propaganda is the only reason this subject has any notability on a national level. Now please don't tell me you think Scientific American is as reliable as Heritage. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just did a Google search on this so let me add this source:
 * https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/3/21/24097467/laken-riley-jose-antonio-ibarra-trump
 * I don't know what the reliability status of Vox is on here, but here's what they say:
 * "''Trump has demagogued unauthorized immigrants as dangerous criminals since his first campaign for president, and this year he’s returning to that familiar theme, accusing immigrants of “poisoning the blood” of the country.
 * ''But while he has hosted rallies before that featured family members of people killed by unauthorized immigrants, Riley’s death seems set up to be more central to his campaign messaging than any of these prior tragedies.
 * Trump evidently thinks he can lay it directly at his opponent’s feet, blaming Biden’s failure to control the border (and changing the subject from Trump’s own role in scuttling Biden’s bipartisan border security bill). He’s also trying to argue that Riley’s death isn’t an isolated tragedy, but part of a larger trend of “migrant crime” — once again smearing a vast and diverse group of people as criminals."''
 * Trump has been doing this for years and Riley's murder is just the latest example. Wikipedia needs to come up with a way to handle this considering it's going to keep happening as long as he and his minions are involved in national politics. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sigh… no… Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. Blueboar (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But isn't it a place to capture what reliable sources say about the significance of an event and determine why a subject warrants its own article on here? You act like everything I wrote is just my opinion when I provided sources for every last argument, and academic studies backing my statements about illegal immigration and crimes rates. But you're even suspicious about NPR and seem to think 'bias' and 'unreliability' are the same thing. Because, Heritage Foundation. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, suggesting that the Heritage Foundation is comparable to NPR is pretty silly. However, I think the pertinent issue isn't the validity of x or y source, it's whether or not such a source should even be included.
 * I remember this happening, and I remember the usual talking heads brewing up the usual controversy but I don't really think that is of any particular significance. At the most, perhaps a note acknowledging the controversy I could see- if it can be demonstrated that it's of any particular note, rather than the usual political rhetoric. As I indicated in a previous reply, a congresswoman shouting something and a person saying something on a platform they own doesn't really feel worthy of inclusion. Nor does single (?) reference in Forbes. Lostsandwich (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't significant if you can come up with another explanation as to why this murder has a Wikipedia article. Why was it part of a national 'debate' and not confined to local Georgia news? The political aspect is unavoidable considering that murders committed by illegal immigrants aren't ipso facto notable on that point alone. Can anyone direct me to one article on here about a murder committed by an illegal immigrant (or any other crime) in the pre-Trump era whose notability was based on that factor alone? I'm genuinely curious. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again, I think you're questioning why something became notable. You think it due to a dishonest basis, but that is irrelevant. It is notable. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think a congresswoman shouting something at an event is of any importance. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * to expand, nor do I think someone's ramblings on a social media platform that they own is either. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To expand on Blueboar's point, this article needs to expand on where this killing took place in the context of the 2024 election cycle and the mess over the politics of funding border security came into play. This event came at a critical time that the GOP used to try to force claims of this "mass invasion", alongside Texas' antics with razor wire on the Rio Grande. A background or an impact section that establishes this should be necessary, and then.the impact framed around it, to make it clear why this notable. — M asem (t) 11:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

As others have said the interface with politics is a key part of this which should be covered. We should cover the directly related politics on this. We don't and shouldn't need to debate or evaluate or provide commentary on or try to repudiate the politics, just cover it. As a side note, US opinion, politics and laws often are driven by individual "anecdotal" incidents. We often even name laws after individual incidents which caused or catalyzed the law. North8000 (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just found another article in CNN that actually uses the word "exploited": "Laken Riley deserves justice – not to be exploited as a symbol of xenophobia or hate.".
 * But the argument will be that opinion pieces aren't RS, I get that. I'm wondering how many sources and of what quality need to be produced to demonstrate the two obvious facts that a) the murder was politically exploited; and b) the subject's notability has everything to do with this exploitation. If an NPR article is suspect, according to one editor here, then what's the basis for including #45's blurting about 'border invasion'? This guy's been documented lying 15,000 times by major news outlets and should be treated as a deprecated source on here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt that you can find support to  factually state the murder was used to drive politics, since I am sure that that is a view from the liberal side and that the conservative side will say they aren't exploiting it. But you likely can find numerous opinion sources to support a statement like "Democrats including X, Y, and Z claimed the Republicans exploited the murder to push for immigration reform." As well as statements from the other side.I fully agree that both the victim and the murder only have notability from the attention it got, but I don't think this type of statement needs to be explicitly made as long as the gist point on political exploitation is establish. It sorta follows from the first. — M asem (t) 16:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why I think there's a strong case to include sources that discuss the murder in the context of illegal immigration and violent crime. Because once we venture into the domain of academic studies, it is no longer a mere opinion war between CNN contributors and right-wing politicians. The latter has not only exploited the murder, but has used it to traffic in falsehoods about illegal immigration and crime that are contradicted by published research. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're mischaracterizing the issue. The problem isn't that half the country (actually by polling data, much more than half) despise illegal aliens, that is inaccurate. Bringing up crime statistics are from a false premise. A opponent of illegal immigration would say, in this case rightly, that you're assuming an alien's right to be in the country. You're starting from a neutral ground, but with them already in the country. They would say that immigrants should vetted so that those with a criminal history can be refused entry. Once again, the issue isn't that all, or even a small percentage of illegal aliens are dangerous. The issue is that some dangerous criminals necessarily enter with them and those are the people that there is concern over.
 * A note on NPR. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/11/business/media/npr-criticism-liberal-bias.html
 * (Before you argue that that is the verdict of only a handful of former employees, the principal point is the reception to their claims.)
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so according to Pew Research (see link above), nearly 60% of Americans erroneously believe that illegal immigration is linked to rising crime rates. The article goes on to say that one of the reasons they believe this falsehood is because murder cases like Riley's are exploited by politicians to demonize migrants. These cases generate news coverage not because the crimes themselves are any more or less notable than other crimes of the same nature, but because of the citizenship status of the suspect and the false belief that there's a correlation between being here illegally and committing other crimes. Here's the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research on the "The mythical tie between immigration and crime". Isn't it interesting that all these different researchers, in fields as far as economics and criminology, have all independently arrived at the same conclusion on immigration and crime, yet a majority of Americans believe the opposite. Let's wonder why that is..
 * As to the rest of your reply -it is beyond the scope of noticeboard discussion but let me briefly say this. I do. not. care. where a murder suspect was born. All murders are tragic and a foreigner who murders an American citizen on American soil isn't any more or less heinous than an American killing an American, at least not on that factor alone. If you had asked which population I would prefer to live next to as an American citizen, and I had to choose solely based on criminality, my response would be the population that's statistically much less likely to commit crimes, which happens to be the illegal immigrants. Even framing this in terms of "illegal immigration" obscures what's really motivating many of these people. The suspect's status as an 'illegal' mattered less than his perceived 'race', and I even produced a source up top, written by a local of Athens, who described how the mood in the community changed when the suspect's identity was revealed. It wasn't merely a concern about immigration, but there were immediate tensions with the local Hispanic community, most of whom were born in the US. I doubt anyone really believes we'd be having this discussion if a European tourist killed an American at Disneyland. There'd be no hysteria, no national debate about "crackdown on tourism", no irrational arguments about how it's a greater sin when a foreigner kills you, and no Wikipedia article.
 * If you're wondering why there's a problem with illegal immigration in the US (and this, too, is off topic, so let's try to move on after this) you can read this source. The fact is, US immigration laws are decades out of date and do not meet the needs of the 21st Century economy. Those migrants at the border -only some tiny fraction stand any realistic chance of entering the country legally, thanks to laws that were written nearly 60 years ago, that politicians failed to upgrade in 34 years. That's the real 'crisis' in immigration, not the rest of this bullshit. I wonder how quickly opinion polls would change if Americans heard less about rare instances of migrant crime, and more about how many illegal immigrants own businesses, employ other Americans, and possess degrees in fields like engineering at a time when the country's facing a talent shortage. If Trump has his way with deportations there will be massive economic costs, and then we just might see 'rising crime rates'.
 * Okay, no more soap-boxing. The previous suggestion to remove the aftermath section was rejected by another editor on the talk page, although the Trump quote was removed. This is not really sufficient considering Trump's "border invasion" argument is still implied in the section via other sources, with no balance. I also do not understand your point about NPR having a "liberal bias". Having a bias does not imply unreliable. Almost every RS we use is biased, especially in news media. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think race matters at all here and I dislike it being brought up. It's totally irrelevant.
 * I would gently like to suggest that your obviously strong feelings on the border dispute may mean you shouldn't be editing related pages. I am not suggesting you have bad motives at all, but you may be too biased to view it neutrally. However that is your decision.
 * I wholeheartedly agree about biased sources. All people are biased to some degree. The point is I think we can look at the Heritage Foundation article, ignore the framing that is obviously biased and focus on the facts that it records. TanRabbitry (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So then the argument that NPR has a 'liberal bias' doesn't work. We don't downgrade sources for bias -only if there's evidence they're deliberately publishing misinformation, like when Forbes used to publish pseudo-science about climate change. And even then, Forbes was still used in other subject spaces (with caution) if they were deemed reliable in that area. The first statement in this section, about the "historic surge in border crossings", happens to be sourced to Forbes.
 * I think I've established that NPR, despite whatever biases they may have, is a reliable source for immigration/crime data. Numerous links were provided to independent sources and I'll add this Reuters article to the list. They cite several studies by academic researchers published in peer-reviewed journals, including a meta-analysis and an analysis by economists of incarceration rates over a 150 year period.
 * This is beyond what's normally required to establish the reliability of data in a source, so you'll have to come up with another rules-based reason why NPR (who specifically addresses the Riley murder in this context) shouldn't be included but the idiotic statement about "historic surge in border crossings" is due. Increases in illegal immigration have heck all to do with crime trends, let alone homicides. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Increases in illegal immigration have heck all to do with crime trends, let alone homicides. Hmm, since violent crimes are decreasing, I guess that means more immigrants reduces violent crimes. Good thing we don't do SYNTH. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant that there's no (causal) relationship between illegal immigration and more crime, as claimed by you know who. But yes you're right that violent crime is decreasing amid the "historic surge in illegal border crossings," proving yet again this claim is false. There are multiple studies (cited up top) that even show a negative relationship between immigrants and crime (ie where there are more immigrants there's less crime). Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I never argued that NPR shouldn't be included or that their bias meant it couldn't be used. In fact I was saying that biased sources can be used as far as the facts that they list, for example the Heritage Foundation. TanRabbitry (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When has the Heritage Foundation ever been considered reliable on here? You're comparing an ideological think tank involved in activism (including pushing election fraud claims) to organizations that have editorial boards and do fact-checking. NPR has a history of being accused of having both "liberal" and "conservative" bias, so it doesn't seem like they're committed to either side, and "bias" does not imply "unreliable." The data used by CNN and NPR came from academic studies; the Reuters piece cited academic studies published in refereed journals. Anything Heritage publishes is self-published -they are their own source.
