Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

Requested move 17 October 2023

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. WP:SNOW not likely to pass. (non-admin closure) Ecrusized (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital airstrike → Al Ahli Hospital massacre – This is a massacre commited by Israelies and it is confirmed by many outlets and reiable sources. so why is it called a regular airstrike and the writer says it is not confirmed? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 18:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe because we don't know the circumstances yet, it's entirely possible that it was a munitions depot and hence a military target. 81.174.167.150 (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It is also enterily possible that this was a Disney Land park resort in disguise. But it doesn't seem so. Theklan (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Think you are jumping the gun here, wait a bit for some more info to come in, then we will see. Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Circumstances still disputed. It would be better to call it a "bombing" until the confirmation of mode/cause of attack. -UtoD 18:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. THere are no reliable sources called it a massacre. A3811 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Question: Will you still want to call it a "massacre" if it is confirmed to have been a failed Hamas rocket? Ksperber (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Times of Israel news reports the IDF determined it was a failed jihadist rocket. 2601:403:C300:B220:7904:B946:782F:4683 (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose For the moment, the info regarding the bombing is Hamas' word versus the Israeli government's, with neither exactly having neutral motivations; as such, WP:NPOV applies until we can get some kind of independent media confirmation regarding the circumstances and casualties. The Kip 18:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Anyone object if this is closed for now? It is too early to make judgements on the title.Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

oppose closure ☆SuperNinja2☆ 19:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I support your proposal. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Note I hope you will not deal with double standards and look at the reality. Most of the dead were children and women, and this can be verified through the largest international and impartial news sites. The hospital was not bombed, but rather the hospital courtyard where hundreds of civilians fleeing the war slept was bombed? How can the article be described as an air strike!!!! On the other hand, in articles devoted to what Hamas carried out in Israeli villages, it was described as a massacre!! Please change the name of the article to Al Ahli Hospital massacre.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 18:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@ User:Osps7, do you support or oppose the move? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 19:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I support moving the article to Ahli Hospital massacre — Osama Eid ^(talk) 19:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: Do you mind closing this? Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't have the right to close this so early so stop! ☆SuperNinja2☆ 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with it, consensus is pretty firmly against the move for the moment. The Kip 19:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Far too early to be renaming, when even the fact of an airstrike is currently in dispute. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, as noted by others above, far too soon. Wikishovel (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. AryKun (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Too soon to determine, given uncertain nature of casualty count. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Note for those who are saying that it is disputed, it's not ☆SuperNinja2☆ 19:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A Gaza civil defence chief said... A Gaza Health Ministry source said... Both departments are under the Hamas-run government.

Hamas' government is not a reliable source regarding the war, nor is the IDF. That's why it's considered disputed. Be careful not to approach the point of WP:BLUDGEONing. The Kip 19:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, your source only says what Hamas says. How does that support it is not disputed? Israel claims it was a misfired rocket fired by Hamas - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It says IDF is "ironing out the details" whatever that means. Selfstudier (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly it would be better to close this and continue the discussion at the new RM, we can't have two RM at the same time. Selfstudier (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose clearly this won't get support and there is a more relevant RM below. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  It is closed ftb, although this may get SNOW closed if the oppose votes continue to mount. Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose — Airstrike not a massacre. Wording is appropriate. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - How many more "opposes" before someone gets a clue and SNOW closes this NPOV silliness? -- Veggies (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Edit request

Time of the attack should be added. First report I find is from Al Jazeera. (16:49 GMT) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-hamas-war-live-iran-warns-resistance-front-may-attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hummelman (talk • contribs) 21:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

While Hamas claims that the cause of the airstrike was Israel, Israel claims that the cause was a Hamas missile bound for the Tel Aviv region, but had accidentally hit the hospital. Please include both claims in the article and give each claim due weight. Source: https://www.srugim.co.il/853287-%D7%A8%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%A1-%D7%A4%D7%92%D7%A2%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A0%D7%A4 2A0D:6FC0:6B8:EB00:8CE7:C9CC:21D7:AF80 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) admitted that they bombed the hospital, and this is confirmed by weapons experts who stuied the explosion. Later when the videos and photos of the massacre spread all over the internet, the IDF changed its story.

