Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Infobox switch from "disputed" to "probably"

I've switched the infobox from "disputed" to "probably PIJ"; the previous version has had a growing WP:NPOV issue, as it presents the two claims as if they are equal, but they are not - reliable and independent sources are consistently stating that the cause was probably the PIJ. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

As long as all major sources do not come to a singular consensus, or until an actual invistigataion happens (like the one that UN called for), I think the other option should be included to some extent, no matter how unprobable you think it is. Imagemafia (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be included in the body, but to include it in the infobox would go against WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I see, however I think that such a recent and still quite controversial event is a completely different subject than the "flat earth" example listed in WP:DUE, and therefore the Israel option should still be listed in the infobox with some disclaimer, the adjective "alleged" would be enough, because at least to me it holds a lesser value than "probably". The view is still held by a significant minority which does have some sources for it, they are even listed in the article. So unless we want to directly put an opinion piece as one of the first things a reader will see, then "propably PIJ" shouldn't be the only thing in there. Imagemafia (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how I feel about using "probably" verbiage based on a single source in infobox. There are still many sources reporting it as contested. I agree keeping it in infobox and body for now is appropriate. Ashvio (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I still believe my claim is correct Imagemafia (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, your claim is incorrect, and violates core WP policies. You claim above we need to have "all major sources" come to a consensus. That is the opposite of what WP:NPOV says. So regardless of what the infobox here should say, you claim is wrong. Jeppiz (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, you are definitely much more experienced than me so I'll believe you, it still makes no sense though. Imagemafia (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz where exactly does it say so in WP:NPOV, because I couldn't find anything that would fit the current circumstances and support what you've said. Imagemafia (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That's just not correct. Make an argument based in policy for this please; because the consensus among the sources is that it was probably Hamas and not israel. That's pretty clear. We don't need literally every source to say that; if we did literally everything would be disputed. We've reached a point where you can't argue against this on the basis of the sources imo. They're pretty clear, with more analyses coming out on a daily basis supporting Israel's position, with a curious lack of sources contradicting israel's position coming out daily. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• oppose. per @Imagemafia

Chafique (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I was among those saying we should not assume blame based on RS reporting that Biden said so, and needed to wait for RS saying so in their own voice. That's where we are now; we have multiple reliable sources confirming in their own voice that it was Islamic Jihad. NPOV is clear we should report the majority view in reliable sources, not pretend there's a false balance when there is none. Jeppiz (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  we also have about 3-4 reliable sources saying the absolute opposite, and even within those who you agree with they usually also add that it's not definitive. Imagemafia (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Which ones exactly? Chuckstablers (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• This has not been backed up by reliable sources, they are still reporting accusations and claims, not stating anything as a fact. nableezy - 13:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• And yes Channel 4 citing Earshot disputing this is an independent analysis quoted in a reliable source. You cant just ignore the sources that dont follow what you think, and you cant state as a fact what reliable sources dispute. nableezy - 13:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrong on most accounts. For example, Wall Street Journal (see link below) state as a fact that it was a failed Palestinian rocket, directly disproving your claim. Channel 4 does report a contrary position to most reliable sources, that part is true. It should also be covered in the article, as a WP:MINORITY view. Pretending there is some form of balance in reliable sources between saying it was Israel or Islamic Jihad is simply incorrect. As per NPOV, if one view is the clear majority view, then articles should reflect that (and also provide space for a notable minority view, which this article should do). Jeppiz (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, some sources say one thing and other sources say another thing. And despite the dog-whistles above, al-Jazeera remains a reliable source, forget about them? An infobox taking one of those things as fact is a violation of NPOV. And re-reverting a contested change is edit-warring. Thanks. nableezy - 13:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

[WP:HEAR]] applies to you as well. Already covered all you say. Here it goes again. Sure, some sources say A and some say B, but there is nothing even close to a 50-50 split. I already said the minority should be represented in the article, as it already is. As for your idea that it's fine for you to do a revert on a contested matter but a problem if someone else reverts you, I'll just leave it at that. Jeppiz (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article, not a place for statements of fact that are disputed. Second, that is not what I said about reverting. Somebody made a bold change, it was challenged, and instead of gaining consensus it is edit-warred back in. See if you can follow that sequence before leaving it at that. nableezy - 13:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy: Please check out CNN, AFP, AP, and WSJ and let me know if you still think this. Channel 4 and Forensic Architecture (which, as noted in an analysis published today in WaPo, "are no friends of the IDF") actually do not contradict the analyses of AP and WSJ. The projectile did in fact approach from the east, after the motor crapped out and the rocket spun around. CNN observed that the direction of the rocket at the time of the impact would not be conclusive because, after it starts spinning, you cannot predict its path. With respect to AJ, their conclusion is only that they find "no grounds" for IDF's account. And while I agree that AJ is generally reliable, as it has been pointed out ad nauseum here and elsewhere, they are inevitably skewed against IDF (and for excellent reasons). Consider the fact that one of AJ's prominent field journalists was murdered by IDF, and that the Israeli government recently voted to shut down AJ's Israel bureau. AJ immediately called this an airstrike, and still (correct me if I'm wrong) has not made any sort of statement like: "We reported this as fact, when in reality we do not know; sorry, that's bad journalism and we will do better."-- Orgullomoore (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because healthy democracies silence press agencies. I dont think that argument is quite what youre looking for here. nableezy - 19:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I didn't say or intend to imply that Israel is a healthy democracy. I was just pointing out that AJ can hardly be expected to maintain objectivity when they have been repeatedly attacked by Israel. More importantly, did you review the analyses I linked to?-- Orgullomoore (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I did, but they are disputed by both al-Jazeera and what Channel 4 cited. When reliable sources are in dispute we cant make statements of fact, at that point it is an issue of conflicting viewpoints that need to have due weight given to each. Yes, the weight is tilted towards Palestinian rocket failure, but not to the point where it is a statement of fact. I dont find any merit in the claims against al-Jazeera, it is a reliable source with a solid reputation among other reliable sources, and I find the effort to expunge one of the few Arab based sources used in this topic area to be incredibly distasteful and insidious to the entire idea of NPOV. nableezy - 20:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: OK. Thank you for reviewing and responding. Now, let's take this one by one.

1. Channel 4: What they say is that the projectile came from the east. How is that disputing CNN, AP, and WSJ--all of whom agree the projectile came from the east?
2. AJ: Can we at least agree that it was error for AJ to immediately report that Israel struck a hospital and that they still have not retracted that?

-- Orgullomoore (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Al jazeera, as of October 18 says The health ministry in Gaza said the blast at the hospital was caused by an Israeli air raid. Israel has attributed the explosion to a misfired rocket launched by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) armed group. The PIJ has denied the allegation.