 * At any rate, I left a comment on the talk page. There seems to be growing support for completely removing the section, at least temporarily. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Putting aside all the other issues with what you have said, if you remove that section what will be the context for mentioning the so-called "Laken Riley Act?" TanRabbitry (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The context would be the murder of Laken Riley? The whole article talks about the killing, the suspect, his undocumented status. Why do you think the Laken Riley Act would be so incomprehensible to readers without a section that says only two things: "historic surge of illegal border crossings" and a congresswoman shouting at the president? There is nothing of any educational or encyclopedic value in that section -it's a one-sided, partisan reaction and adds nothing of any significance to the article. Wasn't it you who said that "Once again, the issue isn't that all, or even a small percentage of illegal aliens are dangerous. The issue is that some dangerous criminals necessarily enter with them and those are the people that there is concern over" ? Okay, so a dangerous criminal entered and killed someone. There's the context Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The context is the national outrage and controversy over the murder. Congress passes laws in reaction to public discussion/concerns/hysteria frequently and this is one of those times. It is necessary to explain the background to that Act.
 * I would like to point something out to you. You've obviously read a great deal about this issue. Let's severely oversimplifiy and put it this way: out of 100 American citizens, 3 commit violent crimes and out of 100 illegal aliens, 2 commit violent crimes. While the illegal aliens may be less likely overall to be violent criminals, the handful that are, mean that if the 100 had never arrived, the 2 couldn't commit violent crimes in America. That is what people are concerned over when it comes to crime and illegal aliens. They would argue that if the 100 were either turned away or at least heavily vetted, the 2 would not be allowed in. Once again, the Americans in polls on the subject aren't worried about all the immigrants with regard to crime, they are worried about the percentage who are dangerous.
 * One final thought, I would note that the man accused has not been convicted and you're assuming he's guilty. That is wrong.
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The hysteria has to do with a 'migrant crime wave' at the border, which reliable sources describe as a 'myth'. Google "migrant crime myth". When the article moves from talking about this particular murder, which involved one suspect who was here illegally, to statements about a "historic surge in border crossings", it is no longer about this one suspect, but a much larger population, which has been subjected to public misconceptions. Your argument that "Well, the logic goes like this: if only 1 in 100,000 illegal immigrants commit a murder, that's one too many, and that's what people are concerned about," is cute, but not what the hysteria is over. The rationale is that illegal immigration is associated with an increase in the incidence of violent crime, which is disputed by academic studies. That's why the former president is using rhetoric like "border invasion" -a military term, associated with armies, or widespread violence. Sources were provided that say Trump is quite explicitly using this murder to make this argument, and that he is not saying there's one or two bad apples out of a much larger sample.
 * So, the compromise I tried to reach with you was that we leave the content about "border crossings" up, but balance it with sources that discuss the murder in the context of immigration/crime data, which I provided. But we reached an impasse because you would only agree to publish this data if it's published alongside a report from the Heritage Foundation, an activist think tank (ie unreliable) that self-publishes their 'research'. CNN and NPR got their data from academic studies, published through an academic press, like Oxford. This is the quality of research supporting the CNN/NPR position. Now, compare to Heritage.
 * So, since we couldn't come to an agreement on a rules-based way to edit this section neutrally, I joined a number of other editors who agree that removing the aftermath section, in the state that it's in right now, would only improve the quality of the article, despite the fact that it'd be missing context. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't read any of this yesterday, so it's late, but here are a couple notes:
 * One: 1 in 100,000, though obviously not meant to be taken literally, is so low it's laughable.
 * Two: You're conflating all concerns over border security into one, crime. There are many, many other issues people are concerned over. Terms like "invasion" are used to refer to the scale of the movement of people, not the danger of the immigrants themselves.
 * Three: You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything had to be used from the Heritage Foundation, or couldn't be used from the sources you provided. I only asked that you read the article, winnow the factual statements from the biased framing and consider them.
 * Considering your consolidation of all border security concerns into a false perception on crime and your adding heavily to what I said, I still think you are too emotionally and mentally invested to properly edit pages related to this. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To try to intercede here, there is no need to go into a full thesis about the state of immigration, its effect on crime rates, or the like on this article about the murder. Certainly linking to Illegal immigration to the United States and relevant subpages is fair. But I think that as much should be said is something along these lines:
 * The murder occurred during a larger debate in US politics about the large number of immigrants crossing the border and the need to increase funding and change policies regarding that.
 * Republicans and conservatives, broadly, had been arguing that the border crisis was an "invasion" prior to the murder, criticizing Biden (eg Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration), and then used the murder to back their desires to increase border funding/security.
 * Republicans in the house did pass a bill in Riley's name as a result.
 * And that's really it that the killing article needs to touch. Anything else is something that belongs on subpages of Illegal immigration in the US pages. --M asem (t) 20:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * agreed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to say -this is the first time I've ever encountered a situation where someone's produced a dozen or more sources that address a specific aspect of a subject, only to be told it isn't relevant (not relevant according to us, not reliable sources). Usually I will find people pushing for edits that seem to be little more than their opinion, only to be told, quite rightly, that they need to find an RS that says what they want the article to say (and then, be bold!). So, if I'm understanding this correctly, we want the article to cover Republican "border invasion" tropes, which are total bs, but not any sources that have countered this bs, with reliable data, in the context of the Laken Riley killing.
 * I strongly oppose this, but if that's the consensus here's I'll accept. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You know, I just scrolled to the bottom of the Riley article, and it links to another article about the Murder of Mollie Tibbetts, who was also killed by an illegal immigrant. And they have a section at the bottom called "Politicization of Tibbetts's death" which reads:
 * "The case became a political talking point for more restrictive immigration policies. Opponents of illegal immigration emphasized that the suspect had entered the country illegally, despite research showing that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans."
 * This is exactly along the lines of what I asked for in Riley's article only to be told "not relevant". Tibbetts' article also reads:
 * "In addition, Tibbetts' father—responding to Donald Trump Jr.—criticized as "heartless" and "despicable" the use of Tibbetts's death for political purposes;"
 * Again, exactly the same pattern in the Riley case, and directly related to the notability of the subject. I'm going to change my previous "strongly oppose this" to "vehemently oppose" as it's entirely unorthodox on here to conceal important information about a subject that appears in RS. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is basically WP:COATRACK. Within the topic of illegal immigration to the US and crimes associated with it, Riley's killing (as well as Tibbetts) are examples of highly-profiled cases attributed to illegal immigration which some (conservatives, mostly) have taken to show why the current trend in immigration is bad (but clearly we can't say that in Wikivoice). But on the article on Riley's killing, a dissertation on illegal immigration to the US is undue - a link to the main article on the topic makes sense, and establishing just enough context of why it gained significant coverage is obviously due, but to try to either justify or criticize the US's immigration problem in any length or detail is far beyond the topic - and because of how it can be written, it seems rather easy to be made into a coatrack. M asem (t) 23:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that this keeps happening in pattern, and is related to the subject's notability, does not require a thesis -just a simple statement as we find in Tibbetts' article:
 * ""The case became a political talking point for more restrictive immigration policies. Opponents of illegal immigration emphasized that the suspect had entered the country illegally, despite research showing that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans."
 * Just cite the sources relevant to the Riley case.
 * Here's AP News covering the politicization of Riley's murder, the Republican tropes, and the academic research.
 * Here's LA Times doing the same thing (this piece was written by professional researchers)
 * And NPR
 * USA Today
 * CNN
 * NBC
 * Washington Post
 * The Guardian
 * How many more?
 * The studies are reliable, the relevance to the subject has been established, and one statement is hardly undue considering every major news outlet has linked the immigration debate to the notability of these cases. Telling readers there's an 'immigration debate' and presenting only one view of it (that's premised on falsehoods) is the very definition of non-neutral. And the other editor's suggestion that we present academic research, that was published in journals and by the National Academy of Sciences, alongside Heritage Foundation polemic should not be taken seriously. No thesis is needed, just a sentence or two addressing the immigration debate, the sort of policies these cases are exploited for, and the robust academic consensus on illegal immigration and crime. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again, I never said that. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I never said to present it as one sided. I am not aware of any reliable source that factually documents that the current levels of immigration are leading to more crime. One side presents their case that there is a causation, the other side (Democrats) site lower numbers and other factors that try to explain the conservative's point that the border "invasion" is leading to more crime is not a likely hypothesis. However, it is only the conservatives that are using this killing to try to push their point. That that is what is happening is objectively true, just that whether the killing was actually due to current immigration numbers is clearly unknown. The killing article is not the place to explain the entire political situation around illegal immigration, hence why asking for more is a coatrack. M asem (t) 00:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Coatrack is going off on a tangent -not making a statement or two about something that's directly related to the article's main subject and is covered in multiple reliable sources.
 * "the conservative's point that the border "invasion" is leading to more crime is not a likely hypothesis"
 * It isn't only an 'unlikely hypothesis' -it's directly refuted by all published research. Crime is down, and it's lower in places that have a higher number of illegal immigrants.
 * "just that whether the killing was actually due to current immigration numbers is clearly unknown."
 * It was due to the fact that the suspect was a criminal, and probably a misogynist who preyed on women. Take a large enough sample of any demographic and you'll find some criminals, in every demographic, in any society. There is no world that could ever exist, except maybe in political fantasy land, where the number of illegal immigrants in your country is zero. Technically, someone who overstays a visa is illegally in the country and so no border crossing required. The point of all this research is that you're more likely to find an American-born criminal at your local mall than in a population of illegal immigrants. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It falls under the section of COATRACK "All About George". the article on the killing of Riley should not be a full-fledged breakdown of the political arguments over immigration, only the fact that the Republicans wanted to push on it to dismiss Biden's policies while other groups presented evidence to try to refute the Republican's claims. You cannot say that because crime is down and immigration is down that there is causation between these two, without the aid of RSes that explicitly state it. M asem (t) 01:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about crime and immigration both being down -I said crime is down amidst the "historic surge in illegal border crossings" (quoting from the article), with the aid of RSes that explicitly state it. I also said that illegal immigrants have lower crime rates than American citizens, with the aid of RSes that explicitly state it. I don't know what gave you the impression that I think a paragraph on immigration/crime should be included, but I quite literally said a statement or two will suffice. COATRACK would be talking about how her parents met, and then spending a paragraph or two on their first date. This isn't anything close to that. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