Hananya Naftali (Israel’s Digital Spokesperson) DELETED his tweet admitting that Israel bombed the Gaza Baptist Hospital.

Hananya Naftali (Israel’s Digital Spokesperson) DELETED his tweet admitting that Israel bombed the Gaza Baptist Hospital.

Must have been a big rocket, I guess. Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Added claim; dubious, but notable nonetheless. AryKun (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Official IDF statement can now be referenced/cited as well:

https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1714371894521057737 Ksperber (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"The Guardian reported that "the scale of the blast appears to be outside" the capabilities of Hamas"

That is not "reporting," that is opining, and in any event, it is PIJ, not Hamas that is being identified as the source. Ksperber (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It's an opinion shared with the BBC's John Donnison & CNN's Clarissa Ward. By the way, Israel changed its tune from blaming Hamas to blaming PIJ--Brian Dell (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. The issue I raise is only with the language in the Wikipedia article describing The Guardian reporter's expression of their own opinion as "reporting." Moreover, at this point the clearly emerging consensus is that the opinion expressed is incorrect. The extent of the fire caused by the rocket impact is explained by it being freshly loaded with rocket fuel having malfunctioned on or shortly after launch and the absence of structural damage to any surrounding buildings (including the hospital itself!) and of any impact crater are inconsistent with the powerful munitions used in Israeli airstrikes.

By and large this entry is handling the developing information well but IMO this reference to this unsubstantiated journalist's personal opinion should be removed. Ksperber (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: i24NEWS is an Israeli propaganda outlet controlled by Isreali state. They first lied about “40 beheaded babies” now this. I have concerns about the credibility of i24NEWS due to past reporting It cannot be used as a reliable source.223.123.90.61 (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I would still prefer to wait a bit. There's no rush. Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

1) The claim about "40 beheaded babies" was never actually made. It was a conflation of two comments made in close proximity to each other, one about "40 babies," one about "beheading." There is no actual source for your claim of anyone actually uttering this initial alleged "lie."

2) "i24NEWS is . . . owned by Isreali [sic] state" {citation needed} Ksperber (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"The Israel Defense Forces says that based on “intelligence information, a failed Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) rocket caused the deadly blast at the Gaza hospital.”

In a statement, the IDF says that “from an analysis of the IDF’s operational systems, an enemy rocket barrage was carried out towards Israel, which passed in the vicinity of the hospital, when it was hit.”

“According to intelligence information, from several sources we have, the PIJ organization is responsible for the failed [rocket] fire that hit the hospital,” the IDF adds.

(Source for above text transmitting IDF statements is Times of Israel) Ksperber (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Link to the article @Ksperber mentioned: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-assessment-shows-failed-islamic-jihad-rocket-launch-caused-gaza-hospital-blast/ sherpajack (talk ) 19:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if this link to an item on a NY Times live feed is static enough, but they've now relayed the same claim https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/17/world/gaza-news-israel-hamas-war/3458db20-bfe7-5352-8aad-520338f6d484?smid=url-share sherpajack (talk ) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Also The Guardian, including IDF spokesperson Jonathan Conricus telling CNN: "We did not hit that hospital."

www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/17/israel-hamas-war-live-gaza-city-update-news-today-joe-biden-visit-aid-plan-latest-updates?page=with:block-652ee4ff8f08269fdea761c0#block-652ee4ff8f08269fdea761c0 Ksperber (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The PA's UN ambassador blamed Israel for the strikes and noted that an employee of PM Benjamin Netanyahu's "digital team", Hananya Naftali, (https://www.jpost.com/author/hananya-naftali) initially posted a tweet claiming it as an Israeli attack, and later deleted that tweet https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2023/10/18/un-palestinian-ambassador-denounces-israel-for-gaza-hospital-attack https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/18/what-is-israels-narrative-on-the-gaza-hospital-explosion

This is noteworthy and should be included since several news outlets are reporting it as part of the narrative surrounding competing claims of responsibility SubirGrewal (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

IDF asked all hospitals to evacuate threatening to bomb them if they don't.