Al Jazeera was not able to independently verify the accounts. Im not sure what youre looking from them, they pretty clearly are not saying that Israel hit the hospital, only that they cannot independently verify either claim. Channel 4 does more than say that it came from the east, they also say the supposed intercepted phone conversation was manipulated and not coming from a single phone call, and at the very least lacks any type of evidentiary value. And they are still saying that the issue is inconclusive. Here, laying all the cards on the table, I think it was likely a Palestinian rocket that failed. But I also do not think that the sourcing supports that so solidly as to put it as a statement of fact in the article much less dumb it down to "probably a Palestinian rocket" in the infobox. When sources are in conflict we do not decide by fiat that the Western ones win. nableezy - 20:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy–

1. AJ coverage Please take a look at this Arabic-language article published on 2023-10-17 and updated on 2023-10-18. The headline is: "Widespread Arab and international condemnation of the Baptist Hospital massacre." The first sentence is "International and human rights condemnation of the Israeli military's strike in the vicinity of the Ahli Baptist Hospital in the Gaza Strip–which left 500 dead, according to the Gaza Health Ministry–continued on Tuesday evening." Notice that it only attributes the death count to Hamas, but not the purported fact that it was Israel who "struck" the hospital's vicinity, which they say in their own voice. Even if you're not able to read Arabic, Google Translate and/or ChatGPT can confirm this.
2. Purported recording I agree that the purported call recording is dubious. I wish there were more RS reporting on that. That's something AJ could easily contribute to the story, having ready access to Arabic speakers. Channel 4 merely said that they talked to two "Arab-speaking" journalists who thought the vocabulary, syntax, accent and tone were not credible. I wish we had: "John Doe, native Gazan and Arabic professor at X University, opined that a, b, c, and d, were inconsistent with an authentic conversation between Hamas members." Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything like that. The closest I've seen is this Twitter thread (of course not a RS, but at least based on specifically articulated points and having a name behind it--i.e., someone who has credibility to lose if they're wrong). However, assuming IDF put out a fake recording, that does not mean they struck a hospital. Personally (not that it matters), I was shocked to see such a flimsy piece of evidence put out there. Even if it were authentic, if I were the IDF, I would not volunteer that recording because it smells fake. Their case is stronger without it. But alas, nobody asked me. I think it is perfectly possible that the IDF unnecessarily put out a fake recording.

Orgullomoore (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

We are not citing al-Jazeera's Arabic coverage so I see no reason to look at that or the relevance of it. nableezy - 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You recently said that you find the effort to expunge one of the few Arab based sources used in this topic area to be incredibly distasteful and insidious to the entire idea of NPOV, but now you are saying that the Arabic-language coverage is irrelevant. I find it completely relevant that the very same news organization is saying one thing in Arabic and another in English. Why should we treat them like two separate entities? Or are they separate?-- Orgullomoore (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English and Arabic are two totally separate news channels with separate coverage, journalists and everything else. They are functionally more or less irrelevant to each other. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Arab based is not Arabic, and yes they are separate with separate editorial structures. nableezy - 21:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Good to know. I guess at this point all I can say is I found AJ's coverage on this particular event to be rushed and biased and uncritical of Hamas, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS when evaluating reliability. I appreciate you engaging in dialogue and remaining civil.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I think something like Forensic Architecture based at Goldsmiths, University of London is potentially the sort of independent source we should be looking for. Given the explicit military alliance between the U.S. and Israel, I find sources that quote experts with close ties to the US government and military far less compelling; they are more like primary than true secondary sources. (Also, do you think this is the sound of a rocket with a "crapped out" motor, spinning and following an "unpredictable path" to the ground?) Andreas JN466 18:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on what a rocket sounds like when it's crashing to the ground. Fortunately, I've never been anywhere near one. The Forensic Architecture analysis is consistent with the CNN, AP, and WSJ analyses, which all conclude that the projectile made impact in an east-to-west direction.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Or erm, "falling debris", ho ho ... debris apparently in a real big hurry ... Iskandar323 (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Not comfortable with "probably" for something like this. As it is, Channel 4 and Aljazeera seem unconvinced by the Israeli briefing; even the BBC says "inconclusive" and notes an inconsistency. Let's just say it is unclear, or disputed; that's the more responsible thing to do. --Andreas JN466 15:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus reached among sources, and even the sources that said “it is likely a rocket failure” didn’t deny the possibility or scenario of IDF airstrike. So there is no basis to removing IDF from the infobox. Also something i have to note here is that some kind of sources cherrypicking. Like when some people rejected the analysis that was published by TRT and anadolu agency, or when @Jeppiz rejected the analysis that supported israeli airstrike that channel 4 published arguing that “doesn't look reliable enough”, while at the same time posting the conclusions of a random twitter account called “Geolocated” that telegraph and many other western sources rushed out to cite. you can’t take both of these stances at the same time. I also suggest restoring the unbalanced tag warning to the article. Stephan rostie (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support 99% of reliable sources have no doubt about this. It would be wp:undue to put the claim that an invisible airplane that nobody saw dropped a tiny bomb as a plausible theory. Just look at the opposes above, they are citing a YouTube video and one other source that made provably false claims about the explosion. The supports can point at hundreds of sources now. Cursed Peace (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Support A vast consensus in the sources - from American and European, state and independent agents - exists. It is not reasonable to see the airstrike claim as anything other than a minority view. It is well past time to stop beating a dead horse for the sake of inculcating readers into a falsely balanced view of this event. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. I don't even think we need "probably". At this point, all intelligence agencies that have weighed in on this have said that it was not Israel. Almost all media analyses (e.g., BBC, CNN, WSJ) have said it was not Israel. Ditto for OSINT groups online. It should go without saying that Hamas and Hamas-controlled government agencies do not count as "reliable sources" on Wikipedia and should not be cited. We don't even use the New York Post because of its potential for bias... A proscribed terrorist group that massacred >1000 civilians just two weeks ago is obviously a less reliable source than the New York Post. At this point, saying that "Israel probably didn't bomb the hospital" is about as stupid as saying that "Canada probably didn't attack the USA on 9/11". It's obvious. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how this thread turned into a !vote, when nobody made a proposition that could be supported or opposed (as far as I can see), and if there were such a !vote, the 500/30 restriction would apply. In that case, the input of Imagemafia, Chafique, Cursed_Peace, and Inmymoonsuit would not be taken into consideration.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Orgullomoore i don't know i believe Chafique has started it and everyone else followed after. maybe there should be a vote though, even if just for the 30/500's so a consesus would be reached about this stupid thing. by the way if I've noticed correctly the infobox now has both of the options again. Imagemafia (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point, anyone adding that an Israeli airstrike is a possibility is pushing wp:fringe claims Cursed Peace (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, one is reminded of the "Jews did WTC" 9/11 conspiracy theory. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bueller 007 come on you don't seriously believe that the 3-4 sources that go against the israeli narrative are anti-semitic Imagemafia (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Did I say anti-Semitic or are you imagining things? Bueller 007 (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