From the above, I think that we need to consider degree of WP:Relevance of material. "High relevance" is the murder itself. Medium relevance would be sources specifically discussing the murder in conjunction with politics/crime issues. Lower relevance would be getting into all of the politics / crime / immigration topics (analyzing, opinioning etc. ) not in conjunction with substantial mention of the murder. IMO the "lower relevance" material should not be in the article. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The murder itself is notable because of immigration/crime issues. A statement or two about the immigration/crime aspect in a section that's discussing reactions to the murder is not only valid, it's absolutely necessary. Concealing this aspect of the subject, on the other hand, is an egregious violation of npov. This isn't a platform for political propaganda under the guise of "just sayin' what they said." If this section can't be covered neutrally, then the next best option is to remove it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you mean opining on the immigrant/crime issue in general, I don't agree.  If you mean discussions that substantially include the murder, then I would agree. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article on the killing is not the place to include viewpoints an opinions related to the broader topic of immigration and crime, except for enough to say that this killing came during a critical time on the debate ofimmigration (funding bills). — M asem (t) 19:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Opining" about what exactly? Multiple reliable sources discuss this case in the context of immigration and crime, and a statement or two about this aspect would be well under the weight it's given in RSes. I'd like to see someone try and make the argument on the Mollie Tibbetts article that the single solitary statement they have about immigration/crime is "irrelevant" or "coatrack". The section exists because the case was politicized, which is why it's notable, and RSes discuss this aspect of politicization. As far as notability goes and what sort of reactions the Tibbetts and Riley cases generated -they are one in the same. If the Riley article includes a section on political reactions (statements about "illegal border crossings" with absolutely no context), it needs to be covered neutrally, reflecting all major viewpoints.
 * This is going in circles and I'm all talked out at this point. My next move will be to file a DRR, whether or not any of you participate will be up to you. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One example of "opining" is saying or implying that using an individual case for a political argument is bogus or makes the point illegitimate.  This is a common and accepted influencer in what happens politically (rather than statistical studies) North8000 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Relevant points for the section:
 * the murder occurred during debate of immigration and border funding bills.
 * Due to this timing, the murder was used by Republicans to support their agenda.
 * The resulting bill was passed.
 * Irrelevant points:
 * What specific politicians (on either side) said at specific points in the debate.
 * Whether what was said (by either side) is correct or not.
 * The statistics on crime by immigrants.
 * Cut the irrelevant from the article and support the relevant with quality sources. Less is better than more. Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The belief that "specific points in the debate over immigration" (eg immigration/crime research) are "irrelevant" is something that was invented on this board, but not what RSes say. Their own sources cover this, right in the lead in fact.
 * This is from citation #2: "Despite the heated rhetoric, researchers' analysis of crime data in several studies has shown that undocumented immigrants have lower rates of violent crime compared to U.S. citizens."
 * And citation #3: "Ibarra’s status as an undocumented Venezuelan migrant is now being touted by several state and national GOP leaders to support their calls for tighter border security – though there is little evidence indicating a connection between immigration and crime." (and they link to research)
 * I'm sure I'll find it in other sources they've used, in addition to the ~dozen sources I provided here that not only mention it, but dedicate whole articles to it. The reason why this keeps coming up in RSes is because the politicization of this murder and "specific points in the immigration debate" are not only relevant, but are the only reason this murder was covered by national news outlets (and by extension, the only reason it meets notability standards on here). So, the relevance of the immigration/crime aspect is established in reliable sources, despite anyone who might want to say otherwise.
 * I appreciate all the time and effort everyone put into this discussion, but we're done here. I'll be filing a DRR, probably tomorrow. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Look at the relevant section on the Tibbetts article. The tie in to the larger immigration issue are there, and the only thing that seems excessive is using Trump's quote on full (though mentioning that Trump addressed that killing is well in line). But there's nothing like looking at stats, support or disproving of specific claims related to immigration and crime, and factors you've mentioned aren't included there. Instead the inclusion focuses only on the small nexus that the killing had in the much much larger immigration picture. Same applies to this killing, it's ties to immigration debates may be significant to the notability of the event, but the event isn't solving nor creating new debates within immigration politics. It doesn't need a larger section to describe the big picture around immigration. — M asem (t) 22:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article already has an "aftermath" section, and could include a statement or two similar to what we find in the Tibbetts article, since we are dealing with exactly the same phenomenon:
 * ""The case became a political talking point for more restrictive immigration policies. Opponents of illegal immigration emphasized that the suspect had entered the country illegally, despite research showing that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans."
 * Both of these statements would be backed by multiple RSes that cover the Riley case, with plenty more to spare.
 * I said nothing about including "stats" or starting a much larger section. TanRabbitry, who's been editing that article, doesn't even want any statement on this anywhere, despite the fact that many of his own sources use it. Instead, he wants the section to say that the murder occurred amidst a "historical surge in illegal border crossings" and leave it at that. I offered him a compromise that if he wants to open that can of worms, either do it neutrally or remove the section, and he won't do either. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I obviously don't mind disagreement. I do not however, appreciate lying. In the first place, saying "been editing the article" implies a current action. I haven't edited that article in a month. In the second place, saying "(I want) the section to say that the murder occurred amidst a 'historical surge in illegal border crossings' and leave it at that," is also deceitful. You make it seem like I wrote that. I simply disagree with your additions. I don't think we need to breathlessly "correct" notable political rhetoric that has used the tragedy as a cause célèbre in the same way that numerous other sensational events and/or tragedies are used (9/11 and the Patriot Act, switchblade legislation, Amber Alerts, etc). If you were mistaken or meant something different, then please explain. But if you meant what you seem to have, I do not appreciate dishonesty. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You really should not be lecturing editors like this. You are way out of line. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If someone implies I have been actively editing a contested page that I haven't edited since May, and asserts that I am insisting on exactly how a section is to be written when I am only disagreeing with their changes, amidst other insinuations, I will likely respond in some manner. I did allow the possibility of a mistake or misunderstanding and also asked for clarification. At any rate, the editor's comments are poorly phrased, if not downright dishonest. TanRabbitry (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you also explain what the "compromise" or "can of worms" are that you say you offered? I'm not saying you didn't, but I read the "talk" page again and I don't see a compromise. Maybe I missed it, or it's not very obvious, but either way, can you provide a quotation of your compromise that you offered over there? TanRabbitry (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The political actors who sensationalize these murders are trying to claim that undocumented immigrants should be presumed violent and criminal. That is the whole point of why they latch themselves onto these cases, and is why all these RSes, including the ones currently in use in the article, address this subject. What is your issue with a statement or two addressing the politicization (to use your words, the 'context of why this murder is notable') and the crime studies? Right Great Wrongs has to do with publishing unverifiable information, and does not apply to content that's in reliable sources. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I notice you didn't answer anything that I said.
 * Are you really saying that most/many/a fair minority of politicians or related figures on one side are saying that any illegal alien must be "presumed" a dangerous criminal? I wouldn't mind a sentence or two that contained a attributed opinion that may reference studies. I would say in that situation, Trump's (or another prominent voice's) contrasting opinion should be included. The current wording is basically:
 * The story was national news.
 * It occurred during an extremely heightened wave of illegal immigration.
 * It was heavily discussed.
 * When Trump's statement was there, it showed one view in the aforementioned discussion. There probably should have been a contrasting opinion.
 * What I don't think is right is framing what is currently there with something like: "Studies have shown that illegal aliens are statistically less likely to be violent criminals. Therefore, anyone who used the case to criticise illegal immigration are wrong to do so," or something implying that.
 * I wouldn't care if there was an attributed opinion that contained those exact words, but saying it in "Wikipedia-voice" isn't neutral. Just because political rhetoric isn't 100% absolutely, directly, specifically factual in every case doesn't mean we need to correct every statement a politician makes. Let me ask you this: would it be right to include the line "According to the US Treasury, the top ten percent of earners pay sixty percent of taxes," on every politician's page who has said millionaires/billionaires/the wealthy should pay their "fair share?" Of course not. It would be appropriate on a Wikipedia page about US Tax policy, but not elsewhere. TanRabbitry (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No no, I didn't say anything about "critics of illegal immigration are wrong." I just quoted a line from the Tibbetts article that I think this article could use, because it applies here too:
 * ""The case became a political talking point for more restrictive immigration policies. Opponents of illegal immigration emphasized that the suspect had entered the country illegally, despite research showing that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans."
 * What you don't seem to understand is that this murder is part of a set of politicized murders that all share 3 common features: 1. suspect is an illegal immigrant; 2. Trump and his supporters use it to claim there's a 'migrant crime wave' at the border 3. the case gets pulled into a political debate about immigration.
 * All of these features depend on the other -take one of them away, and there's no notability.
 * I don't know if you've ever seen the Bill Murray movie Groundhog Day, but at one point he's able to predict what's going to happen next because he keeps reliving the same day over and over again. The Tibbetts article is the same as Laken Riley, which is the same as the latest example this week, Jocelyn Nungaray (here's NBC reporting). And lo and behold:
 * ''"Former President Donald Trump is blaming the Biden administration’s border policies for Nungaray’s death. On Thursday, he said on Truth Social that “we have a new Biden Migrant Killing — It’s only going to get worse, and it’s all Crooked Joe Biden’s fault.”
 * 'An NBC News review of city data shows overall crime levels dropping in major cities that have received the most migrants from Texas, including Chicago, New York City and Washington, D.C.
 * Nungaray’s death is the latest suspected high-profile crime by migrants, which has led to political firestorms, even as studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born citizens."''
 * Same thing, over and over again.
 * We don't even need to change the words -the wording used in the Tibbetts article is the same wording used in sources discussing Laken Riley, which is the same wording used in Jocelyn Nungaray's article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered anything.
 * "Wrong to do so" and "wrong" are two entirely different things.
 * "Migrant crime wave" and "wave of migrants" are also different. Stating that some of them are dangerous ccriminals doesn't imply they all are.
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While this line is taken nearly verbatim (paraphrased enough) from that given news article, to me it really ses to be unnecessary on WP. These killings have been politicized, yes, and the Republicans have said it is a direct  result of Biden's immigration policies and all that. The statement that points to the lack of corelation between immigration and crime may certainly be true, but on any of these killing articles, it seems to be a coat rack even if it seems to counter the Republican argument, and feels what turns these killing articles in the start of a thesis about immigration and crime. It's a very subtle thing but it is creating the perception of making the article into something it shouldn't be. It makes me somewhat uneasy about it's inclusion, even with the RSes that back that statement, because it Judy feels out of place. I think letting the statement like "The killing was used by Republicans to raise opposition to Biden's immigration policies, claiming that crime rates had gone up due to loose border enforcement." and Lea ING it at that without providing the counterpoint, as long as an article that does detail the immigration debate goes into the reported studies showing no increase in crim due to immigration. — M asem  (t) 16:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not say something like: "The murder was extensively refrenced by proponents of stricter border security. They claimed that this murder and other similar violent crimes had occurred due to the Biden administration's border policy." That's a factual statement, (note that I am saying the statement is factual, not necessarily the assertion) but phrased in such a way that means it's neutral as to if they were "correct" or not, in their opinion. I would prefer merely adding attributed opinions from one or more prominent voices on each side, but maybe this is a fair compromise. TanRabbitry (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think your compromise is right on the money. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We're done here. I'll be filing a DRR when I have the time. You can explain your position there, if you want. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would only add that a link to the best article covering the debate over immigration and crime that applies here, so that this is nearby that text and so a reader who wants to know more can read there. — M asem (t) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the best article is, but I suggest linking "border security" to it. TanRabbitry (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's seriously flawed. Congress, on both sides of the aisle, commonly passes acts with names that fit their political narrative. In this case, partially to bolster their popularity with racists. They aren't saying anything about the porous Canadian border. Also, we cannot say anything about the Biden administration's border policy without explaining it. The Biden border policy was to pass a border act which the Republicans blocked also for political reasons. Trying to balance this would require too much space in an article about this girl's death. And frankly, we still do not know the circumstances of her death. There were no witnesses. If something must be added (and I don't think so) then I think one or two sentences without any reference to political talking points would be enough. Whatever the circumstance were, the girl's death is tragic. But Congress didn't wait to find out. They appropriated her name for political reasons knowing they could pass a bill with the name as few would dare vote against it. The only connection between this girl and the political nonsense is specious. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's worth responding to, but here you go:
 * About 10,000 people were arrested for illegally crossing the Canadian border last year. In just December of 2023, 250,000 people were arrested illegally crossing the Mexican border. Do not bring nonsensical allegations of racism into this without cause.
 * The bill didn't pass because Congress couldn't agree on it. Don't bring in assumptions about political motives. Two out of the three main sponsors of the bill voted against it moving forward because they said the process had become about optics and appearances instead of substance. I will say I think the sentence could be changed to say something like: "due to the record amount of illegal immigration," or "due to the Biden administration's handling of the border."
 * It is irrelevant to this if the suspect is innocent or guilty. What matters is what the political aftermath was.
 * Your personal thoughts on whether connection between the murder and the perception was legitimate or not is immaterial. Congress does things like that all the time and it isn't our job to ignore them just because we don't like it. There are plenty of articles/sections of articles that we would each disapprove of, but they're still notable and we don't get to remove them because of our feelings. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. How many people were not arrested from Canada? Racism is a huge part of this. Trump said, why can't we get more immigrants from Norway. Now he's added Africa to his claims of countries emptying their jails and asylums. Where did that come from? He has again said immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country".
 * 2. The Biden bill was largely written by a very conservative Republican. Trump told the Republicans not to vote for it. This is well documented by RS.
 * 3. I said nothing about innocence. If I must, he is innocent under the law. Neither Congress nor RS know the circumstances of the death.
 * 4. Of course Congress does crap like this all the time. I said that and said both sides of the aisle are a part of this cynicism. I do not claim this has something to do with an editor's "feelings". You started with I'm not sure if it's worth responding to and ended with the characterization. Please learn how to AGF.
 * 5. You ignored my point. You proposed that we mention Biden's immigration policies. That cannot be stated without explaining what they actually are instead of what the Republicans claim (completely open borders -- Hah, I just heard Trump say that again on the TV while typing this.). We would end up with a section as long as the current article if we get into this political imbroglio. The article is about her tragic death. Let us not lose site of that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to disregard this, since it has been here for so long before I answered.
 * I don't understand the point of your first sentence. I also think reading racism into motivation is highly improper. I am not disputing your claim about Trump and Africa, but I haven't seen it. Can you provide a source?
 * There was so much debate over that bill that and I don't want to list it here, but boiling it down to Trump told Republicans not to vote for it to keep the border crisis ongoing is wrong.
 * You talked about the "circumstances of the death." What else could you have been referring to?
 * I don't understand how it makes in un-notable just because we disapprove of what Congress does in like situations. The mention of feelings is something I think we all share. Are you honestly saying there isn't a single notable article or section you wouldn't want removed?
 * Why would we need to fully explain Biden's border policy? Where is the suggestion (in the proposed sentence) that the policy is open borders?
 * Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I filed a DRR, and notified you on your talk page, so make your case there if you want. The average person reading the Laken Riley article, will not be there out of morbid curiosity, but because they heard a former president and his acolytes spewing bs about illegal immigrants and criminality, which will probably be sprayed at the debate Thurs. night. The fact that his claims are false is utterly relevant to the subject, is mentioned in reliable sources, including the RSes used in the article, and is the reason why most people have interest in this case. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, the decision to close the DRR was based on:
 * "''Closed as pending at the neutral point of view noticeboard. The instructions for DRN say: We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums. As another editor says, it is under discussion at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Let the discussion at NPOVN continue for a few more days. If the discussion fizzles out inconclusively or is closed as having been inconclusive, discussion can then be started here. In the meantime, you may optionally take part in the discussion at NPOVN'
 * So, you want to let this discussion fizzle out for a few more days, after the presidential debate. Drip..drip..drip..