The BBC is no innocent, they have been airing false news saying that Hamas is building tunnels under hospitals and hospitals, to affect people all over the world to welcome such a catastrophe.

File:BBC is an accessory in the Baptist hospital massacre supporting IDF war crimes.jpg

File:BBC is an accessory in the Baptist hospital massacre supporting IDF war crimes

NPOV tag and explanation

I want to make it clear I am not taking either side of the conflict here; rather I simply feel an NPOV tag is justified, as the following circumstances are currently true:

• An explosion hit the hospital and caused a mass casualty event.

• Hamas' government claims it was an Israeli airstrike.

• The Israeli government claims it was a misfired Hamas rocket.

• Independent press have thus far not verified either claim; notice that article titles/intros/etc end with ", [Hamas/Palestinian government/Israel/IDF/etc] claims."

• The article seemingly asserts Hamas' claim.

• Therefore, the article, given the current circumstances, violates NPOV to a degree.

Once more reputable reports regarding who's responsible come out, I'd be happy to remove the NPOV tag; the problem is that as the article stands, the cause is in dispute, and it's not our role to adjudicate that dispute. The Kip 18:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if the Israeli government has claimed that Hamas is responsible yet, but labelling Israel as the definitive attacker is definitely speculative at this point. Emkut7 (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"BREAKING: Initial investigation by IDF shows explosion in hospital in Gaza was caused by a failed Hamas rocket launch

— i24NEWS English (@i24NEWS_EN) October 17, 2023"

https://twitter.com/i24NEWS_EN/status/1714348101748559883?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Ksperber (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian is also now stating initial reports of Israel accusing Hamas of the attack.

Still not decisive enough to link an actual perpetrator, but definitely enough to warrant putting both at the moment until further evidence and reports come out. Emkut7 (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

100% correct. This Wikipedia article states as fact that an Israeli airstrike hit the hospital when that is absolutely not independently confirmed at this time. This is not up to Wikipedia's aspirational standards of factual accuracy and objectivity. Ksperber (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The Kip, please check now; Israeli claims have been worked into the article sufficiently, I think. AryKun (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Initially both Reuters and AP were calling it an Israeli airstrike, but now the news reports have been updated and are calling it a blast. However some reports, including CNN[1] are calling it an airstrike. Too early to tell. Ecrusized (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not my point; if both Israeli and Gazan claims on the cause are mentioned in the article's lead, the NPOV tag isn't justified. AryKun (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It is actually because the title assumes an airstrike. Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Reworded the first two sentences. AryKun (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The opening paragraph still states unequivocally that the blast was caused by an Israeli airstrike and further states that the casualties are the result of that Israeli airstrike. Those factual claims are unestablished/unverified at this time. Ksperber (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Owing to massive cleanup of the article, I've removed the NPOV tag. Good job, folks. The Kip 19:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We have to be careful of media source bias here. For example Al Jazeera and The Guardian have a pro-Palestinian viewpoint, while the Times of Israel and CNN have a pro-Israeli viewpoint. We should always be mindful of how each news organization frames or levels there claims, even if with evidence. We have to wait and see at this point as both sides blame each other and supposedly neutral media sources are holding steadfast to their preconceived notions about the conflict and the opposing side. Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

CNN is pro-Israeli? If so, that makes CNN's Clarissa Ward basically saying she doesn't believe the Israeli claims about this incident all the more remarkable. CNN reported that "that Abu Akleh was shot dead in a targeted attack by Israeli forces" when Israel was asserting it was Palestinian militants who killed her.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Random Guy about being cognizant of the viewpoints of even high quality sources.