you didn't say anything but I believe you've implied it, I may be wrong, focusing on this info war has taken its toll on my clear thinking, so I am sorry of accusing you, still don't agree though Imagemafia (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"Probably" is an unencyclopedic cop-out, we owe it to our readers to do better and to wait for greater clarity. @Nableezy, @Stephan rostie and @Imagemafia have made the point eloquently. Non-EC users seem to be trying to circumvent the typical RFC process; this should not be allowed, and the status quo ante should remain pending an RFC (in which I acknowledge I do not have standing to participate). WillowCity (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is no local consensus here, and nor should there be due to the ongoing lack of consensus in the sourcing. We don't provide probabilistic WP:CRYSTAL readings in wikivoice. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323: When you say "local consensus," are you talking about among the Wikipedia community or among the experts? Just requesting clarification.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Orgullomoore: By local consensus, I mean here on this page, versus community consensus, i.e. via RFC, which is the appropriate format for seriously contested content issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Got it. Yeah, I think we will likely need an RfC in the near future. Although governmental intelligence agencies and something like 30 OSINT and munitions experts seem to support the Palestinian rocket theory as the most probable explanation, there has been resistance to allowing the article to reflect that consensus. Hopefully broader input via an RfC (and without the distraction of the accounts and IPs apparently created solely to comment on this issue) can help us reach a consensus locally (i.e., on Wikipedia).-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I would also exclude Israel as a possible perpetrator from the infobox. This is actually proven at this point - based on collected evidence, including even video of a rocket changing its trajectory. My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  The only proven thing at this point is that the facts remain incredibly murky. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  The facts aren't murky at all. There are 0 reliable sources saying that anyone other than PIJ did it. The channel4 nonsense people are clinging to doesn't assign blame to anyone. We have a couple hundred sources saying its a misfired PIJ rocket, and you say that because a YouTube channel only mostly agrees with everyone else, nobody is sure? Its clear, and you need to provide multiple reliable sources attributing blame to anything other than the PIJ of you want your position not to be seen as fringe conspiracy mongering. Sources saying it wasn't PIJ, please. Cursed Peace (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  You are showing disruptive behavior, denying the value of many sources already presented in the article. Dont call anything 'nonsense', because such passionate partiality is not productive in discussions. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you provide a reliable source saying it was Israel? I've read all about the YouTube guy and earshot, but nobody who has attributed thos explosion to anyone nit the PIJ

  Reliable sources saying it was a friendly fire kncidenr: over 100

  Reliable sources saying it was an Israeli airstrike: None

  Where is the controversy in reliable sources? Cursed Peace (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Many counterpoints are already in the article, dont spam the discussion page with negligent statements. This is a disruptive behavior. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  We are discussing reliable sources that say it was Israel. Specifically, do you have any? Cursed Peace (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are still a lot of open question about this strike. Wikipedia should not put its figure on the scale. Even the analyses that suggest IDF do not completely close the door on other hypotheses. We should wait until there is an objective analysis, ideally with people on the ground or until one side takes responsibility. Dhawk790 (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  What questions are there? Can you provide some sources? All of the wp:rs I can find claims it was a misfired rocket launched by the PIJ. Cursed Peace (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is little "probably" also because we have no real independent investigation on the ground.--Mhorg (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have any policy based argument for why we shouldn't summarize what wp:rs say, and instead say it's ambiguous? Cursed Peace (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, since a lot of questions remain, with new arguments both for and against israeli claim surfacing daily, the true is that it still dispute and Wikipedia must respect the reality of the situation. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. While there can be no 100% certainty atm, the consensus is obvious. BBC Verify, RUSI, AP, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, CNN, Channel 4, WSJ and India Today all spoke with experts and all of them say that the more likely cause is a misfired rocket. In case this discussion evolves into an RfC, hope that responses like "I still believe my claim is correct" will not be taken into account. Alaexis_¿question? 21:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm unsure, but I do think there is a false balance right now. I would recommend all to review WP:FALSEBALANCE, which this article might be affected of. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  I still think an important aspect of creating balance in this article is to acknowledge disinformation and to use the available sources which have already described the way in which an information war has affected the discussion around this event.

  https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207173798/fake-accounts-old-videos-and-rumors-fuel-chaos-around-gaza-hospital-explosion

  https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gaza-hospital-misinformation-israel-hamas_n_65301c34e4b00565b62290cc

  https://www.wired.com/story/al-ahli-baptist-hospital-explosion-disinformation-osint/

  https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/misinformation-gaza-hospital-attack-1234856302/

  By including this necessary context, a more accurate, encyclopedic, and neutral overview of this event becomes easier to present.

  If we acknowledge that these arguments have been presented within the context of an information war, as the sources do, it becomes less significant that this article present any explanation as factual. We will have communicated to the reader the reality: this is a loaded and difficult topic to which any supposed definitive answer should be taken with a grain of salt.

  I implore editors here with permissions to edit this article to take this under consideration instead of letting this talk page decline further into us travelling in a circle while we beat a dead horse. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not familiar with the latest analysis being published, but are you suggesting that because some (4 left wing) sources think there is disinformation, that there are no facts to be found? I'm not suggesting this article state as a fact or likelihood any particular cause of the explosion, just not sure what your argument is. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  My argument is that this article should acknowledge the role of disinformation campaigning in shaping the dialogue around this event, as the sources do. It's an important piece of context and a dimension that should be documented if we are actually interested in being fair and accurate in the information we're providing to readers. I believe this is more important than the article or info box communicating any position on who is the perpetrator of the event; it is more necessary to provide the air of uncertainty and suspicion that informs any discussion or conclusion about this. And that's what these and other (potentially even most in some small or large way) sources say.

  Imagine you are a completely uniformed person coming to Wikipedia for encyclopedic knowledge about this event and find no mention of the wartime disinformation and "fog of war" that is dominating and coloring this entire conversation.

  It would be a simple thing to write an explicit sentence on the matter and link to the article that already exists for disinformation in this war. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Inmymoonsuit: 100% agree about the need to inform unacquainted readers early on of the issues that have affected the information gathering and assessment here. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. I really appreciate you taking the time to do that. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Iskandar, Inmymoonsuit, and disagree with DIYeditor. Andre🚐 07:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT. At this point almost every reliable source have come to the same conclusion. It's not disputed anymore. Apart from Al Jazeera, who ARE CLEARLY biased in this case (I don't know how you can argue against that), every reliable source has concluded this was a failed rocket from the hamas side. What's the ratio here before we accept this? Do we need 100 articles to 1 saying it wasn't Israel? Do we need 101? What's the cutoff here, because I'm not seeing any serious debate on the actual facts or the numbers.