 * Who wants to say that this murder is notable because it's an isolated, relatively rare crime of an illegal immigrant, and not because Trump demonizes migrants as a sort of herd that lurks ready to pounce on anyone who has a social security card. Make your case, and do it with reliable sources. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is starting to feel like WP:RGW territory. I think we all agree that it is really bad that some people wanted to politicize any of these killings, but it is not our place as WP editors to try to drive the narrative in that direction without sources. Again, we can say on these killing articles that it was used by Republicans et al to attack the Biden immigration policy. But the next step from that would require third-party sources that document what other significant voices say to respond to the Republican claims, otherwise we are stepping into OR/POV/COATRACK territory. We absolutely can let an article discussing immigration and crime discuss more in depth including the counterclaims at the broad picture level, but unless those counterclaims are narrowly focused to the specific use of these killings in the Republican politization of the matter, its beyond the scope for these killings articles. --M asem (t) 04:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, I'll let this fizzle out a few more days. Anyone else have 2 cents to spare? Drip..drip..drip Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You also need to WP:AGF. M asem (t) 04:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not only assuming good faith, but great faith, in the almighty powers of Wikipedia editors to sort this stuff out. I'm dead serious -I appreciate everyone who's taken the time to participate in this discussion, and I don't believe any of you are 'racist', 'xenophobic' or partisan, not even TanRabbitry. I truly believe we all want to contribute to this encyclopedia in an honest and transparent way, and that this is a legitimate point of disagreement. I vehemently disagree with TanRabbitry, but I don't think he's up to no good -he truly believes everything he's saying, no matter how nonsensical it is. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to make a sarcastic comment about the "not even TanRabbitry" and "nonsensical" bits, but decided not to. I'm genuinely glad that you wrote that. It is good to know that we can have a reasonable debate without falling into idiotic attacks on each other's character, or foolish assumptions about the opposition's motivation. Such sentiments as you expressed also serve to "cool down" the argument and therefore improve dialogue. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have declined the case request at DRN because We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums, and this dispute is still being discussed here at NPOVN. I will comment that it appears that some of the discussion here is becoming repetitive.  However, if I were moderating a discussion at DRN about this topic, I would begin by reminding the editors that the purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the encyclopedia, and then asking editors what each editor wants to change in the article, or what an editor wants to leave the same that another editor wants to change.  Exactly what sentence or sentences do any of you think are non-neutral, and how should they be changed?  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mr. McClenon, the discussion is highly repetitive here and I don't want to participate in it any longer. The disputed content in this discussion appears in reliable sources and is due for inclusion. It's very simple. Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mr. McClenon, their own sources say:
 * "Despite the heated rhetoric, researchers' analysis of crime data in several studies has shown that undocumented immigrants have lower rates of violent crime compared to U.S. citizens."
 * Pray tell, why can't this information appear in the article? Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it is not relevant to the article topic. The relevant information is that Riley’s murder was used by Republicans as a political talking point. It does not actually matter to the story of her murder whether that use was justified or not.  Blueboar (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If we include that the Republicans are blaming the killing on immigrants in general and Biden's policies in specific, we cannot just leave it at that and not include the actual facts in RS that counter this. Either we include an unbiased view of the politics or nothing political at all. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, not in this specific article. The fact that Republicans used this murder as a talking point to push their political agenda is relevant to the story. Whether they were/are justified in doing so is not relevant. To put it another way: what happened is both neutral and relevant… why it happened isn’t. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV You cannot add a cynical accusation by a political party while ignoring the actual facts documented in RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying, as part of the killing's relevance, that "it was politicized by Republicans critical of Biden's immigration policies", is not creating a POV issue that needs to be resolved on the page about the killing, but there should be a link to an appropriate article that does go into the specifics of the Republican criticism, and where NPOV would also there require the appropriate counterpoints. As soon as one tries to go far than a broad statement like this one in the killing article, you're wedging in the need to go into a whole amount of unnecessary detail as to maintain the NPOV. M asem (t) 12:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying that "it was politicized by Republicans critical of Biden's immigration policies" may not create a POV issue in the minds of discriminating, intelligent readers. We cannot assume that's the bulk of our readership or that they will follow a link. What are the stats on how many readers even go past the lead? Further, Biden's immigration policies are not what the Republicans claim on a daily basis, which will put in the mind of the reader a ring of truth that is in fact a false narrative. We simply cannot state one side of an extremely polarizing issue even if it weren't in an election cycle. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure we can… example: Our bio article on Winston Churchill notes that “He was particularly opposed to Mohandas Gandhi, whom he considered "a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir" His views enraged Labour and Liberal opinion, though he was supported by many grassroot Conservatives.” - we don’t try to “correct” Churchill’s view of Gandhi… We simply state that this was his view, and that some reacted to his view negatively while others positively. Our coverage of Churchill’s views is strictly neutral. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are either of them currently involved in an election? Indeed, were they ever in the same election? Are they involved in a current cycle of hate? And I am not trying to correct a view or RGW. How many times do we have to hear that false claim? I am trying to avoid Wikipedia engaging in a gross WP:NPOV violation, one of our five pillars. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah… the fact that you bring up the current election is telling. It shows that you are not approaching the topic from a neutral, historical perspective. The current election should not impact what we say in our article. Instead we should focus on what aspects of the story will be relevant long after the election (in 10, 20 or 50 years). THAT is how you achieve a proper NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said if we just leave the short summary as "The killing was used by Republicans to criticize Biden's immigration policies." we are not even stepping into statements that take a POV.. That statement is very much true and not a viewpoint. — M asem (t) 13:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The statement is very much a true lie. It is the presentation of a POV. One side. Look, this is very simple. Three options.
 * 1.) Present a neutral view of the politics.
 * 2.) No mention of politics at all, possibly a See also link.
 * 3.) A neutral statement with a link to an article. Something like "This event became a part of a contested election issue." along with a See also link.
 * O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a lie, it is the factual and neutral truth that Republicans used the killing to criticize immigration policy. We are not saying exactly how they are criticizing it, just that they did, predicated on this event. If I said, instead "Republicans used the killing to claim that illegal immigration has led to increased crime." now we're entering the territory where this might be too much a POV, where we may need additional statements in the article to properly valve it, at which point you likely have to venture into many details of the larger debate, which is simply not necessary here. M asem (t) 14:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is true that the Republicans are lying about Biden's policies and criticizing a policy which does not exist. It could easily be argued that it is their fault for voting against the bipartisan Senate Border bill. With no clarification, the statement strongly suggests that this death is Biden's fault. Being "true" does not mean being neutral, and this is the Neutral point of view noticeboard. Neither argument belongs in this article. Neither or both viewpoints must be included. Not one viewpoint. There has been an effort from multiple editors to included one viewpoint for five days. What is wrong with option 3? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You know, I know, and likely all involved in this discussion know that the Republicans are exaggerating or even falsifying the data relating immigration and crime in their use of the killing. But NPOV says we can't write as if we knew that. Republicans are critizing Biden's policy, and leaving it at that avoids any type of claim or subjective statement under NPOV would require further prose to achieve appropriate balance within the bounds of DUE. This statement is not a viewpoint, it is factually what has happened. It may not be a "sky is blue" statement but it is clearly a neutral fact easily verified in sources across the board. M asem (t) 15:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the Republicans are NOT criticizing Biden's policy. Hundreds of times I have heard them state that his policy is a completely open border and that the border is in fact now completely open. They also argue that he wants the border to be open to bring in migrants to vote for him -- even though they cannot do so. The statement that Republicans are criticizing Biden's policy is NOT a true, verifiable statement. It is a verifiable lie. We should not state a sham viewpoint without the opposing viewpoint. What is wrong with option 3, an actual neutral statement that is not misleading? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are going into exactly what the Republican complaints are, their viewpoint, which most here consider to built on lies and exaggerations that, if discussed at that detail, need the other viewpoints the be NPOV compliant. But that they have complaints that we actually don't mention to any detail don't touch on their viewpoints, it simply gives the factual reason why the killing was in the national spotlight without touching on viewpoints. M asem (t) 16:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is NOT factual. They have NOT criticized Biden's policies as stated. No one actually answers my comments about this nor my suggested solution. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We should obey NPOV. We have zero idea what will happen in the future as we do not have a CRYSTALBALL any more than did Chuchhill. And your comparison with what a drunken leader thrown out of office after WWII once said about the Mahātmā isn't close. What is the point of purposely presenting bias in an article? I can see why Jonathan left this discussion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not presenting bias, we are presenting the story of what occurred with an eye to historical perspective and relevancy. You are 109% correct that we do not have a CRYSTALBALL… we have no clue whether any of this will actually have an impact on the current election… nor should we care. IF it does have an impact, future sources will record that impact and we can add it to the article. Right now, however, the historical facts are: Riley was killed, and Republicans made (are making?) political hay out of it.
 * Ultimately, that is ALL the article needs to say. We don’t even need to quote what Republicans said (except, perhaps, as examples of the type of rhetoric they used - similar to how we include the Churchill quote about Gandhi in the bio).
 * It does not matter to the story of Riley’s death whether the Republicans are saying Truth or spouting Bullshit. The statistics on crime by immigrants do not matter.  It is all irrelevant to Riley’s killing.  ALL that is relevant is: Riley was killed, and Republicans made political hay out of it. The Truth/Bullshit content of that hay may matter in some other context, in some other article.  But it is irrelevant in this context, in this article. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It ain't neutral if only one side's view is presented. It is misleading. What is wrong with option 3, an actual neutral statement? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying that Republicans made political hay of the killing isn’t a “view”… it is neutral historical fact. What is a “view” is any commentary on whether the content of that hay is Truth/Bullshit. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying that the Republicans are criticizing Biden's policy is a lie. It is not a fact at all, much less a neutral historic fact. They are criticizing what they are pretending is his policy. What is the point of adding a lie to the article without explanation? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a matter of wording, not relevance, and can be fixed with copy editing.
 * Please read what I have been saying again… the relevant information is: 1) Riley was killed. 2) Republicans used her death as a talking point to further their agenda. That’s it. Those are the basic facts. It doesn’t matter to that story whether the agenda is Truth or Bullshit. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not at all what the suggested text says. And it still isn't neutral. Option 3 does not make any suggestion as to the politics. Just that related politics exist and are explained elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not at all what the suggested text says. And it still isn't neutral. Option 3 does not make any suggestion as to the politics. Just that related politics exist and are explained elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, I have asked multiple times what is wrong with option 3, an actual neutral solution, and no one will respond. Just constant repeats as Jonathan said when they left the discussion and insistence we add a non-neutral, false statement. This is pointless. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Blueboar and Masem are extremely policy-expert, experienced and neutral editors and IMO have given excellent assessments and recommendations here. Respectfully, maybe it's time to absorb, accept and benefit from some of what they've had to say. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I know who they are and I fully understand NPOV. Their assessment is incorrect and have not responded to my neutral suggestion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have no objection to something like option 3… in fact, that is precisely what I have consistently been talking about: All the article needs to contain is a simple neutral statement outlining the history of what occurred (Riley killed, Republicans use the killing as a political talking point). Where we seem to disagree is whether the article should go beyond that… and discuss the truth/bullshit content the of the political talking points. I’m saying it shouldn’t, as such a discussion is irrelevant to the story. Blueboar (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I did not say go beyond that. I did not say discuss political points. I suggested the opposite in Option 3. I said do less than that. Merely state that this has become political without mentioning either party as that will suggest a POV. A link can be included. This is neutral. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems to me we are mostly in agreement. It's just the language that has to be worked out. I think it is fine to mention that politics raised its ugly head. I just don't think we should add how as there is no neutral way without a large amount of text. That stuff belongs in another article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how "The murder became extensively discussed as part of a national debate," is better than, "The murder was extensively refrenced by proponents of stricter border security. They claimed that the murder and other similar violent crimes had occurred due to the level of illegal immigration at the Southern border." The former just seems unclear, less informative and non-substantive. The latter is direct, full and totally impartial. Repeating someone's claims isn't biased. By the way, I wouldn't have a problem with a following sentence containing a counter point from a reliable source provided it is something like, "In contrast, others emphasized that studies have shown illegal aliens are statistically less likely to commit violent crimes." I've already stated earlier why I believe stating this fact in "Wikipedia-voice" would be biased. I will not repeat it here unless necessary, but will add that that point doesn't contradict those people's claims; assuming (only for a moment) that the suspect committed the murder, he would not have been able to, had he never entered the country. Stating the statistical fact in response to the charge that some murders have occurred due to illegal immigration is a non sequitur.
 * I've said before that I would tend to prefer attributed opinions from both positions, but this seems like a good compromise. A final note, I can certainly understand and have respect for the opinion that wants the former version, I just consider that version of inferior clarity and less informative. TanRabbitry (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "The killing became extensively discussed as part of a national debate" is neutral. ""The murder was extensively referenced by proponents of stricter border security. They claimed that the murder and other similar violent crimes had occurred due to the level of illegal immigration at the Southern border." states one side and one side only of the debate. It is not neutral. And it is less neutral to insert Biden's name essentially blaming him for the death based on false statements about his policies, making this both a BLP and NPOV issue. assuming (only for a moment) that the suspect committed the murder, he would not have been able to, had he never entered the country is true but not neutral. It is like saying if we locked up every person with British ancestry or every left-handed person there would be fewer murders because some people fitting this description have murdered. Likely true but absolutely meaningless, misleading and nonneutral as it suggests that Brits or left handed folk are somehow responsible for the murder rate. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As best as I can recall from sources, the only group that used the killing in their politics were Republicans. Democratics didn't say anything. Journalists and academics made the point of immigration and crime not being connected. "discussed as part of the national debate" seems purposely vague, particularly when in the case of Riley, we have the Republicans that introduced and passed the act named after her, which absolutely should be within the article. We can't avoid or water down that last part to try to avoid politics.
 * What I think there is full agreement is to introduce a significant amount of the general talking points about immigration and crime, in Riley's article (eg option 1). And we can't avoid mentioning the bill, so option 2 is off the table. Its basically how to describe how this killing was made notable, and that's because Republicans used it to try to justify their criticism of Biden's approach to immigration policy, during the time that they were playing partisan politics with both border funding alongside funding to Ukraine and Israel. Now, there is a way to present that factually, leaving links to the relevant articles that get into more details of why various sides in these debates were taking their sides and what they were doing, and without engaging further with the political angle. "Discussed as part the national debate" is too generic really here. M asem (t) 12:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes the Republicans are trying (successfully) to make this a political issue. The problem with the currently suggested text, stated in a vacuum, is that when matched with the comments made ad infinitum by Republicans, Fox, OOAN, NewsMax, etc., that immigrants are rapists and murders released from Hispanic and now African prisons and asylums supposedly invited into the country by the current president, will sound like Wikipedia is blaming Biden for the death of the girl in this article in the minds of a significant number of readers. We appear to agree that we cannot put both sides in this article. That belongs in an article about immigration as a whole. But only mentioning one side and one person raises both POV and BLP issues. Blueboar rightly says that the Republicans are making hay of the situation. Correct, but that's not what the suggested text says. The only solution that I see is a neutral statement that there is a political brouhaha and provide a link. If you think "Discussed as part the national debate" is too generic, we could use "has been used in attempts to gain political advantage" or political gamesmanship, or other words to that effect. This is less generic and more towards Blueboar's hay while not mentioning any party or person. As I said, I think we just need to agree upon language that does not suggest fault for the death about which this article is supposed to be about, other than that which a jury will ultimately find. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * uhhh, we've never have taken into account of how a topic is presented happening outside WP to influence how WP should write about it, outside of the proper summarization of RSes with appropriate due weight. That the far right media is jumping at everything doesn't mean we should be walking if eggshells to nit feed into that. There is a CIR expected of our readers that they are critical thinkers too (as should editors) and shouldn't be dumbing down topics, as this suggests. M asem (t) 13:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not saying that we need to walk on eggshells. And In no way did I suggest that we should "dumb down" the article. Actually, not mentioning both sides is dumbing it down. But that's OK if we have another article and don't wish to distract from the subject article. I don't want to dumb down the article. I just want to put the complex side issues in the correct, linked article. We certainly do take into account writing in a manner that does not mislead and we certainly do take into account BLP and NPOV. The more contentious the subject, the more problematic. I frankly do not understand the resistance to a neutral statement as opposed to one suggesting a connection between the death and a living person without explanation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The statement that's been suggested "The killing of Riley was used by Republicans to criticize Biden's immigration policy" in no way is a BLP issue, given that in context we've already identifies the suspect, and even in context, to say that suggests Biden directly killed Riley is nonsense and can only be read that way if you have been brainwashed by Fox News and others. It could be rewritten to say "the current administration's immigration policy" but that doesnt really help.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>I stress that the discussion of the bill named in this article necessitates that briefiest of statements to say that the Republicans jumped on this killing as a political point, otherwise this bill's mention is narrative something out of thin air.<span id="Masem:1719499894915:WikipediaFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 14:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good grief, where did I ever say it suggested anything as incomprehensibly idiotic as Biden directly killed Riley? It suggests that Biden is responsible for the death, not that he physically killed her. And that he is responsible for many killings and rapes. We already have a section on the Laken Riley Act along with cites and a See also to immigration and crime. We also say that the suspect was an immigrant. You say There is a CIR expected of our readers that they are critical thinkers.... So why do we also have to bring in another person's name without any explanation of the subject as a whole? If something else really needs to be added, surely we can find neutral language that does not refer to one party and one person as accuser and accused. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Where are we going?
Where are we going? Are we going anywhere? Are we any closer to agreement on how to provide neutral point of view?