There is actual video footage showing the alleged rocket barrage hitting the hospital. At this time this is actually the only claim for which any supporting evidence is being provided.

https://twitter.com/manniefabian/status/1714377828131553446

https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1714380403782324249 Ksperber (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Massacre

Categories relating to massacres have been removed. Please do not add them without reliable sources calling the airstrike a massacre. A3811 (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It was a massacre of a few cars in the parking lot of the hospital. Only damage to the buildings was the outdoor roofing and some black scorch marks. It was not a high casualty event. This is complete fake news. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY5FDJ-YuSY 120.21.8.159 (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2023

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: Moved during discussion. Uncontroversial move to a neutral term owing to disputed responsibility. The Kip 19:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital airstrike → Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital explosion – Reopening this after first RM was SNOWclosed. Similar rationale to NPOV tag explanation above. Reuters and AP have switched over to calling it a "blast" rather than an airstrike, and the actual cause of the explosion is in dispute between Hamas and the IDF's accusations, with no independent press verifying either claim yet. Happy to cancel this request or reverse the move whenever the fog of war lifts on the cause. The Kip 19:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Obvious support given the uncertainty. If reliable sources can't agree on what it was, we shouldn't make an article that implicitly espouses a certain view. -- Veggies (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support there has been no reliable sources confirming that the incident was a result of an airstrike. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment — Oh shoot. I did not realize this RM was started. I moved the article to explosion as the more neutral word, used by western media, Israel, and Hamas. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  If RSes are already using it, I've got no issue with the solo move. Lines up with NPOV anyhow. The Kip 19:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  I am OK with that, for now. We shouldn't need an RM for the obvious (currently). Selfstudier (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Explosion should be an uncontroversial move. Does not require a discussion. Ecrusized (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The clear right choice until the cause is determined. No problem with the move. Penitentes (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Claimed by...

The "Claimed by Hamas" should be changed to "Claimed by Gaza", as it is a claim done by the Gaza Health Ministry. Theklan (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The GHM is a part of the Hamas-run government. The Kip 19:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it was claimed by the Gaza Health Ministry not by Hamas. Conerd (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant as it is, but when Israeli minister announcing or giving public statements, does it automatically claimed to be "the Ministry of Defense run by the Likud Party?" Verokraft-Altexnandes (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

And the President of the US is from the Democrats, but we wouldn't claim that something is sourced by that party if it is said by the President. Theklan (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant now as it's been categorically proven Gazan militants were responsible not the IDF 80.195.8.42 (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Source? Selfstudier (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The IDF claims that, but independent media haven't verified it, and the IDF isn't exactly a reputable source here. The Kip 19:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is now far more sourcing for this conclusion than just the IDF. See, for example, the section of this article on Independent Analysis. This is no longer a case of equal but competing claims. Ksperber (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"categorically proven" is a stretch. The IDF apparently intends to release intercepted communication implicating PIJ. In our day and age, with AI, that too is a stretch. Ordinance / impact / yield analysis would be more conclusive. El-Baba (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

No it hasn't. This is demonstrably fascist propaganda. Hamas doesn't have rockets powerful enough, and (since deleted) posts from the IDF admit responsibility. This is as bad as confirming Saddam had WMDs just because Blair said so

Remember when Israel had 'categorical proof' that Shireen Abu Akleh was murdered by Palestinian militants? This is just all part of the fascist playbook after every atrocity 80.2.16.16 (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, the explosion actually wasn't that powerful to start with. There is no blast crater, the hospital walls are intact (glass broken in several windows). It was the fire, not the blast, that claimed most casualties. More and more expert conclude that the entire picture is inconsistent with an airstrike claim. Deinocheirus (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Hamas doesn't have rockets powerful enough. . ." The explosion in question caused no damage to surrounding buildings and left no impact crater. Hamas/PIJ et al don't have rockets able to spark large fires in a parking lot if they fail shortly after launch still loaded with jet fuel? That claim is non credible on its face. On the contrary--the IDF does not have ordnance lightweight enough to leave such relatively scant damage. Not by a longshot. Ksperber (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Reactions section refers to "attack"

Since it's still not clear what caused the explosion, calling it an attack is undue conclusory language. It's obviously tricky, since the section is referring to reactions—they're not reacting to the explosion in the abstract, but to their own conclusion that the explosion was caused by an attack. But the article itself should not imply such conclusions until and unless the truth can be confirmed. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, footage from the supposed explosion indicates its an attack, and its very unlikely that the explosion would just be caused by itself. HeroOfPipeBombs (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Attack" as opposed to an explosion as the result of a rocket misfire or or some other kind of accident. Not sure what footage from the explosion would make it look more like it was intentional, and... "supposed explosion?" what does that mean? Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