If we keep it as is, we are lying to our readers about the general consensus on this amongst the reliable sources. There comes a point where a rational person has to reasses their beliefs in light of the evidence here. We're at that point. You don't even have to reassess your beliefs; you're free to continue believing this was Israel if you want. But we're not free here to just lie about the consensus amongst the sources. Because there is one and it isn't being accurately reflected in the article. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I dont understand why Aljazeera would be especially biased in this case, given that many of the others news sites have previous cases of disinformation complicity in matters of interest for Israel and United States. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If we are !voting on this it should be an RFC and restricted to extended-confirmed accounts. nableezy - 00:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy is correct, people should stop !voting, this isn't an RFC... if someone wants to start an RFC, I guess there's been enough discussion now that it wouldn't be premature. On the other hand, if there's a reasonable current status quo in the article, no need for a new RFC unless there is something still at issue or if people are just continuing to discuss. Someone could definitely close this thread, without starting a new one, and that would probably be ok. Andre🚐 00:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at NPOVN. BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2023 (2)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No support for this, WP:SNOW closing. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion → Ahli Arab Hospital explosion – Al- in the title is redundant when starting at the beginning of the sentence; and per hospital's own signage spelling. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This is obviously a good faith proposal with a sensible motivation. My counterpoint would be that virtually all media in English seem to use Al-Ahli, making it the WP:COMMONNAME. Jeppiz (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree on both points. Also, I don't have a strong position on the proposed move.--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as the other user said, WP:COMMONNAME applies as nearly all english media refers to it as al ahli. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Good faith proposal, but as stated above, COMMONNAME applies. The Kip 21:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose it's a good faith proposal, but for the sake of the general public we should stick to the common name. - LoomCreek (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I have renamed this discussion to reflect this being the second move discussion on 18 October. Previously, the move template in the article linked to [1]. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Though it's true "Ahli" might be one name, their own website interchangeably uses it with "Al-Ahli Hospital." Combined with COMMONNAME as others suggested, this should remain the title so people can find it. Ashvio (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the reasoning above. As a usage/style note, I think the definite article probably shouldn't be repeated in Wikivoice (i.e. avoid phrasing such as "the al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion") and the "al" remain lowercase. I believe this is in line with MOS:ARABIC, but feel free to correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick as this is not an area I am overly familiar with. – GnocchiFan (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, the "al-" part is a part of the hospital name and it doesn't make any sense to remove it. it is like removing the "make" part of your username "Makeandtoss" Abo Yemen✉ 06:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - per above. This is the name that RS are using, and the name of our article on the hospital. I would also suggest that the next editor consider a WP:SNOW close shortly, considering this is a high-traffic page re a recent event. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
• Snow Oppose - per above. The WP:COMMONNAME is pretty clear, and there is a wide consensus of editors above. aismallard (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

European intelligence source reported no more than 50 fatalities

https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33YR32Z Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bolter21: It's already mentioned in the lead. A single analyst probably isn't enough to get it mentioned in the infobox. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

See also section

There are links to multiple Israeli airstrikes under see also. Seeing as how this article isn't related to an airstrike, should those be removed? Cursed Peace (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The explosion may very well have resulted from an Israeli attack (airstrike or otherwise, e.g. artillery shelling). It's too soon to say definitively (as noted repeatedly in the article itself), we just don't know yet. If your position is that the status quo risks advancing a POV based on as-yet unconfirmed assumptions, I have to assume you would also support removing "Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel" from the "see also" section. WillowCity (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

There have been multiple investigations, and none show that as a possibility. Check out the sources in the article, which overwhelmingly say it was the PIJ. If you have any sources... Please add them. Until then, we should follow reliable sources and not conspiracy theories. Cursed Peace (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This may seem like an Chicken or the egg dispute, but I see that initially the See also section consisted solely of the list of Israeli airstrikes. So not to point any fingers, but it violated NPOV principle from the very beginning and should have been removed long time ago. Still not late to do this now. Deinocheirus (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not opposed to the removal, provided other potential NPOV violations are also removed. I'd encourage everyone to familiarize themselves with MOS:ALSO: "Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. ..."

The linked articles fall within the "same defining category" of civilian mass-casualty incidents in Gaza during the ongoing war. They are thus "tangentially relevant" and, in my view, suitable for inclusion. WillowCity (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We have plenty of links to "in some sort of way related" articles. The see also section here should exclude articles not about this event. The disinformation article is clearly related. The PIJ killing civilians isn't related to any air strikes. Cursed Peace (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Before it is decided whether an airstrike or failed rocket launch is the cause of the explosion, none of the included articles should be considered related, tangentially or otherwise. Deinocheirus (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead issues

The lead section of the article has numerous issue in its current form, each requiring being explored individually. The lead, for example, states twice that the death toll is unknown. It also combines personal analysis with other official reports. If personal perspectives on the number of individuals killed in this catastrophe are to be included, why aren't personal opinions on the cause of the explosion referred to? Various individuals have provided evidence that this incident was the work of Israel, according to them. Double standard should be avoided here in this challenging page. For instance let's a take a look at "deleted social media posts" [2]. In summary, for the toll we have the accounts from the involved parties plus that of the US and "some" individuals, but for the cause of the explosion we have the accounts of " Israel, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada" which is tried to be balanced solely by PIJ's account. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you are asking for here? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Spell check

Both analyses indicated that the object that cased the blast would have come from points "east of the hospital not west as the IDF claimed." [49] 68.172.55.221 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for bringing it up! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"Thousands of people displaced..." is not sourced.

Thousands of people displaced by the evacuation of northern Gaza sought shelter at al-Ahli Arab Hospital to avoid Israeli airstrikes. The hospital sheltered around 6,000 displaced persons, with around 1,000 in the hospital courtyard. - from the article

Two very clear issues here. Firstly, This is the source being given for the "thousands of people displaced by the evacuation of northern Gaza sought shelter at al-Ahli Arab hospital". This source does not say that thousands of people displaced sought shelter at the hospital. That is nowhere in the source, it needs to be changed from "thousands" to "many" to accurately reflect the source being cited. This is what the source actually says.

"About half of Gaza’s population of more than two million Palestinians have fled their homes since the Israeli bombardment began, according to the United Nations. Many have sought shelter in the corridors and courtyards of hospitals, believing that they would be less vulnerable there."

Second; the "sheltered around 6,000 displaced persons with around 1,000 in the hospital courtyard" is a statement in wiki voice. It's a statement, that so far as I can find is also not in the cited source.

TL;DR; we have two statements that are, at best, mistaken about what is in the actual source that is being used to include them. If these statements can't be sourced they don't belong in the article. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia:Please don't shout. Second, there are several sources that say that initially the 6,000 were camping out at the hospital, then left. I don't have time to look for it at the moment, but I'm sure someone can help you. | Orgullomoore (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd ask that you comment when you have something to add, as currently you've just said effectively "they exist". That adds nothing other than text. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

wikt:Google is your friend [3] | Orgullomoore (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If/when you have something meaningful to contribute to my challenge to the sources (see WP:Verifiability for the policy regarding this) then please provide it at that point. The onus does not fall on me to find a new source for the content that was challenged. That would be on you if you want it included. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."

would be my response to the shouting thing. Respectfully, unless you have a policy violation, don't edit other users posts without their consent. This is actually a talk page guideline. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: Only source I can find supporting this is this https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67140250. If @Orgullomoore or anyone else has any other sources that would support the text as it currently reads, I'm all ears.

"He told the BBC that about 6,000 displaced people had been sheltering in the hospital courtyard at the end of last week.

The hospital was first hit by an Israeli air strike that caused damage and injured four people on Saturday, he said. After that, 5,000 people left the courtyard - leaving around 1,000 remaining there, many of them invalids or elderly who needed transportation."

