This subthread was originally in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47557437 before we merged the threads. (I mention this because otherwise the bit about archive links doesn't make sense.)
Dang, can we post topical Ukrainian news stories now? Because it wasn't allowed for so long and all the strong wording around it not being allowed most people have probably given up, but it would be good to know if the seemingly new policy applies to all conflicts now or just Gaza/Iran seeing as you are now un-flaging conflict related threads.
The doctor is named in the article now, perhaps as part of a later edit.
Since people are questioning the objectivity of the other domain, we'll use this link you found for the merged thread. I'll put the original link in the top text.
Naming the doctor adds nothing. It’s a doctor from Gaza with an Islamic name, and presumably at a hospital in an area controlled by Hamas. Without an independent doctor, whose traits don’t make them biased on this conflict, how can such claims accepted without more scrutiny?
All we have to go on are the photos. And they seem more randomly shaped like shrapnel wounds than the round mark cigarette burns leave.
> Naming the doctor adds nothing. It’s a doctor from Gaza with an Islamic name, and presumably at a hospital in an area controlled by Hamas
All of this requires substantiation. Without it, a named medical professional rendering a medical opinion is credible.
> how can such claims accepted without more scrutiny?
What does "accepted" mean in this context? I'm forming a personal opinion. Based on the preponderance of evidence–evidence you'll see, in this very thread, I was earlier sceptical of–it looks like serious people are putting their names to the opinion that this toddler was tortured.
> Without it, a named medical professional rendering a medical opinion is credible.
That’s your opinion. I disagree. It’s not credible, because being a “professional” does not mean you are capable of ignoring your own biases, especially when they run deep as they do in this particular conflict. I’ll also point out that the medical opinion you’re referring to lacks any actual details. For example - if the injuries are consistent with a cigarette burn, what specifically makes it “consistent” and how does this medical professional differentiate this possibility from all the other ones? Why is anything substantial conveniently omitted from all these stories, which instead all use the vague phrasing of “consistent with”? Why are there no details on this doctor, where they practice, or their credentials anywhere?
You can't post slurs here. We've banned this account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
(p.s. I'll add, since this always come up, that yes this standard applies regardless of who is being slurred.)
We need specific links, though. People always assume that we see the same posts they do—in fact we don't come close to seeing everything (even in the same thread) and rely on users to tell us about the worst comments.
reply