The article, in its current form, mentions that the perpetrator is the IDF according to the Gaza health ministry, and the PIJ according to Israel. Other news outlets, including Palestinian ones such as the "Gaza report" or Al-Jazeera English Correspondent Farida Khan, independently claim that the attack was a result of failed rocket launches of Palestinian resistance organizations (their initial reports were published before Israel laid its claim). Both the "Gaza Report" and "Al-Jazeera" are far from proponents of Israel. I think that the fact that the same claim has been made independently by unrelated sources could benefit the article. JaywalkerPenguin (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Farida Khan's" account is pretty suspicious, are you sure it's genuine? Alaexis_¿question? 20:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera has confirmed the account isn't linked to the network.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Those sources are simply reporting IDF claims, not asserting that those claims are true. That's why they attribute both sets of claims to their respective proponents. AryKun (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, a Google search for "Farida Khan Al-Jazeera" doesn't return any relevant results besides the Twitter account; it seems like some sort of misinformation/astroturfing and shouldn't be taken seriously. Gaza Report seems a tad more legitimate, but still not a reputable-enough source for us to consider for inclusion. The Kip 20:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera has confirmed that the account is fake.

Source: https://twitter.com/AlJazeera/status/1714388205900894623 Enum~frwiki (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

And "Gaza Report" also seems suspicious. A Turkish disinformation center reports that it's not real. And I couldn't find this "Gaza Report" thing anywhere on Google outside of Twitter.

https://x.com/dmmiletisim/status/1714383108454125996?s=46&t=5Pr4TVPNdylAEC9-O1__Rg Hovsepig (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on changing the title to "Al Ahli Arab Hospital massacre"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Boldly closing this per WP:RFCNOT. Ignoring the very likely SNOW closure this would've gotten, RfCs should not be used for page moves, as that is the purpose of the RM process. — MaterialWorks 21:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

---

We had a disscussion above that was closed by a user (without having a consensus) so I decided to ask for comment. There's a disbute on wether this article should be moved to "Al Ahli Arab Hospital massacre".I think it should be moved because there are already multiple articles on 2023 Israel–Hamas war titled "massacre" where the casualities are Israelies such as Ein HaShlosha massacre and Kfar Aza massacre, so why this article shouldn't be called a massacre? Whether the perpetrators are Israelies or Hamas, it won't change the fact that this is a massacre. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 20:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose wait for any RS to call it a massacre before another discussion about this. AryKun (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Doctors Without Borders (MSF) says Israeli attack on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza is massacre, al jazeera ☆SuperNinja2☆ 20:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I read that and added it to the article already; MSF is not RS for the name by which this is commonly referred to by sources. In the other examples pointed out above, most newspapers call it a massacre, which is not the case with this airstrike so far. AryKun (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources:

Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Assuming the translation is correct, the article is asserting Israeli responsibility (and using loaded terms such as "martyrs"), which again, reputable and independent sources have not confirmed. Doctors without Borders, meanwhile, is not considered a news source. The Kip 20:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This is disruptive, I suggest you close this. Selfstudier (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and SNOW close (without having a consensus) - the vote above was nine opposes and just one support, besides you as nominator. There was a consensus to not move the page that you're blatantly choosing to disregard because it didn't go your way, and you're fast approaching the point of WP:DEADHORSE. Drop it. The Kip 20:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  consensus is not a vote count. And it i's too early to call it a consensus. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 21:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "Massacre" is a word that implies deliberate intent. If the warhead of an errant Islamic Jihad rocket caused the death and destruction, then this is not a massacre. Cullen328 (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: There was a clear consensus above not to move, and most RS aren't calling it one yet. Please drop the stick. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  consensus is not a vote count. And it i's too early to call it a consensus. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 20:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Your side of the argument is losing the vote count an consensus; just give it up for now. If Rs start calling this a massacre, it'll be moved. AryKun (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