Here is how the text reads currently: "Thousands of people displaced by the evacuation of northern Gaza sought shelter at al-Ahli Arab Hospital to avoid Israeli airstrikes. The hospital sheltered around 6,000 displaced persons, with around 1,000 in the hospital courtyard."

Issues: This implies that there were 6,000 displaced persons sheltering at the hospital at the time of the blast. That's not what the source I've provided cited by the BBC said; he said that there were 6,000 displaced persons there a week ago, and at the time there were only 1,000 people in the hospital courtyard as 5,000 left after the israeli airstrike a week before the blast. This matters because this section is going in chronological order, and as of October 10th according to the source there would've only been 1,000 people in the courtyard.

Solution: Remove the two sources cited for the text as it is now, replace it with something like this: "According to the dean of St. Georges College in Jerusalem, there were 1,000 persons displaced by Israeli airstrikes sheltering in the courtyard" - then cite the BBC. Then at least we're citing a source that supports what we have in the article. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This is what I'm finding as well. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The updated NYT article (not the old archived version) also supports this reading; it says there were 5,000 people sheltering there a week before, wtih 1,000 sheltering people left in the courtyard at the time of the blast. Chuckstablers (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The NYTimes just recanted its earlier coverage. So it's probably best to avoid using the NYTimes as a source on this piece. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'd agree that if it was recanted it shouldn't be used as a source. I see an appropriate change has been made to the article at this point fixing the issues I've highlighted.

I'll leave this discussion up for a day, and if nobody has anything else to add I'll archive this shortly. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It's probably best to read the note from the editors in whole:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/pageoneplus/editors-note-gaza-hospital-coverage.html

I don't think they are fully rescinding everything that was written, but are making clear that during initial reports they had relied too heavily on unverifiable sources. Perhaps there will be some retractions/corrections in some of the impacted articles? 133.106.156.110 (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Source challenge for "thousands of people displaced..."

Please make the following change to the article, as the source cited for the statement says "Many have sought shelter in the corridors and courtyards of hospitals, believing that they would be less vulnerable there", not "thousands of people".

−

Thousands of people displaced by the evacuation of northern Gaza sought shelter at al-Ahli Arab Hospital to avoid Israeli airstrikes.

+

Many people displaced by the evacuation of northern Gaza sought shelter at al-Ahli Arab Hospital to avoid Israeli airstrikes.

Chuckstablers (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The cited New York Times source says this in the very first paragraph of the article:

Sameh al-Jaroosha was sitting on the edge of the grassy courtyard of the Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City on Tuesday night, talking to a new acquaintance who was among the thousands of Palestinian residents of the city seeking refuge there in hopes that it would be safer than staying at home.

@Chuckstablers: Please refer to the most recent archived version for verification. What you have linked to above is an old archive from Oct. 18, and the article from the New York Times has apparently been updated. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the citation in the Wikipedia article itself needs to be updated with a link to the most recent archived copy, to avoid confusion such as this. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Chuckstablers (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done As in updated archive URL to most recent. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think "Many" is a better word than "thousands" or "a thousand". The New York Times just publicly recanted its previous coverage as being overly reliant on Hamas and factually incorrect. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times has released an updated story:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/22/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-hospital-evidence.html

An archived version is available here. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

NYT: Hamas Fails to Make Case That Israel Struck Hospital

Published Oct. 22 / Updated Oct 23; written by Patrick Kingsley and Aaron Boxerman

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/22/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-hospital-evidence.html

Or see this archived version. Here are some relevant excerpts.

On the Hamas claims:

Six days after Hamas accused Israel of bombing a hospital in Gaza City and killing hundreds of people, the armed Palestinian group has yet to produce or describe any evidence linking Israel to the strike, says it cannot find the munition that hit the site and has declined to provide detail to support its count of the casualties.

On the Israeli claims:

Israel has also turned down requests by The Times to provide logs of all its military activity in the area at the time of the strike, and declined to specify the video on which it based its assessment of Palestinian responsibility.

In conclusion?

Without examining the munition that hit the parking lot, it may be impossible to draw a definitive conclusion about who fired it.

This piece also further discusses that the death toll is unverifiable, but offers no guidance on legitimate estimates. Lots to chew on here. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed the extended quotes as a WP:COPYVIO, people can click the link themselves. And this is already cited in the article. nableezy - 00:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I have updated with shorter quotes. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

Hi,

Nfitz removed sourced info in this edit: [4], stating that "The reference provided neither mentions Blake Spendley or 50 people. Sentence deleted. Restore if there's a reference"

Looking at the given ref [5], the information on Blake Spendley and 50 people is sourced:

"At the moment, the preponderance of evidence does point to it being a Hamas or PIJ rocket hitting the area,” said Blake Spendley, an open-source intelligence analyst. He said videos and photos he has reviewed showing the scene were more consistent with a death toll of about 50 rather than the 500 initially claimed by Hamas."

I'd re-add it myself, but my last revert was less than 24 hours ago. I'd appreciate it if someone else added it back.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oops, User:David O. Johnson, I must have looked at the wrong reference. But reading the whole section - isn't the Blake Spindley "50" in that last sentence, a repeat of the second sentence of the first paragraph that says the same thing, with the same reference. The whole paragraph needs rewriting. Though I do wonder the WSJ is quoting an "expert" who literally just graduated from an undergraduate program. I'll take another stab at that section. Nfitz (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Time to start saying it was a Palestinian rocket?

At this stage, we seems to be moving more and more towards the position being it was a Palestinian rocket that misfired. I don't really count the Israeli claim (obvious bias) but both the US and France intelligence seem to have independently reached the conclusion that it was a failed rocket. Obviously we'll never have an admission of guilt from Islamic Jihad, nor the twittersphere of opinionated individuals (goes for both sides, I'm not pointing fingers at one side), but for at least 48 hours now, it seems that every RS expressing an opinion seems to say it was likely a Palestinian rocket. If we are serious about NPOV, we may need to start to reflect that in the article. (BTW: This is a thread to open a discussion about it, not to rush to any immediate change in the article). Jeppiz (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

There's already several threads about this and it's clear there's no consensus in the media on what caused the explosion, in fact new independent reports are coming out with evidence it could have been Israel still. Please remain patient and wait for the evidence to solidify before rushing to push the article in a direction we may not be able to defend with NPOV. I believe we also don't consider governments allied with Israel to be independent sources since they have a conflict of interest (heavy investments into Israel and allyship) Ashvio (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz See here: https://www.channel4.com/news/human-rights-investigators-raise-new-questions-on-gaza-hospital-explosion Orgullomoore (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is premature. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It is indeed premature. We need to wait until there is a conclusive finding shared among RS, if there ever is one. This may need a formal discussion based upon the high stakes of this topic. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 22:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Selfstudier and El Cid, you're probably right. Better we give it a bit more time. Jeppiz (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

"we seems to be moving more and more towards the position being it was a Palestinian rocket"

No we are not moving in this direction at all, the emerging facts largely contradict israeli claims. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

More independent research from AP came out today, doing a thorough analysis and concluding it was not Israel. All of the RS published now concludes it was a failed missile and not from israel. Apart from AJ, who else is saying anything to the contrary? 2605:B100:919:E985:8131:1983:4ADA:2A49 (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it can be a fallacy to say "only AJ" says anything to the contrary. Many non western media does not support the theory Palestine was the cause, but it may be hard for EN Wiki editors to have that context. There is an underrepresentation in my opinion of non western media in the RS list (which is possibly unavoidable since many of them are exclusively non-English), so we should not underemphasize that AJ represents a large chunk of media.