About 36 hours ago, I declined a DRN request because the dispute about this article was already pending here, at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, and said to let the discussion continue for a few more days. I said that a case could be filed at DRN if the discussion here fizzled out as inconclusive or was closed as inconclusive. The discussion here is being inconclusive, but does not appear to be about to fizzle out, and there doesn't appear to be any way or anyone to close discussions because they are going on forever. If we were at DRN, I would specify that DRN Rule D would be in effect, which would prohibit back-and-forth discussion, so that the thread wouldn't keep restating the same opinions over and over again, and would say that a Request for Comments was needed, and would ask each participant to identify an option for the RFC. Since this isn't DRN, we don't have a moderator, and so we have unlimited back-and-forth discussion, which has gotten to 15,000 words and 28 pages. One unlikely way to resolve this would be for someone to close this discussion so that we can take this dispute to DRN, and have a moderator control the development of the RFC. I don't think that is what is likely to happen. But I think that an RFC is in order.

So, in addition to or in place of restating what has already been said, I will ask each editor to propose an option for an RFC, and to please give your option a title in bold face so that another editor can see at a glance what the options are, and then compose a draft RFC.

We need an RFC. Please identify what you think should be your option for the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That ~60% of Americans think illegal immigration is linked to violent crime, and the fact that Republicans presumed the suspect guilty before a verdict (the case is still open), and that even Biden referred to suspect as an "illegal" on national TV, is reason to believe the suggested wording for presenting only the Republican pov, however neutral it may sound to us, will be problematic for most people reading this article, not just Fox News watchers. The case is notable not because the suspect is here illegally, but because he is assumed, by instinct, to be part of a horde of criminals crossing the southern border, and that this has something to do with the president's border policies.
 * That leaves us with two viable options for an RfC:
 * 1. The Republican pov and counterarguments are both presented neutrally according to reliable sources.
 * 2. A generalized statement and link to the appropriate article. The statement would say something to the effect that the case became a national story because it involved a contested issue in US immigration politics, no more or less. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was about to say an RfC is the only option at this point. I'll start with Jonathan's suggestion and alter a bit:
 * 1. The Republican pov and counterarguments are both presented neutrally according to reliable sources. (I'm against this in this article but probably belongs.)
 * 2. A generalized statement and link to the appropriate article. The statement would say something to the effect that the case became a national story due to partisan, election politics. No mention of Republicans or Biden.
 * 3. Remove the section on the Laken Reily Act and make no reference to the politics.
 * 4. The killing was used by Republicans to raise opposition to their claims of Biden's immigration policies, with a POV tag.
 * The RfC should welcome multiple selections in order of preference, even though this is always true. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think option #2 is the best compromise at this point, but I'll let others weigh in. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Biden's name is already in the article three times, which is overkill in such a short article even without adding a fourth. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Two of those mentions have to do with Biden getting the girl's name wrong, which is even less relevant than anything that's been discussed here. The section opens with a line about "a historic surge in border crossings during Biden's tenure," proceeded by talk about Biden getting her name wrong. What's the point of all this? These are Trump campaign talking points that were repackaged for Wikipedia. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * As requested in Roberts comment, my stance is that to introduce the politics around this killing (and the entire reason why this is notable to start) us to use a statement similar to Riley's death was used by Repuicans to criticize Biden's immigration policies. to lead into the Riley Act, without going into any further specifics on the actual criticism and just pointing to an appropriate article where that debate is covered in full. M asem (t) 19:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As O3000 mentioned upthread, the "policies" they are criticizing don't even exist. But I understand your view is that this isn't relevant in this article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All Robert asked for was a suggested wording as to start an RFC, not discuss those choices yet.<span id="Masem:1719520831211:WikipediaFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 20:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He also asked us to compose a draft, which means we need to come to an agreement on acceptable options. But okay, we'll wait. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I could fully support Masem’s language. That said (just to give another option that does not mention Biden by name), we might phrase it as: “Riley's death was used by Republicans to bolster their calls for more robust immigration policies. This explains the context, and leads into the passage of the Riley Act. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Without attempting to derail this process, I'd offer a link to the Laken Riley Act for consideration
 * ''" Findings.—Congress finds that the Nation—
 * (1) mourns the devastating loss of Laken Riley and other victims of 'the Biden administration’s open borders policies;"
 * The very language used in this Act speaks of 'open border' policies that don't exist, and then ascribes these views to "the Nation". Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Congress does not have a NPOV policy. It’s actually allowed to be partisan. Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well that's a mighty polite way of saying that they constantly attacked Biden for completely opening the border and inviting immigrants to come to the US to vote for him. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Separate from this article's terms, I feel Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration is the right place to point to -- except that it is missing appropriate criticism and debate (using sourcing that has been given throughout this thread) to identify the GOP's point and where appropriate facts and counterpoints can be added. --M asem (t) 15:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Problem with the GOP's point is that it is built upon a fallacy. Now, if they were honest about it, they'd have a point. Problem with linking to Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration is that it is not what the GOP is arguing against. Adjusting that article might be a solution. But, it will likely require longer discussions than this one. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * However, as WP editors we cannot discriminate on a viewpoint published in numerous high quality RSes, even if we think or know that viewpoint is wrong. To dismiss such information itself that meets DUE is an NPOV violation. But we can make sure that counterpoints and fact checking that is also published in high quality RSes that disprove the falsehoods and misinformation that viewpoint is built on is also included. But key is that is information all tied to the criticism of the Biden's administration policy (There's also Democratic and left-leaning criticism of the policy as well, so it would not be just the GOP's points)<span id="Masem:1719598976544:WikipediaFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 18:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What's the point of trawling the net for immigration/crime data to try and veer an article on Biden admin policy in that direction? The sources probably don't even exist, because the subject of illegal immigration and crime rates is rarely, if ever, discussed in conjunction with Biden's policies. It's discussed in "numerous high quality RSes" in individual cases like Laken Riley, where it is more relevant. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because the specific criticism that ties these cases together is the GOP's specific response to the Biden's administration, or at least in the time period of his administration. Its not a response to immigration into the US in general. Nor were these types of arguments present during Obama's (and of course Trump's) administration.
 * Arguably each major component of a presidental adminstration's platform (like economic, immigration, military, etc.) should have its own article, and in that article should be the appropriate elements of criticism, legal challenges, etc. that would help to define how that platform was described. M asem (t) 21:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason why that article is missing the content and sourcing discussed on this thread is because it isn't the position of the Biden administration. Both Biden and Trump are making their little photo op visits to the southern border, and are currently in a war of words over who's tougher on illegal migrants. Biden's big criticism of Trump is that Trump didn't endorse his tough-on-migrants border bill, and the article you link makes it clear that the Biden administration has continued many of Trump's border policies (eg extending Title 42, sending troops to the border etc). Cases like Riley's are notable because they're seized on as examples of a mayhem-enabling immigration system, the latest cases of migrant predation. And this is very much a bipartisan delusion.
 * The content I sourced on immigration and crime comes from non-partisan, apolitical academic studies, and is usually only cited in RSes that cover individual cases like Riley's, as a neutral counterargument to political rhetoric coming from both parties. If you try introducing this content on an article about Biden's immigration policy, it would likely provoke the same issues you've raised here (ie that it isn't relevant to the subject), and it is there where your argument makes more sense. The only page we have that specifically addresses this subject is a general article on Immigration and crime, but it covers migrant/crime research across multiple countries and continents, and does not specifically address US politics (although they do mention Trump twice, but only to say his refugee ban had no impact on crime rates, and that his claims about terrorism were false). Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If Immigration and crime would be the right venue for what you want to add, but is too broad in geographical scope… It sounds like we could use an Immigration and crime in the US sub-article. No? Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that may be necessary, and I believe we briefly discussed this a week ago when this section was opened. The article Masem linked would not work considering the immigration/crime issue rarely, if ever, appears in sources covering Biden policies. And the general article on 'immigration and crime' would hardly warrant mentioning specific cases in the US. The only time multiple RSes frequently cover this research is in connection with these individual cases, like Laken Riley. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * To avoid another circular discussion, while we seem to have agreed on a number of options for an RfC, most of them involve linking to a more appropriate article, which doesn't seem to exist on here. If the decision comes down to creating a new article on "US immigration and crime", just to link the Laken Riley article (and similar ones), I'm wondering who here has any interest in working on it. I'm not involved in editing the Laken Riley article and have little interest in the subject as a whole; in fact I find the repetitive political debate boring and unproductive. I stumbled on the Laken Riley article, saw what appeared to be a violation of NPOV, and tried to get it resolved. Again, RSes discuss immigration/crime research in the context of these individual cases, not Biden policies.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are over 20,000 homicides a year in the US. Obviously we don't add 20,000 articles a year on such. This very small article (small because so little is known) was added because a party is pushing a racist narrative putting it into recent news, even though there are no witnesses to what may or may not have been a crime and no trial has even been scheduled, much less an adjudication. We have an essay on WP:RECENTISM which has been largely ignored for some time. Unfortunate for an encyclopedia. But we must live by the fact that Wikipedia is moving closer to becoming a breaking news site. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again, I really do not like your reading racism into this. I find it totally inappropriate and quite repulsive, to be honest. TanRabbitry (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable journalism seems to indicate that there's racist alarmism co-opting (also see ) this tragedy for ends that are quite a bit more repulsive than an editor pointing out that there's racism in the way certain elements of society are pushing the topic in discourse. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 01:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the opinion piece is really "reliable journalism," however, as to the other article, I would certainly sympathize with any Hispanic students who feel threatened or otherwise mistreated. A sad reality of human nature is the tendency to view groups of people as monolithic beyond any semblance of reason. There was a horrific murder in Texas a year and a half ago and the suspect was a delivered driver. People actually reported that they dreaded seeing delivery vans and I believe at least one driver spoke of being shunned. The ease with which people can be whipped into suspicion and hysteria is quite disturbing. The issue is not over idiots threatening random people, but over allegations of a "racist narrative" supposedly being pushed by an entire party. That is what I do not like. TanRabbitry (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few opinion pieces 'reading racism' into this case, and some that are not opinion pieces at all. Here's The Boston Globe, MSNBC, The NY Times, an NPR article about a bill pushed in the Georgia legislature that's using the Laken Riley murder "to target wholesale, an immigrant and Latino community". And FYI -the phrase "say her name!", that Marjorie Taylor Greene appropriated and shouted at the president, was coined by a black racial justice activist, and this is coming from AP News..
 * But 100 sources later and the argument will be "not relevant to this article, find another article and link to it." No wonder this circular discussion has been going on for over a week. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't see two of those articles because I am not a subscriber to them. Two of the other articles include opinions attributed to activists. There certainly entitled to their opinion, but their argument can be countered and in the case of the NPR article, is. The MSNBC article I will admit, contains the direct assertions of the author and is not framed as opinion. However, I would challenge anyone to read it and then seriously say the author is even remotely unbiased and/or fair.
 * Principally, however, I don't think we should be adding charges of racism against either position while we discuss this. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Speaking of breaking news, a few days ago I mentioned the latest murder-by-migrant case, and now someone's created a Killing of Jocelyn Nungaray article, with the same issues we find in the same section of Laken Riley. I think this has now become a decision of whether this encyclopedia is going to become a "breaking migrant murder news" platform, or we cover this subject in one general article, with only the more notable cases having their own article. So, maybe add this as an RfC option. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that case. It's still pretty new, so we don't know if it will be as widely talked about as this one. It is significant enough that something a Harris county judge said about it has made news. TanRabbitry (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And yet it already has an article on here, with a reaction section about Biden's immigration policies. And it was created right around the same time I cited an MSNBC article on Joceyln as the latest example of "migrant crime" exploitation. Do you think this encyclopedia should be used to create articles of every murder by an illegal migrant within a week or less of publication, with absolutely no balance or context beyond vague statements about border policies?
 * "Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting. Some editors may take into account perceived media bias, such as Missing white woman syndrome, when assessing notability. Note that this guideline applies to articles about a wide range of subjects beyond just events including articles about living people, celebrities, and fringe ideas."
 * The bias here that we might want to take into account is "migrant murder syndrome." Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * we don't know if it will be as widely talked about as this one: That we don't know is precisely why we have guidelines like WP:SUSTAINED: Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. It's been scarcely two weeks since Nungaray's death, and it's an undeniable tragedy. That does not change that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, nor does it change the WP:NPOV issues with the undue weight being placed on flash-in-the-pan politicized rhetoric from pundits and electoral candidates. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 18:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also agree. From a Notability standpoint, the reaction to Riley’s death stands out because it reached a stage well beyond routine news headlines (most significantly - an act of Congress was named after her). We can’t say that about other deaths in the headlines (or at least, we can’t say that yet). I do think we are too quick to write articles on recent news events, and too quick to add breaking news to existing articles. Waiting helps us to better understand the historical significance (if any) of the news. Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out to other editors that I didn't write the article, nor have I contributed to it. You seem to think that I'm defending it and I even said that I wasn't sure if it should be an article yet.
 * I will say that I don't think we should be coining phrases like "migrant murder syndrome." That isn't our place, is it? TanRabbitry (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We have wandered off the path… so let’s refocus. We are discussing Killing of Laken Riley. I think we have consensus on the broad direction the article should go, but are not quite there as to specific language. We have several proposals.  Do we have any more… or can we discuss those proposals and try to reach consensus on one of them? Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft RFC
I have developed a draft RFC which is available for your viewing and review at Talk:Killing of Laken Riley/RFC on Aftermath. I think that this encapsulates the options that have been suggested. My question about Option B is: What article should there be a link to? If the article exists, we should identify it. If it does not exist, referring to a future article may confuse the community, who will ask what article, or will argue about what article.