There are also RS in the west who do not report it as definitively caused by Palestine either. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/al-ahli-baptist-hospital-bombing-gaza_n_6532d595e4b00f9a71cc6e03 Ashvio (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that fewer and fewer sources still follow the invisible Israeli aircraft with tiny bomb theory, but this is going to need to go through an rfc. Cursed Peace (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It certainly does not need to. Consensus should be quite clear. Andre🚐 05:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Consensus among the sources is pretty clear. 2605:B100:919:E985:8131:1983:4ADA:2A49 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that reliable sources have largely reached a consensus. I think there's a balance issue in the article by not acknowledging this, along with not acknowledging the role of misinformation and the motivations behind invested parties in pushing narratives; this is also in the sources and yet no one is willing to acknowledge it in this article for some reason, not even a single sentence with a link to the separate article on disinformation in this war. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course either side will deny responsibility. I personally wouldn't trust the radical groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas the most, as they would use lies and deceit to further their game. As you said, since both the US and France intelligence have concluded that it was a failed rocket from the Palestinian groups, we should begin to list them as the (sole) perpetrators. Yucalyptus (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You can personally think whatever you want, what really matters is the mounting evidence of independent investigation. Statements by State actors are not reliable as matters of fact. Especially if both of them are clearly politically involved in the situation. It would be completely wrong to change the status of dispute to some partial conclusion. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

IDF has used 'lies and deceit' in the past too. Remember Shireen Abu Akleh? -2800:A4:32CF:2600:A46D:8F24:A220:E9C7 (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Still very early, there are already many people immediately jumping to the conclusion that it was a misfired rocket. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

They immediately jumped to the conclusion, falsely, that Israel fired it. Experts have now determined it was a rocket that was fired from inside Palestinian territory. Andre🚐 05:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

There is not conclusion, many experts say the contrary. Please, provide reliable sources. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources, AP and Der Spiegel, were in the article already and are provided here. Andre🚐 20:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It is no longer premature; it is time to make this factual due to experts in RS. We can still attribute it, though. Andre🚐 05:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. This latest AP piece shows that it's pretty much unanimous consensus at this point. Only Al Jazeera says they find "no grounds" to support the Palestinian rocket theory. Channel 4 pokes a few holes in the launch point, trajectory, and audio recording proffered by Israel, but they also poke holes in the Israeli payload theory. Everybody else is like: "Can't say for sure, but most likely explanation is that this was a misfired rocket."-- Orgullomoore (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The Channel 4 claims regarding the trajectory appear not to account for the fact that the rocket was clearly observed to change its trajectory during its failure. This remains original research for now, but hopefully a reliable source can be found that addresses the trajectory before impact in the context of the change in trajectory observed in flight. StuartH (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. If it was launched into the north/east, and then spun out, the fact that the projectile was coming from east of the mobile phone just before it hit the ground is not inconsistent with it having been fired from west of the hospital. But yes, that's just our own original research for now.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, please, at this point there is a *clear* consensus in both the RS's and independent analyses. "What I have said to people, publicly, is: ‘Don’t assume it’s Israel. You have no proof that it’s Israel. Many people have made a clear case it’s not. At the very best, do not start propagating another blood libel." --Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby 192.138.178.105 (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think insinuating people who oppose your position are committing "blood libel" is going to help your case. There are still sources, though a minority in western media, suggesting Israel may have been responsible. Ashvio (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The Hamas rocket situation has been called a modern-day blood libel by a few observers. Andre🚐 17:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure it has, and observers have also called people who oppose Israel in the slightest terrorist supporters. Surely we can agree such discourse is unhelpful on Wikipedia. Ashvio (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

We document and attribute meaningful minority POVs even if we disagree with them. Andre🚐 19:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

In this context the "blood libel" quote appears to be implied as an attack on other editors who disagree with them on media consensus,not a suggestion for the article. Ashvio (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, the RS are saying that the Israeli airstrike explanation is less likely. I'm not advocating we place blood libel into any article text. Andre🚐 20:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what RS says, sure we can agree insinuating such insults on editors is disruptive..? Ashvio (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of such insinuation. I am simply responding to the IP's point that there is a clear consensus in RS that the Israeli airstrike explanation is not likely. Some have called this a blood libel, in sources. I am not endorsing that. I am not assigning that to any editors. Andre🚐 20:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What is the purpose of including the quote "What I have said to people, publicly, is: ‘Don’t assume it’s Israel. You have no proof that it’s Israel. Many people have made a clear case it’s not. At the very best, do not start propagating another blood libel." in a discussion about whether there is proof Israel committed the attack, other than to attack editors who disagree? Clearly it's not being suggested to be added to the article. Ashvio (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems very ambiguous. I suppose only the person who posted the comment could tell us. But we should assume it was said in good faith until that person says otherwise, no? This topic has brought a lot of emotional people out, ready to engage. Maybe let's focus on something more productive. Even if I disagree with some of the points you've made on this talk page, Ashvio, you have been focused. Let's not worry about a single ambiguous and potentially unproductive comment. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ooof--I can see how it sounded that way but I was in no way intending to make that insinuation, only to provide this remarkable comment--I actually believe his comments have a place in this article in one of the sections collating responses from various sources. I actually think the comment and the whole "blood libel" thing goes too far and even approaches Godwin's Law territory but that said, I don't agree at all that there is not a consensus at this point. Virtually every truly RS and evidence based independent analysis--even from sources not at all predisposed towards Israel's behavior or trustworthiness, etc--has found they have no choice but to conclude that in this case the evidence just isn't indeterminate and points pretty conclusively in one direction. 192.138.178.107 (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I must agree with this IP. Andre🚐 01:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, I respectfully submit that the focus here should be less on whether I might have said something you didn't like and more on getting the story right. It is simply not accurate at this point to continue to maintain there is no consensus and the matter remains "contested." There is a *clear* consensus and we have reached the point where not saying so is inaccurate and starts to get into NPOV territory. Ksperber (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

(Statement of the obvious): it's not the role of an online encyclopaedia to make some kind of definitive judgement on a widely disputed issue, especially one so recent as to still be in the primary reporting stage. The article should simply note in appropriately encyclopaedic terms the various theories relevant to the dispute with due weight to the number, reliability and nature of sources.

As an equally obvious addition, this particular event is packed with commentators on both sides making bold pronouncements about "what really happened." It would be wise to be a little cautious about reporting from either perspective until there is more distance from the event itself. - Euryalus (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not in any rush, but I think if you take the time to go through the sources, you will find it difficult to find anything reliable pointing to an Israeli airstrike. There is AJ, which, let's face it, hates Israel (and has no shortage of reasons to hate Israel--and Israel hates AJ too). Other than that, you have the "I don't know because I would need more information" and the knee-jerk "Israel did it" reactions from the Arab World + Iran et al., who are desperate to believe that. I do think there's wisdom in waiting, though. Maybe we should go when Canada goes and don't oppose waiting. It's been like 3.5 days since the explosion.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The consensus is indeed clear in the sources it was a Palestinian-originating rocket, not an Israeli airstrike. All experts such as a neutral Swedish weaponry expert to Der Spiegel. It's in the article. and not at all unclear anymore. Andre🚐 06:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Currently we have a whole paragraph full of RS and original research (unrelated to Israel's or Hamas's claims). Even more RS coming out every hour that supports the claim it was a misfire. Like this research by Intel France. There isn't a single contradicting RS that supports the airstrike claim. Article needs to be updated. dov (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Andre🚐 16:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Concur. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long. Canada has arrived.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Even better would be a moratorium on threads suggesting that the article be worded to say one side or the other is known to have caused this. We don't have enough information, it's an emerging topic, and it's an important topic to be impartial about. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, we should report the findings of reliable sources and not make our own summaries. Producing our own analysis is original research. If the preponderance of sources say one thing, just report them and let readers draw their own conclusion. We shouldn’t summarize unless an RS itself does so. Drsmoo (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say wait until nearly all the major "factions" of the world (and their media) are either silent on the topic or agree. There's absolutely no need to rush to have this have some particular phrasing about facts. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. A moratorium would not contribute to impartiality but would decrease agility and insulate the article's biases, misinformation, or outdated content from constructive improvements. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

oppose moratorium. Andre🚐 16:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

if you oppose a moratorium, why remove my thread? Ashvio (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to wait and not rush to a conclusion, as @Selfstudier et al have suggested. What's the hurry? Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. I support the moratorium; at the appropriate time, and bearing in mind the extreme contentiousness of this area, an RFC would almost certainly be the best course of action. WillowCity (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose RFC, as it's not necessary to resolve anything. We should be able to resolve this through normal discussion. All experts, the AP, and other reliable sources have established at this point that it was a Palestinian rocket, not an Israeli airstrike. WP:NODEADLINE, yes. But Wikipedia would not be leading by incorporating this reliably sourced consensus-of-experts info. Andre🚐 17:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Insist on that position, an RFC it will be. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to revert or start an RFC, but it's not necessary in my view, since we have reliable sources. [6] [7] Andre🚐 17:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of the AP source in my view. AP specifically says, "A lack of forensic evidence and the difficulty of gathering that material on the ground in the middle of a war means there is no definitive proof the break-up of the rocket and the explosion at the hospital are linked." And Wired has commented on criticism of the rush to judgment by many OSINT analysts on social and news media: "In the days since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, people claiming to be OSINT practitioners have emerged on social media who are much more willing to make conclusive findings almost immediately than people who have a long history of conducting OSINT work." WillowCity (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, take a look at the text I inserted. Andre🚐 17:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel strongly that someone should revert pending discussion and consensus, unless we propose to include AJ and the Forensic Architecture investigation in the lead as well. It's also unclear whether the experts are "impartial" as currently stated, they include "a retired U.S. Army colonel", "a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst". Calling them impartial is editorializing, in my view, since not even AP uses this term. Let the readers draw their own conclusions on that point. As well, "more likely" (presumably, preponderance of evidence/balance of probabilities) seems insufficient to merit inclusion in the lead; we're shading into WP:EXCEPTIONAL with that one. WillowCity (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to remove the term impartial if that is a sticking point. Andre🚐 18:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a sticking point but there are so many issues with this. Like one of the sources you link above, Variety, is (as noted on RSPSS) a trade publication; if the dispute was whether Cate Blanchett hired a new talent agent, that would be perfect, but for something like this? And the lead says that the experts "concluded", but the party doing the concluding is AP, which is one source. Big wp:undue and wp:npov issues with this. I really think we need broader consensus prior to inclusion (see also WP:ONUS). WillowCity (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I just offered Variety because it discusses the BBC retraction. Did you read it? It's not used in the article, it's for you to read and understand. If you really want a different source for the BBC saga, I'll find one, but there was nothing at issue in that one. You're also just doing policy word salad now [random association Andre🚐 18:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)]. Yeah, ONUS and NPOV and DUE/UNDUE all support this. AP’s assessment is supported by a range of experts with specialties in open-source intelligence, geolocation and rocketry Andre🚐 18:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I did read it, and I read BBC's retraction itself, which did not assign blame one way or the other. The retraction of preliminary BBC reporting based on inconclusive evidence is not conclusive evidence as to the actual perpetrator of the attack. WillowCity (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm mainly bringing the AP experts and Der Spiegel. That's what's mentioned in the lead. Andre🚐 18:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"Word salad"? That's not very nice. I think the policies cited are relevant, and I don't think your revision complies with them, but that's for the community to decide, not you or I alone. WillowCity (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'll strike that. Andre🚐 18:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged this thread on WP:RSN. We do not need an RFC yet. See WP:RFCBEFORE. Andre🚐 18:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

So… you want it all reverted because Variety was used as a source then? That’s all you pointed out. 2605:B100:919:E985:8131:1983:4ADA:2A49 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You must have missed the entire second half of my comment, which (1) disputed the use of "concluded" based on the cited sources (2) pointed out that reliance on two sources is undue in the lead for such a controverted topic, and (3) emphasized the lack of consensus. WillowCity (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah i’d disagree. It borders on absurd levels of ignoring consensus among sources. Al jazeera, the one known to be biased with israel/palestine conflict.

At this point we have multiple sources pointing to the fact that israel did not do this. AP, BBC, US intelligence agencies, french intelligence agencies all came to the same conclusion. 2605:B100:939:225B:5401:E9FC:4BC5:28F5 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

This IP is correct sort of. If AJ is the lone outlier and they are citing Hamas themselves, that should be attributed as an outlier, and the consensus of AP, BBC, intelligence from US and France, then that should be the primary weighted statement (which can be attributed too, of course, out of an abundance of caution and NPOV) Andre🚐 21:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The Forensic Architecture source refers to the IDF as the “IOF”, a pejorative. Are they listed as a reliable source on Wiki, because that alone suggests unreliability. Drsmoo (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Forensic Architecture is part of the University of London. Not sure if they are published enough to have an RS discussion but editors in the previous discussion seemed to believe it was reliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#New_third_party_independent_source_claiming_missile_came_from_direction_of_Israel Ashvio (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The sentence was removed by someone else. The sentence is as follows: Weapons experts and intelligence analysts surveyed by the AP and Der Spiegel have analyzed and concluded the Palestinian rocket explanation was more likely than the airstrike explanation. Andre🚐 21:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose in view of e.g. doubts cast on the authenticity of the Arabic phone conversation produced by the IDF. PatGallacher (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  That phone call isn't why 99% of reliable sources have attributed it to the PIJ. Other than fringe conspiracy stuff, can you provide a source attributing the explosion to anyone other than the PIJ? Cursed Peace (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  There have been several sources provided that do not attribute it to PIJ, so please stop badgering people with untrue claims. Thanks. nableezy - 23:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Tell you what, give me the best three. Nobody else is willing to share reliable sources that haven't been retracted. I keep hearing about them, and would love to see a reliable attribution to this being an airstrike. I will reply with /10/ links attributing the attack on the hospital to the PIJ. Does this sound like an acceptable method to you? Will 10 to 1 be a significant enough ratio to help establish the consensus of RSN? Cursed Peace (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