However, there also is now discussion about reaching a consensus here at NPOVN. So, will there be a consensus reached here at NPOVN, or do we let the community decide with an RFC? If we send this to the community, we should agree on what the options are, and get the RFC running within a few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Getting an agreement here on the exact RfC text will likely continue this discussion until the next geologic epoch (which may be sooner than expected). An RfC need not be perfect. It must only be neutral and cover all the bases. I say go with the draft as is. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble parsing Option D - The killing was used by Republicans to raise opposition to their claims of Biden's immigration policies, with a POV tag on two fronts:
 * Would this be a version of the text that says Republicans publicized the killing of Riley to stoke opposition to Republicans themselves and their claims ('raise opposition to their claims')? Is this supposed to say 'raise support for their claims about'?
 * If this RFC is to achieve consensus about action to be taken to provide neutral point of view in the Aftermath section of the article, why does Option D (and only Option D) involve adding a POV tag? Would that be concluding that there's consensus for that section of the article to contravene WP:NPOV, and also consensus to recognize that it contravenes WP:NPOV, but furthermore consensus to leave it that way?
 * Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 00:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Option B is a link to the appropriate article. What article is that?  I won't start the RFC until I have some idea what the linked article is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the problem -there is no alternative article that addresses what the Riley article itself should address. We really should have an article on the US immigration debate, with sections on politicized migrant crimes and research, but we currently don't. The Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration article doesn't cover this, and the Immigration and crime article has little to do with US politics. I would like some idea of what this 'linked article' is also. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To have these articles on the killings to make any sense in context, we should have content somewhere that discusses the current state of immigration (not just in relation to crime), the current policies on immigration, and points and counterpoints about these two areas. These killing articles are obviously not the place for this lengthy content. It absolutely makes sense to expand the article on Immigration in the Biden administration article, and there is really no other logical place. If we don't have this info so where, these killing article sit in a void of notability and should be deleted as NOTNEWS (but that I don't think is a solution) M asem (t) 20:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, if it is an option (deleting killing articles on the basis of NOTNEWS at least until some of these other articles are expanded) I would support this over the others. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This RfC is borderline unintelligible. The Republican pov and counterarguments are both presented neutrally according to reliable sources. - Passive voice is odd for an action, but what does it even mean? Which POV and what does it mean to present them neutrally? Isn't that a big part of the debate? A generalized statement and link to the appropriate article. - What generalized statement? The killing was used by Republicans to raise opposition to their claims of Biden's immigration policies, with a POV tag. - Why on earth would an RfC include a POV tag. If the goal isn't to resolve POV tags, it's not a good use of time. If the response to these is "you can find answers in the vast morass above", it's a bad RfC. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to removing some of these options, like the POV tag which I never agreed to anyway. The dispute is basically over whether to include detailed context of why this murder became a national story, or a link to another article that might offer that context, but doesn't seem to exist at the moment. This case was politically exploited by (mostly, but not entirely) Republicans who used it as the latest example of an illegal migrant crime wave, so that they could attack Biden's border policies. Neither the crime wave nor the border policies actually exist, and there's no shortage of reliable sources that discuss this aspect of Riley's homicide. There are some people here who want the article only to reference the counterfactual claims made by Republicans and then link to another article; while others feel that it's this article that could use this context, and that there's no other, more appropriate article to link to anyway. At one point a compromise was offered that we publish only a very general statement (ie one that doesn't even mention 'Republicans') and then link to another article.
 * So, maybe find a way to nutshell all this into a more comprehensible RfC. The options currently on the list were just rough ideas that were supposed to be developed into a final draft. Or we could resolve this here, right now, without an RfC or another week of discussion.Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Query: what did people find objectionable about my suggested wording of: ““Riley's death was used by Republicans to bolster their calls for more robust immigration policies.”? I only ask because it seems to have gotten lost in the arguments about other stuff. Blueboar (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if you added the word "cynically" before bolster it would be accurate. But we can't do that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's an example of presenting only the Republican perspective without additional context.
 * Masem made a good suggestion -what do you think about deleting these 'killing' articles, at least temporarily? There are no verdicts in any of these cases so 'NOTNEWS' can apply here. In the meantime some of the other articles on immigration/crime can develop more and potentially serve as a useful link if any of the articles on individual cases are restored. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I am very tired of this debate, but here are a couple thoughts I had:
 * While exaggerated claims of "an open border" are not literally true, can anyone here seriously say that there are not legitimate and serious border concerns? I repeat my previous comparison; the hyperbole being employed by some Republicans here is of similar substance to that used by all politicians. Do we need to add context to every article talking about taxing the wealthy a "fair share," with statistic that the top 10% of earners pay 60% of taxes?
 * I like editor Blueboar's idea. I would suggest tweaking it to: "Riley's death was extensively referenced by Republicans in their calls for tighter border security."
 * I don't know about other similar articles, but this one made international news, was talked about extensively, made it into the State of the Union and has been refrenced by numerous politicians on both sides of the aisle. It obviously should not be deleted.
 * Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to "debate" border issues with you here, but to respond briefly to point 1 -no, nothing about US immigration politics is legitimate or serious. I told you over a week ago that the issue at the border has to do with outdated immigration laws, that only some small fraction of migrants have a realistic chance of lawful entry, and that until politicians upgrade the laws and disincentivize illegal immigration, the groundhog day political debate will continue. The odds of you being killed by an illegal migrant are on the order of 0.00003%. You have better odds of being killed by a dog (~0.0008%) and better odds of being killed by a bee than a dog (~0.002%). So, some subjects that are of more concern to the safety of Americans that we might rather spend time debating include: diabetes, science funding for cancer research, car accidents, mass shootings, and bee stings. Somewhere at the bottom of all this would be the migrant issue, if this were a serious, rational debate.
 * So let me ask you now: why do we need these individual killing articles on Wikipedia? Your only defense is that this murder was politicized and made news yet the issue is that this isn't a news site. Take a look at other crime/homicide articles on here -almost none of them have anything to do with politics, and the cases are still notable 10, 20, 30 years later. The Riley killing wasn't notable enough for mention on Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration or Immigration and crime, so why should this killing, or any individual killing, have its own article? Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are certainly other concerns than crime. Boiling every issue on illegal immigration down to crime is incredibly narrow sighted. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * what do you think about deleting these 'killing' articles, at least temporarily? There are no verdicts in any of these cases so 'NOTNEWS' can apply here.: I'm inclined to this. I'd add that these articles also fall afoul of WP:SUSTAINED: these articles are built largely on flash-in-the-pan breaking news—not investigative journalism, not peer-reviewed journals, not mainstream monographs, not university press books. While the general phenomenon of tragic murders getting politicized may be notable, the individual killings are not. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 18:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes agreed - they should either be mentioned in general articles on immigration and crime or border policy debates (which they are currently not), or maybe an article on the intersection of politics and crime (which I don't think exists atm). So far none of these individual cases have crossed the threshold between news items and encyclopedic notability, and it's doubtful they ever will. By the time there's a verdict in the Riley murder, it will probably be discussed alongside multiple other cases that have since been politicized. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The thing that makes the Riley killing stand out is that it resulted in legislation being named after her. That didn’t happen with other deaths. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Even so, even in the case of the killing of Riley, The notability guideline reminds that a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. Covering it in a separate article that struggles to provide that context is what's creating the NPOV issue under discussion to begin with. The killing of Riley would make more sense contextualized as part of a more general article about, say, the politics, rhetoric, and politicization of immigration and crime in the United States. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 19:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Hydrangeans said. And also, a Congressional act isn't ipso facto notable. Out of a list of acts passed by Congress in 2023 -24, only some small handful have an article. There is no article, for example, about "Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act", or "Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2024, Part II." The Laken Riley Act should be included in one of these lists, but whether or not it's notable enough for its own article is a separate issue.
 * I would also add that a Congressional act doesn't legitimize hysteria. As they say, hysteria is short-lived in a nation of practical 'men', and so should not be the basis of a permanent encyclopedia article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sigh… we seem to be backtracking from attempting to find consensus, so I’m backing out for now. Ping me when this goes to an RFC. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like at least two of us agree on something and you don't, so I don't see how that's backtracking. If this does go to an Rfc (and it doesn't have to), I would propose these two options as alternatives to the draft linked above:
 * 1.''' Is the Laken Riley Killing notable enough for its own article or should it be discussed as part of a general article on immigration, crime and politics?
 * or
 * 2. If yes on notability, should the article discuss all relevant context on immigration, crime and politics as it appears in reliable sources?
 * There's no need to overcomplicate this. It's either yes/no it should have its own article, and if yes, then yes/no it requires detailed context. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is roughly 0% of consensus forming to delete articles like this one, so not really worth the debate. Even as someone who doesn't think we should have these until lasting significance is demonstrated, I'd acknowledge this one is notable. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Two Ways Forward ?
This NPOVN thread is now 21,000 words, and 40 normal-sized pages. I see that two ways forward are being discussed. The first way forward is the RFC. I have revised the RFC, which is still at Talk:Killing of Laken Riley/RFC on Aftermath. I have changed the order of the options so as to move the option with the link to another article to the end. In order to vote meaningfully for that option, the editor should either identify the article to be linked, or write the article. I have removed the mention of a POV tag. If an editor thinks that wording is non-neutral, they can vote for something else. I am ready to activate the RFC in its current form if we think that is the way forward.

The second way forward is to propose to delete the article. I personally disagree with that option, because the killing has been heavily covered by reliable sources. However, a case is being presented that the coverage is all political. If someone nominates the article for deletion, the RFC can wait until we see whether there will still be an article. An AFD is likely to be very heavily participated in, even if not as heavily as Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes (MKUCR). It will almost certainly be sufficiently participated in that it won't be necessary to relist it, and so should be done in seven days.

Unless someone provides a reason why further discussion here is likely to be productive, I will wait about 48 hours to see if someone nominates the article for deletion. If so, we will wait for a decision on the AFC. If not, I will start the RFC.

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A third option is a merge on the basis this being more about the politics than the crime, but to what article it should merge into is not clear. M asem (t) 18:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The second way forward is an AFD, and the option of merging can be discussed as an Alternative To Deletion. So I see two ways forward from this discussion that is otherwise going in circles. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then I would call the second option either to seek deletion or a merge via an appropriate forum. (If merge is the intent Ed target, you're not supposed to used AFD for that hence why I treated it as a third option)<span id="Masem:1720049283223:WikipediaFTTCLNNeutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 23:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, still not seeing this RfC as helpful. The purpose of an RfC is to attract uninvolved parties to help form a consensus, but you've done nothing to explain what any of the options means or where the dispute lies, and some look to be facially problematic in preempting WP:NPOV. Here's a third way forward (no new subsection necessary): disagreeing parties draft 2-4 versions of a section [that's currently called aftermath, but doesn't have to be]. Ideally, two versions are the preferred versions for the different sides, and then at least one factors in the strongest objections of either side to come up with a compromise neither is happy with. Hold an RfC as to which should be the starting point for further revisions (i.e. not necessarily perfect, but the closest). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even require drafting a whole section of content. The 'aftermath' section, which may be alternatively called "reactions" or even "politicization", will either include a statement like this:
 * “Riley's death was used by Republicans to bolster their calls for more robust immigration policies."
 * or to the effect of this:
 * "The case became a political talking point for more restrictive immigration policies. Opponents of illegal immigration emphasized that the suspect had entered the country illegally, despite research showing that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans."
 * Both statements would be backed by RSes discussing the Laken Riley killing, only one is missing critical context. All of these other complications about deletion, merging, linking and POV tags, evolved out of a simpler dispute of whether to present only one political pov or additional context. The offer to link to another article was presented to get some of us to agree to publishing biased pov in the Laken Riley article (something to the effect of statement #1), but there isn't any article to link that covers this. I think a strong case could be made to delete the whole article and cover the killing as part of a more general article on immigration, crime and politics, but there doesn't seem to be much appetite for that. Notability does not always mean something needs its own article; as the rules state: a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. If this doesn't apply here, I don't know where it would. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to see a list of killings in an article on immigration any more than a list of killing by left-handed people in an article about lefties. Assuming for the moment that this was a murder and that it was at the hand of an immigrant, there is still no nonpolitical connection between his immigration status and the killing. And please no one respond that if he hadn't come in there may not have been a murder. If left handed people were deported, there wouldn't be any left-handed killers. And I'm sure some of the millions of visa overstayers have killed - yet I see no articles about them. Because they aren't convenient political targets. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not even the girl's parents believe that tougher border security would've prevented their daughter's murder. The belief that it is even possible to keep "illegal" or foreign people out of the country is something that exists only in political fantasyland. Not only do ~8 million non-migrants enter and leave the US every year (on business, work visas or simply as tourists), but visa overstays exceed illegal border crossings by a factor of ~2 to 1 on any given year (and more than half of the undocumented population arrived by air) .According to Homeland Security, 850,000 people overstayed visas in 2022, not one of them illegally crossed the southern border, and not a peep was made about it in Congress or political press. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just pointing it out again, you're reducing the debate to a straw man. You are assuming that illegal aliens have the same right to live in the country as a left-handed citizen has. You can argue for that, but you can't assume it. Additionally, entering (or overstaying) in the country illegally makes you a criminal. You can certainly argue that is insignificant, but being left-handed is a a totally different category; it is an aspect of your body, not your status under the law. TanRabbitry (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone wants to ive in a country that has absolutely sealed borders, however, assuming it is impossible to reduce millions to any lower number is a bit silly. "The case became a political talking point in the debate over immigration policies." How about just this sentence? TanRabbitry (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, and a link to this article. It covers the crime research discussed here as well as additional economic factors that get left out of the political debate. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If we absolutely cannot compromise on what to say, I have presented two options:
 * Return to the original status quo ante.
 * The above sentence.
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And I'm offering you a compromise to end this tedious discussion and avoid an Rfc: option 2, the above sentence, and a link to the article I linked on illegal immigration in the US. It covers pretty much every aspect of the debate, crime research, economic research, and more. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just pointing it out again, you're reducing the debate to a straw man. You are assuming that illegal aliens have the same right to live in the country as a left-handed citizen has. TanRabbitry, look up strawman because unlike what I said, what you just presented is the actual definition of a strawman as I never suggested any such thing. And no, it is not a different "category" as I am talking about killers in both cases. And what you said assumes the suspect was both the killer and illegally in the country with no conviction of either. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to answer briefly: "Assuming for the moment that this was a murder and that it was at the hand of an immigrant." I didn't know I had to spell that out after you already did. Being a criminal, being left handed, being female, being Japanese, being green-eyed, being a policemen, being a Lutheran, being a libertarian, being elderly, et cetera, are all various categories that people may belong to. Comparing the category of a specific criminal status and the category of handedness is absurd. It would at least be a comparison of the same kind (though I do have objections to this comparison as well) to compare them to people who speed while driving. TanRabbitry (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, he is not a criminal under the law. No conviction. Secondly, what's the difference? I was specifically providing different categories, not the same category. That was my obvious point. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You temporarily assumed his guilt, as you said. Criminal here refers to his being an illegal alien; he entered the country illegally, a criminal offense. What do you mean what's the difference? You're comparing apples and oranges. TanRabbitry (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop mischaracterizing what I say. And please stop claiming that the suspect is guilty of anything as there has been no trial. You do not know for a fact that he entered the country illegally. This is a charge, not a conviction. We also do not call the tens of millions who have overstayed visas "criminals". We do not call the Americans who drive through customs from Canada with July 4th fireworks in their trunks criminals. We don't use it in the Trump article, even though he has been convicted. We should not throw around words like that. This is a WP:BLP vio. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Or you can think about this statistically: the odds of you being killed by a migrant are lower than the odds of you dying from a bee sting. Crime rates are down in major cities, and Biden has mostly continued Trump's border policies, which I don't agree with anyway. The notability of this article is fundamentally political, propaganda-based, and there's no dancing around it. It isn't just my opinion either -it's what reliable sources say.
 * So, do we have a deal on that compromise? Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think we alone get to decide. We may agree on it, but let's let the others weigh in. I would tend to assume there will be more discourse the day after tomorrow. I will speak with y'all then. Happy 4th of July (including you, editor Objective3000). TanRabbitry (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy 4th of July. I look forward to resolving this after the holiday. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to suggest the article on Illegal immigration to the United States as an appropriate article to link, should that be decided. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Third Way Forward?
This is getting a little ridiculous as to the amount written on this debate. The following is a pretty bad deal for all of us, but that is the nature of compromise; if we can't even agree on how to frame options for others to choose from, maybe we should return the article to its previous state. Perhaps no changes are better than either of our attempts to "improve" it. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You must be new here… we Wikipedians can spend months arguing about which previous state to return an article to. :) Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I figured that would come up. I would argue for the edit right before Trump’s comment (as of June 14th) was removed. Like it or not, and putting aside opinions on the content, he is a very prominent voice. However, if most of us believe that it should not be so, the version after his comment was removed (July 1st) is fine, too. I don't anticipate anyone debating this that much over the next day. I hope everyone has a happy 4th of July. Thank you,
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is interested, we are now at 23,600 words and 44 normal pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd file an AfD, but it would fail. The AfD process is currently under fire; but I haven't watched it. IMO folks think GNG is the be all and end all while ignoring NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, albeit an essay. And t isn't a stub because of a large number of completely useless links like Georgia Bulldogs softball. Might be worth the exercise anyhow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Call for Paragraphs for Way Forward
I think that what User:Rhododendrites is saying that the RFC, as currently drafted, has vague options for how to rework the Aftermath paragraph. I think they have a good idea in calling the editors here to write draft paragraphs rather than merely discuss draft paragraphs. So I am asking each editor who has contributed to the RFC, or to this discussion in general, to write draft text for a paragraph in place of the current Aftermath paragraph. When the draft paragraphs are ready, I will provide a revised draft RFC for the community to choose between versions of the paragraph. In the meantime, if anyone nominates the article for deletion, any RFC will wait until a decision is made to Keep the article. So please provide draft paragraphs. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have commented at the (draft) RFC. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that we shift this drafting process over to the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologize for the delay. The touchpad on my laptop isn't functioning and so had to order a mouse. I'll check back when it arrives. It was quite tedious getting here to leave a reply using a tab key and other keyboard commands. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We've begun to draft suggestions on the Rfc draft talk. Enter your preferred text so we can get this thing going and over with. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza
Currently in the article on Muhammad, the section on Banu Qurayza suggests that the tribe of Banu Qurayza was innocent and that Banu Qurayza had not violated any treaty or agreement with Muhammad. However it seems that this claim is not in accordance to WP:NPOV since, Primary as well as several reliable secondary and tertiary sources refute this idea, and here I will mention a few: Primary sources:

1. Tareekh At-Tabari (History of Tabari) vol. 8 Pg.14

2. Sirat bin Ishaq part III pg. 453

3. Al Waqidi's Kitab Al Maghazi vol.2 pg.225

4. Ibn Sad's Kitab Tabaqat al Kabir vol.2 pg.82

5. Sahih Muslim 1766

Secondary/Tertiary sources:

1. Jonathan AC Brown's "Muhammad, A very short introduction" Part 1 Pg. 42

2. Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad" Ch. 4 "Jihad", Pg. 148

3. WM Watts’s "Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman" Ch.6 pg.171

4. Tariq Ramadan’s “In the Footsteps of the Prophet” Ch.11 Pg.140

5. John Eposito’s “The Oxford Dictionary of Islam” Pg.36

6. R.B. Serjeant's The "Sunnah Jāmi'ah," Pacts with the Yaṯẖrib Jews, and the "Taḥrīm" of Yaṯẖrib Pg. 9

7. Washington Irving’s "Mahomet and his Successors" Ch.23 Pg.149

8. William Muir’s “The Life of Mahomet and the History of Islam” Ch.17 Pg.259

I suggest there to be revision of the section on Banu Qurayza on the basis of these sources, because it seems that the narrative of the Qurayza tribe violating an agreement is the primary narrative. QcTheCat (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This is how we do this:
 * 1. List all the reliable sources that say BQ violated their treaty.
 * 2. List all the sources that disagree.
 * 3. Determine which side has more weight.
 * If one side is the overwhelming majority, state their position with higher authority ("most scholars state...")
 * If they are about equal then state both opinions with equal weight.
 * VR (Please ping on reply) 15:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * why not start a discussion on article's talk page? Ping me there when you do.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the discussion has already been had at Talk:Muhammad., is this correct? Left guide (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that those primary sources cannot be relied on because they're all written from the Islamic POV and thus had reason to portray the Banu Qurayza as treacherous, and the secondary and tertiary sources only have those primary sources to rely on since Muhammad had everyone on the other side killed. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a historian's job to analyze unreliable, biased, and mistaken primary sources and get some kind of idea of what really happened out of them. And if they don't know for sure, they'll allow for the ambiguity. We don't need to worry about that aspect of the problem, we can just look at the weight of reliable secondary sources and report their conclusions. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The secondary sources that don’t use the Islamic primary sources (like the Hagarists) are even worst for that though, because they take the lack of non-Islamic sources to mean the Islamic ones are wrong. Yr Enw (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Jonathan AC Brown and Tariq Ramadan are Muslims, and therefore they have a conflict of interest in writing their books, so I am not sure they meet our WP:SOURCE policy that tells us to "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." John Esposito founded the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which received a $20 million endowment from a Saudi Arabian prince. Karen Armstrong only majored in English. W. M. Watt made a critical error in recounting the events concerning Banu Qaynuqa that contradict primary and other secondary sources . The works of Muir and Washington Irving are too dated.
 * Regardless, several books about Muhammad use "the prophet" as a pronoun for Muhammad, but we cannot do that on Wikipedia because it conflicts with MOS:PROPHET. Some books might say "Muhammad received revelations from God," but we should instead phrase it as "Muhammad said that he received revelations from God." The same principle, in my opinion, applies here. The claim that Banu Qurayza violated the treaty comes from Muhammad and Islamic sources, which was (and is still) used as justification for the subsequent massacre ordered by Muhammad against the men of Banu Qurayza and the enslavement of their women and children, some of whom were sold to Najd to buy weapons and horses for the Muslims. Several secondary sources also doubt that Banu Qurayza violated the treaty with Muhammad or even took part in it . Therefore, I believe the statement that "Banu Qurayza broke the treaty", if included, should be attributed to Muhammad or Islamic sources. —  Kaalakaa  <sup style="color: #003366;">(talk)  09:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The complaints about the above sources are trivial and irrelevant in most instances ... if mildly offensive and aspersion riddled. The religious affiliation of scholars does not alter their reliability when we are talking about tenured professors published in the world's most renowned university presses. Imagine if Christian professors could not comment on Christian history. We would likely have to gut the history of early Christianity, the crusades, etc. The very notion is daft. It raises the question of how the poster thinks academia works. It's an altogether unbecoming line of thought. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Jonathan AC Brown and Tariq Ramadan are Muslims, and therefore they have a conflict of interest in writing their books is an absolutely bonkers statement. Imagine saying Jews have a conflict of interest in writing about Judaism, or Christians have a COI about Christianity. This statement by itself should lead to a topic ban.  nableezy  - 18:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To disfavor academic scholarship—published by Oxford University Press no less (Ramadan's Footsteps of the Prophet; Brown's A Very Short Introduction)—merely on the grounds that the authors are Muslims is disruptive. Imagine saying that American academics aren't independent of George Washington and that content about him cited to American historians should be attributed on those grounds. To the extent that the user lets this Islamophobic assessment of sources guide their contributions, they are not a net positive to the topic area.The stylistic concerns, like about MOS:PROPHET, are red herrings. On Wikipedia we're already plenty accustomed to rephrasing content in neutral ways, and this isn't unique to Islam. A biography calling the topic "the Prophet" is not a reason to disfavor it. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 20:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood my comment. I am not saying that we should disfavor books that use "the Prophet" as a pronoun for Muhammad. I am saying that in several books, even from secular academics used in the article, "the Prophet" is used as a pronoun. However, because we have MOS:PROPHET, we cannot follow that practice. This doesn't mean I am saying those sources are invalid. We can still base our statements on those sources but without using the pronoun "the Prophet" to refer to Muhammad.
 * The attribution I mentioned is not to the secondary sources in question, but to Muhammad and Islamic sources. This is because Banu Qurayza themselves denied they were involved in a treaty with Muhammad (Tabari, vol.8 pg.15), they also denied taking sides against Muhammad, and several reliable sources also question those claims from Muhammad and early Muslim sources . This is not uncommon in secondary sources, as they also consider that Muhammad did not perform miracles during his lifetime, but those miracles were attributed to him in Islamic traditions several hundred years after his death.
 * Regarding my comment that I am not sure if sources with a conflict of interest meet our WP:SOURCE policy, this is because the WP:SOURCE text itself states, "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and the word "independent" there is linked to WP:IS, which says:
 * And in this matter, I think I more or leas agree with @Apaugasma that :
 * Kind regards. :) —  Kaalakaa  <sup style="color: #003366;">(talk)  04:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are merely further underlining your inability to understand our sourcing guidelines. You have literally quoted our conflict of interest guidelines, in which no mention of religious affiliation is made. You are not arguing for independence in sourcing; you are arguing for inequality. All individuals are equal before publishing standards, the peer-review process, etc. As Nableezy has noted, your thoroughly misguided line of reasoning is akin to saying white people cannot be considered independent on white history because their identity is, in of itself, a conflict of interest. That is not in the guidelines. Your quoting of other editors is even less meaningful. If Apaugasma wants to comment here, I'm sure they will, but I doubt they will throw in their lot with you. As they note, authors that write from an "explicitly Islamic religious perspective" are often not fantastic. There are many of these coming from South Asia, often from additionally explicitly religious publishers. These are not good. Just as books coming from religious Christian publishers in the US are rarely good. This is unrelated to tenured professors published in university presses who also hold to a religion (freedom of religion being fundamental human right). Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Doubling down on this claim that an author being Muslim constitutes a conflict of interest with the topic sufficient to disqualify university press-published work written by academics is pretty troubling. I'm now inclined to agree with User:Nableezy that This statement (or rather, this ongoing sentiment by itself should lead to a topic ban (probably from Islam as a topic area) because it evinces a disruptive misapplication of our guidelines that has led to Kaalakaa excluding major university press-published scholarship, merely on the grounds of the writer being Muslim (this factor somehow entirely outweighing all editorial control a publisher like Oxford University Press exercises in choosing what manuscripts it does and doesn't publish). Kaalakaa instead favors material from niche and outdated books (permanent link) like Rodgers's Generalship (covered in only one H-Net review that explicitly notes the book's greatest shortcoming is its inattention to a religious founder's religious life) and a sixty-year-old book written by a man its republisher calls a "maverick Marxist".I'll add that the very next sentence of WP:IS following Kaalakaa's quotation of it is Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic (italics added), and the entirety of the explanatory essay makes clear that the community's primary concern with independence is in direct relational entanglements: CEOs writing about their own companies, a person writing about their family member or themselves, staffers writing about the politician they campaign for, etc. To insist that mere affiliation with a religion or heritage is on that level is to misapprehend the purpose of WP:V and the meaning of WP:IS. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 07:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are merely further underlining your inability to understand our sourcing guidelines. You have literally quoted our conflict of interest guidelines, in which no mention of religious affiliation is made. You are not arguing for independence in sourcing; you are arguing for inequality. All individuals are equal before publishing standards, the peer-review process, etc. As Nableezy has noted, your thoroughly misguided line of reasoning is akin to saying white people cannot be considered independent on white history because their identity is, in of itself, a conflict of interest. That is not in the guidelines. Your quoting of other editors is even less meaningful. If Apaugasma wants to comment here, I'm sure they will, but I doubt they will throw in their lot with you. As they note, authors that write from an "explicitly Islamic religious perspective" are often not fantastic. There are many of these coming from South Asia, often from additionally explicitly religious publishers. These are not good. Just as books coming from religious Christian publishers in the US are rarely good. This is unrelated to tenured professors published in university presses who also hold to a religion (freedom of religion being fundamental human right). Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Doubling down on this claim that an author being Muslim constitutes a conflict of interest with the topic sufficient to disqualify university press-published work written by academics is pretty troubling. I'm now inclined to agree with User:Nableezy that This statement (or rather, this ongoing sentiment by itself should lead to a topic ban (probably from Islam as a topic area) because it evinces a disruptive misapplication of our guidelines that has led to Kaalakaa excluding major university press-published scholarship, merely on the grounds of the writer being Muslim (this factor somehow entirely outweighing all editorial control a publisher like Oxford University Press exercises in choosing what manuscripts it does and doesn't publish). Kaalakaa instead favors material from niche and outdated books (permanent link) like Rodgers's Generalship (covered in only one H-Net review that explicitly notes the book's greatest shortcoming is its inattention to a religious founder's religious life) and a sixty-year-old book written by a man its republisher calls a "maverick Marxist".I'll add that the very next sentence of WP:IS following Kaalakaa's quotation of it is Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic (italics added), and the entirety of the explanatory essay makes clear that the community's primary concern with independence is in direct relational entanglements: CEOs writing about their own companies, a person writing about their family member or themselves, staffers writing about the politician they campaign for, etc. To insist that mere affiliation with a religion or heritage is on that level is to misapprehend the purpose of WP:V and the meaning of WP:IS. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 07:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Kaalakaa's idea that Muslim writers are always unreliable for writing about Islam is frankly moronic. Should we be citing writers who have an apologetic and hagiographic character? Probably not, but there are Muslim scholars and academics who are capable of writing about Islamic history in an objective manner. I think the article has deeper structural issues than just the sources used, as I've elaborated on in Talk:Muhammad. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not going to delve into the particular issue discussed here, but I would like to note that Iskandar323's characterization of my view above is broadly correct. Whether an author is a Muslim or not has in itself no bearing at all upon their independence as a source on Islam. I also agree with Nableezy that Kaalakaa's statement [...] are Muslims, and therefore they have a conflict of interest in writing their books is highly problematic and concerning. However, in my view it's very important to recognize that the extent to which an author writes from an explicitly apologetic perspective does have a bearing on their independence.This applies not only to non-academic religious scholars, but also to anyone involved to various degrees in apolegetics or anti-apologetics, including academic scholars who write with an explicit or implicit Islamic or anti-Islamic agenda. Academic authors like Asma Barlas or Tariq Ramadan who explicitly identify their academic goals as involving the promotion of specific versions of Islam (Islamic feminism and reformist Salafism, respectively) simply do not "cover the topic from a disinterested perspective" (WP:IS). Despite the clear notability of their views from a primary-source perspective, they should never be used as secondary sources on historical Islamic topics. There are also some academics who are less explicit about their apologetic agenda, some who are not even Muslim, as for example Karen Armstrong, yet who are still far from being disinterested, and are often very unreliable. But the way that relative lack of independence affects reliability is not black or white: every author is invested to some extent into the topic they are writing about, and so what matters is the degree to which this is the case, and how big of a dent that can make to their reliability as established by other factors, such a academic reputation or scholarly rigor. On the far end of the spectrum are non-academic religious scholars, for whom the case is very clear. Religious apologists who are also light-weight academics (Barlas, Ramadan) are often already somewhat more independent, though still clearly unfit for WP. But then there are also highly-regarded and influential academics who nevertheless take strongly apologist views on some topics, like Henry Corbin or Seyyed Hossein Nasr: their views are often due to mention on WP, though they should always be used with much caution. Finally, there are those heavy-weight and extremely respectable scholars who merely have some apologetic tendencies, such as for example John Esposito: their relative lack of independence (i.e., of disinterestedness), while existent, is so small that in the large majority of cases it would actually be unfit to treat them any different from other heavy-weight RS. A similar gradient likely exists for anti-apologetic authors, but since I'm not very familiar with these I won't comment on that.I have a feeling that not everyone will agree with his, but in my view it would likely be helpful to create an essay or guideline describing and labeling these various degrees of independence with regard to religious apologetics, so discussions can focus on attaining consensus about the degree to which a given source is or is not lacking in independence, and the extent to which that actually affects their reliability. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 17:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * FYI, appalled by Kaalakaa's comment above that Muslim authors should not be considered RS, I have started a discussion on WP:ANI.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