NPOV tag

@Nableezy added the NPOV tag in this edit [8], but did not create a NPOV section to discuss it. I don't believe it deserves being there, but please do add your arguments here. Next time if it isn't too much trouble, do also create a NPOV section before tagging, it makes it a lot easier to address the problems. Thanks — AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe they tried to start a section relating to their tag, they just improperly formatted it under the "Forensic Architecture reliability" header. XeCyranium (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It is indeed that section. nableezy - 00:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy, moved the template to the section it refers to in the article, hope that's alright — AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah thats fine, thats the tag I should have used to begin with. Sorry. nableezy - 10:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy Since this is where the NPOV tag now links to, and since it got a little heated and messy up there, can we have an orderly discussion down here? The concern is that Forensic Architecture is not reflected in the lead? | Orgullomoore (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

no the concern was that it was being removed entirely. I’ve readded it though so I can remove the tag. nableezy - 02:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, good! OK, so that was easy. | Orgullomoore (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Munitions section expansion edit request

Please make the following change to the article for the following reasons.

1.) The change is based off of information in the source.

2.) The section currently just has the claim made by hamas based off of the NYT source, but leaves out the next paragraph where a munitions expert is interviewed and is quoted as saying that "“One would expect remnants to be recoverable in all but the most extreme circumstances, and the available imagery of the hospital site suggests something ought to be identifiable on the ground,”, with the NYT summarizing the experts view as "dismissing Hamas's claim that the munition had completely disintegrated upon impact". From how it's currently worded you'd be forgiven for thinking that NYT has no opinion on the veracity of Hamas's statement, which is not the case.

3.) This is especially relevant given that the NYT in the same source stated that "Without examining the munition that hit the parking lot, it may be impossible to draw a definitive conclusion about who fired it...But by the time reporters arrived at the site... any remnants of the munition appeared to have been removed, preventing independent analysis of its origin.".

−

On 22 October 2023, Hamas declined a request by the New York Times to view any remnants of the object that had struck the parking lot. A Hamas spokesman said that it had "dissolved like salt in the water" and that nothing was left.

+

On 22 October 2023, Hamas declined a request by the New York Times to view any remnants of the object that had struck the parking lot. A Hamas spokesman said that it had "dissolved like salt in the water" and that nothing was left. A munitions expert interviewed by the New York times contradicted Hamas's claim, indicating that recoverable debris should be present based on satellite imagery.

Chuckstablers (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a good suggested addition, and adds clarity. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done [9] -- AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Munitions section expansion

Please make the following change to the article for the following reasons.

1.) The source says it. 2.) It's relevant to explain the importance of Hamas refusing to provide the debris, given that by the time journalists had arrived to investigate the scene all debris had been removed. 3.) Gives more context for the issue concerning the munitions debris (why it's an issue for determining what happened), and just expands the section into two paragraphs.

Overall it accurately summarizes the source, and I think it's a good expansion to that section. If anyone has any feedback or issues please let me know. Just trying to do my part to improve things.

−

On 22 October 2023, Hamas declined a request by the New York Times to view any remnants of the object that had struck the parking lot. A Hamas spokesman said that it had "dissolved like salt in the water" and that nothing was left. A munitions expert interviewed by the New York times contradicted Hamas's claim, indicating that recoverable debris should be present based on satellite imagery.

+

Journalists arrived at the site of the explosion the morning after and found that all debris appeared to have been removed. On 22 October 2023, Hamas declined a request by the New York Times to view any remnants of the object that had struck the parking lot. A Hamas spokesman said that it had "dissolved like salt in the water" and that nothing was left. However, a munitions expert interviewed by the New York Times contradicted Hamas's claim, indicating that recoverable debris should be present based on satellite imagery. Without access to the debris it is unlikely that definitive conclusions regarding responsibility can be made.

Chuckstablers (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Just want to pre-empt any objections; everything I've added is in the source. They point out the fact that all debris seemed to have been removed by the time journalists arrived, and that Hamas refuses to release any of the debris claiming it "disintegrated" like "salt in water", AND that no definitive conclusions are likely to be reached without access to the debris. They don't specifically say "Hamas is doing a cover up here", so I didn't want to go too far by actually saying that as the source doesn't say that.

Next section is just my thoughts on this:

They definitely imply it though. There would've been some debris leftover; it's just not likely that there'd be literally nothing. This wasn't a nuke. If this was a JDAM or any israeli munition dropped; there would be debris proving it. There will always be fragments somewhere. All it would take is a couple to definitively prove this was an Israeli munition, and all it would take is a couple to prove it wasn't. The fact that Hamas is not releasing the debris that they (pretty obviously) removed is telling, there's only one reason they'd be keen to not do so. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

One more thing: I think this is especially relevant in light of this statement later in the wiki page:

"Channel 4 also observed that although Palestinian Islamic Jihad had indicated they had recovered a warhead, they have not produced it."

So they claimed they had debris initially. Now they claim there was none. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Origin/trajectory and rocket vs. airstrike

Why are there two sections? They both deal with what and who caused the explosion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The way I understand it is that the "Origin and trajectory of munition" section deals with where the munition specifically came from and where it was going (in the case for the misfired rocket theory) while the "Rocket vs. airstrike" section deals with what was the actual munition based on an analysis of the explosion. While both deal with establishing guilt for the explosion both are different factors of it so they warrant their own sections. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Initial misleading news coverage

The New York Times published a editor note that basically apologized for their misleading initial coverage (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/pageoneplus/editors-note-gaza-hospital-coverage.html). Of course, they weren't alone in initially taking claims from Hamas with more credulity than warranted, and it was this misleading news coverage that arguably led to significant real world consequences of the large riots and Biden's Jordan visit cancelled.

Should there be an independent section on misleading claims from news sites initially? Right now, this article seemed to be blaming social media but not the actual media, when the latter probably deserves more blame imo. Reinbot (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd like this. I think a little more emphasis that this was a failure of journalism? Chuckstablers (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

WaPo: U.S. details intelligence it says clears Israel in Gaza hospital blast

New article, which says US intelligence has a "low confidence" rating in terms of attribution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/24/al-ahli-hospital-us-intelligence/

Article is also archived here.

Analysts are unable to say for sure who launched the rocket, because of a lack of information that conclusively points to the culprit ... absent other points of information and supporting material, analysts could only conclude with "low confidence" that Palestinian fighters were responsible.

Worth reading, probably something from this should be included in the Wikipedia article, as it talks a bit more about some of the audio recordings, with claims that Israel has shared other recordings (not made public) with the US intelligence community. 133.106.40.60 (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)