2021 Canadian church burnings
There is a discussion at Talk:2021 Canadian church burnings that could use additional input. Elinruby (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Some rough thoughts as someone uninvolved who's just getting up to speed on this -
 * It's not obvious why related events in the US wouldn't be appropriate to mention. It's not unusual for articles to "spill over" with a bit of discussion of adjacent events that aren't technically within the scope implied by the title. Most "Background", "Aftermath", and similar sections include such events.
 * We should stick to events with explicit connections made by reliable sources, though, and not give much weight to adjacent events, unless a RM is first done to broaden the article's scope.
 * The Catholic Sentinel does at least mention Canadian fires, so it doesn't seem like WP:OR is involved in making that connection.
 * In general no policy guarantees inclusion of certain content; when there's no content policy violation it comes down to editorial judgement. So I'd be open to hearing arguments that the content isn't significant, or that it has low relevance because there's speculation involved in the connections, etc.
 * If such content is included, it might be appropriate to move it out of the "main" section and into a section like "Related events".
 * — xDanielx  T/C\R 01:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 2021 Canadian church burnings cites and appears to have been based on a list compiled by True North. On the talk page someone debunks that list also, and see current RSN thread on that source. It also devotes an entire paragraph to an arson at a Coptic church committed by a mentally ill woman who was mad at her boyfriend. Since you ask for more input.Elinruby (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I essentially echo XDanielx's comments in full. I also think this should have been discussed more first on the article talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's rather...something... in context. I can't really comment freely even here, since you consider criticism of content to be a personal attack. Elinruby (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What context is that? Has this point been discussed and dismissed elsewhere? ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you do not remember filing an ANI complaint about how an attempt to discuss this was disruptive and a personal attack Elinruby (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To get clarification, is the current list of burnings based on True North? Because of so...dear God, that would need revamped. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think so. So far somebody has come in from RSN saying nope nope not ever and removed it as the source Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Somebody else has removed the arson committed by the lady who was mad at her boyfriend Elinruby (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The exquisite care taken by the Catholic News Agency with the facts of this story may well be reflected in the nonsensical in the town of Oliver, on the Osoyoos Indian Band. For those unfamiliar, a "band" is a group of families. Elinruby (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Antioch international movement of churches
For the Antioch International Movement of Churches page, I attempted to add content in the Origins section: "Turning away from initial efforts to evangelize the Waco community by door-to-door preaching, Antioch's evangelism eventually found success through entrepreneurial strategies; by developing an Antioch "monopoly" on upward mobility in Waco. Creating successful businesses owned by Antioch members, who only employed Antioch church members, allowed members to exclusively rise socially and economically in Waco and impact the community through the church."[Https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/annehelenpetersen/waco-texas-magnolia-fixer-upper-antioch-chip-joanna-gaines https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/annehelenpetersen/waco-texas-magnolia-fixer-upper-antioch-chip-joanna-gaines] it was quickly reverted, because another editor thought it was undue. I disagreed. Due or undue?

Also using the same source, content for elaborating of experiences, and structure on the "Life Groups" section: "...But members from inside the church view such fanaticism as the norm. One former member described Antioch as an "addictive" experience that has it's pros and cons. In the end however, this same former member found Antioch's putting the interest of the church first over the individual as "cultic" and "harmful." A wife of a former member also found the groups to be problematic and susceptible to a culture of authority abuse. Others have compared Antioch's operations as structured similar to "Multi-Level Marketing," a system that carries "spiritual incentives" and pressures to invest more time and more money in Antioch ministries. Members would increasingly benefit from recruiting new followers to "disciple." In response, Jimmy Seibert described Antioch's discipleship process as a historically accurate Christian method to "multiply" and grow a church; through encouragement and investing in people." Same thing happened, an editor speedy deleted it because thought undue, I disagreed. Due or undue? Pride2bme (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, that much content sourced to a single source about renovations in Waco, TX is likely UNDUE for the article Antioch International Movement of Churches, even though the source touches on Antioch church strategy quite a bit. Maybe if you had, say, three sources covering this strategy. Or perhaps a much smaller mention, perhaps a sentence at most. Woodroar (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Dave Chappelle and the Dreamer


The editor continually tries to add entirely inappropriate content to the article, as if it's a biopic rather than a stand-up comedy special. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * And now the editor has been doing the same non-neutral edits in a duplicate draft.  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I added the article to my watchlist, and I trust the AFC folks to keep an eye on the draft. Will give the user an edit warring warning. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Ican
This new article on the Battle of Ican includes phrases such as The Battle of Ikan is the most glorious action of Russian army in Central Asia, ...from the point of view of morality, it was an incredible feat ..., and ... the heroic hundred was able to prevent a major raid ... ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Swift
Can we have someone look at discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Swift Topic name : I think intro is promo/written from fan point of view Need opinion from uninvolved editors Gsgdd (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A case request was previously made at DRN about the Taylor Swift article. I declined it because it was filed as a tagging dispute, a request to put a POV tag on the article to attract opinions from uninvolved editors.  This filing is, in my opinion, a reasonable request to ask uninvolved editors to review the lede paragraph, to answer the question of whether it is written from a fanpov point of view.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While I've had no involvement in the edit war over the maintenance template, I believe it should be included because the related (extensive) discussion is nowhere near a consensus. It's strange to see so many users suggest that it's improper to tag a featured article when there's "no rule against doing so". Furthermore, every responder to the discussion has either pointed out an issue or proposed a solution to the issues raised, so the issues clearly exist, especially since no user has argued that there isn't any. KyleJoan talk 11:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Niedermayer
The article Thomas Niedermayer is in some places worded rather strangely; seven months ago the first sentence of the article was edited in an apparent attempt to downplay the role of his abductors in his death.

Another editor is defending the current wording based on some rather dubious lines of argument; such as claiming that the word "killed" is in all circumstances a synonym of "murder", and claimed I was trying to relitigate a court case. When I brought the definitions of "murder", "manslaughter", and "killing" to their attention they simply refused to respond. When confronted with multiple reliable sources which disagree with their position, they cherrypicked a single source and now claim that the article needs to mitigate the culpability of his abductors to an even greater degree despite the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources being in opposition.

I do not believe they are acting in good faith, since they do not directly address any points raised and refuse to engage with legitimate concerns. I do not yet wish to take this to the incidents noticeboard and hope the situation can be dealt with by drawing attention to the article and its issues here. 92.21.248.228 (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, 92.21.248.228 I'm a non-administrator editor, but saw your entry here. I gave my support to the current RfC of "kidnapped and killed" on the article talk page. I noticed that an editor who commented before me about a different topic on the Noticeboard ALSO supported usage of "kidnapped and killed' on the talk page. We did not coordinate! It was coincidental. While I was there, I cleaned up the article a bit as there were duplicate refs, some misspellings, and unsourced content.
 * Although I have no power to remediate, I observed the comments made by that other editor, not just to you, but to several others, in a tone that is atypical for creating an encyclopedia in good faith:


 * 1) "I couldn't care less what you say"
 * 2) "We're not interested in your own opinions"
 * 3) "We're not interested in your own "observations"
 * 4) "Your reply is specious and not germane to this discussion"
 * 5) "The article didn't discuss that at all, until I made sure it did"
 * 6) "For many years this article was in fact wrong, until I recently fixed it"
 * 7) "The article needs amending in the exact opposite way you want to change it"


 * I DID notice that Niedermayer's death is described not as a killing but as a murder in the Wikipedia List of Kidnappings and is properly sourced (see section for 1950 to 1979, as I couldn't link directly) and by a recent WP:RS secondary source, "Documentary film traces trauma of a brutal IRA murder" (10 August 2023) via The Guardian. A court of law sentenced two men to between 5 and 20 years in prison for Niedermayer's death and the men admitted in court to having pistol-whipped Niedermayer to death, then buried his body in a shallow grave. Therefore the other editor's insistence that Niedermayer's death was an accident or due to unknown causes, while being rather rude to at least four editors, seems to me to be something that needs to be addressed.--FeralOink (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Pedro Brieger sexual assault allegations (need Spanish speaker/Argentinian person)
I do not speak Spanish. I think the report is called [https://lavaca.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/PA-Informe-Cultura-del-Acoso-Punto-y-Aparte.pdf Cultura del acoso. Punto y aparte] and it has been reported on by quite a few sources.

Should this be included? How? What sources should be used? Polygnotus (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to remove use of word Islamist in September 11 attacks wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks#Proposal_to_remove_use_of_word_Islamist_in_September_11_attacks_wiki

Gsgdd (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

La France Insoumise has an RfC
La France Insoumise has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the |discussion page. Thank you. Chaotic Enby  (talk · contribs) 20:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Swift has an RfC
Taylor Swift has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. PHShanghai &#124; they/them (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

List of South Korean girl groups has an RfC
List of South Korean girl groups has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   12:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC - Gaza Health Ministry qualifier
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' is unnecessary - the previous conflicts saw no need for it, and it is dehumanising propaganda. NadVolum (talk) 13:33, 15 July 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, 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 , where 67% 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, 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)


 * 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)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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 ( 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)
 * , 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? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 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  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 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 Manual of Style/Words to watch 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. Zerotalk 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."
 * 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.[//www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext] -- 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 JN 466 05:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is simply not true, see these 2024 articles . Alaexis¿question? 06:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * These are old. I checked articles published in the last month. Andreas JN 466 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)
 * 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. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 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 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, 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).  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 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 Systemic bias towards English-language sources, which is already an issue on enwiki.FortunateSons (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See . 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&#39;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  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">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  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">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  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">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. 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  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">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 Reliable 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. &#45;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. 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)

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)

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

, 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%E2%80%93Hamas war/Archive 33, also not conclusive. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 28 and Talk:Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike. 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. The claim that an unrelated RFC provides backing for the position advanced here is pure fiction.  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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#Are_Hamas_and_Gaza_ministry_numbers_reliable? 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 JN 466 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: So NPOV issues aside, "Hamas-run" is somewhat misleading.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (1) the Gaza Health Ministry is run by a mix of both Hamas and Fatah officials
 * (2) the salaries of GHM are paid, partially, by the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, as opposed to Hamas.
 * '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.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 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 |HRW ). 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. 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)
 * 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)

VR (Please ping on reply) 05:54, 20 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."
 * 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)
 * Then we agree that "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry" is not an inaccurate statement?
 * 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)
 * 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 JN 466 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 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. Still, we use sources from both. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  22:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * UK announced resumption of funding today. Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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.
 * 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 . 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 . 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 JN 466 06:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * here le monde uses masculine 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 JN 466 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” 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.
 * As for the French sources, they are saying "the health ministry of the Hamas government for the Gaza strip", "the Ministry of Health of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip" , "the Hamas government's Ministry of Health" . Andreas JN 466 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)
 * “ 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.


 * 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 JN 466 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 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:
 * "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, 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)
 * 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 (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)
 * 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)

The above source analysis has two major flaws: 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:
 * 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)
 * 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.


 * The Age - first 3 articles in google, no Hamas qualifiers
 * Agence France-Presse - first 2 articles in google, no qualifier
 * The Australian - Behind paywall, but no qualifier in first instance of usage, no Hamas qualifier
 * Axios - first 3 google results,,, no Hamas qualifier.
 * BBC - first 3 google results, 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)
 * 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.
 * 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.

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?
 * 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)
 * 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 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)

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

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 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)
 * 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. 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)

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, 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.

Of those sources, 67% (29:14) 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)
 * 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)

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. 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 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)
 * 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)

Notifications
I've added a notification at Talk:Israel–Hamas war. RAN1 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Aaron Maté
Article is using citation methods that goes against WP:NPOV for an example citation/source 8 refers to a third party subjective opinion on the person in the article and uses this as a basis to make seemingly objective information. If this source were to be used, it should correctly state that this is an opinion by the Jewish Chronicle - or described in an article by the Jewish Chronicle, not used as a source to standing alone to use as basis of using adjective terms to describe the person or his current employer. Further, it is disturbing that editors with privileges has locked it and not adressed this issue, but kept as is even though they have continously been made aware of it by the community. Hapsback (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Discussion should be put in the Talk Page of the article.
 * Locking down pages is normal for edit warring and for certain contentious topics. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the guidelines are not being following according to guidelines on neutrality, and the lock is only enforcing this by ignoring the problem. That is why I posted this. Hapsback (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hapsback, if you want to open an RfC on whether it the Greyzone is a "fringe, far-left site", you can. Otherwise, I believe the consensus is to include that. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)