International reactions

As with articles about most human tragedies, I started compiling a list of reactions, and added the official statement from the Jordanian Royal Court and statements from Palestinian officials (via Wafa, the mouthpiece of the Palestinian Authority), but AryKun saw it fitting to revert my changes citing "not rs" without any discussion whatsoever. I have no intention of edit warring; so will someone please restore the reactions cited from the official websites/news agencies, while I gather some more? Fjmustak (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This problem happens with every major international incident; we get massive lists of reactions sourced to primary sources and then spend unnecessary time cutting them down later. I think we should just mention the responses mentioned by other secondary sources like newspapers. The PLE statement wasn’t mentioned by any RS at all, so I just cut it; I think Jordan’s is mentioned in a modified form. AryKun (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Tbh, I would prefer not to have reactions just now, at the main page they eventually got farmed out to a separate page. If there are news articles covering multiple reactions, then some prose could be added about those, that would be better imo than the usual proforma list of td&h reactions. Selfstudier (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's a list compiled by AlJazeera (including one by an unnamed spokesman of Mahmoud Abbas). --Fjmustak (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that sort of thing is better, I think, then interested people can go to the ref for the details. Selfstudier (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a convention that only reactions by directly involved parties should end up in the article, or reactions that are meaningful beyond expressions of sympathy/anger/etc. AryKun about sourcing is very valid, as is Selfstudier's characterization of such collections as "the usual proforma list". Drmies (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2023 (2)

Time of explosion should be added. Since it is used by both sides to try to verify blame via time stamped video. First report I find is (16:49 GMT) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-hamas-war-live-iran-warns-resistance-front-may-attack Hummelman (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

'Perpetrators'

Completely unreliable source supporting this claim that Hamas was responsible for the attack. Editors should at least remove such claim before further information. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The current source listed (BNO News) that claims Hamas is responsible is a biased source. Completely irresponsible editing by users. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed ☆SuperNinja2☆ 21:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Should it be noted that Hananya Naftali, Benjamin Netanyahu's media advisor, claimed credit on behalf of Israel for the attack before the public backlash occurred?173.70.121.247 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be added if there is a source for this. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/JoeKassabian/status/1714369907444351261

I saw the tweet in real-time, before he deleted it, but understandable an anonymous person saying "I done saw it" isn't useful. This account capped the tweet, but I get that this isn't good for a citation either. Seeing as it was published and then deleted on the same day I imagine it wasn't scraped by any archival websites, only other opportunity I can think of is if a news agency reported on his statement before it was removed.173.70.121.247 (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/yousuf_tw/status/1714370703565205787

Tossing this is in as well; Al Jazeera released a video of the airstrike, and people are attempting to geotag it. This account alleges that the positioning rules out a rocket misfire. May want to keep an eye on OSINT-aligned websites to see if they corroborate it in a citation-worthy fashion.173.70.121.247 (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

173.70.121.247, you are saying Hananya Naftali is Benjamin Netanyahu's media advisor, do you have any source that corroborate that he is Netanyahu's media advisor? He appears to just be an influencer. The only possible source I could find that says something similar is the following:

Naftali has been working for the former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as part of his digital team for the past 3 years.
— https://www.jpost.com/author/hananya-naftali

It is undated, says "former", and says "part of his digital team", which could mean anything. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

In case it's useful, here a Spanish fact-checking company confirms that Naftali's tweet was real and also adds the reason he gave for deleting it: https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20231018/comunicador-netanyahu-ataque-hospital-gaza-ejercito-israel/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoroe6 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot of misinformation about Naftali flying about, which doesn't seem appropriate. He's a social media influencer who worked with Netanyahu in the past[2] but clearly not a government spokesperson with novel information in this instance.

I removed a paragraph that repeated a tweet by a politician indirectly referencing a tweet from Naftali implying something about the government stance; that's a lot of indirection with BLP implications. His deleted post has been very widely cited in misinfo memes, including official statements by the ambassadors at the UN in their speech yesterday evening, which seems like the only reason to mention it. I started drafting something but it didn't seem worth including (its role in confusion/misinfo doesn't seem to have been notable enough to be addressed by reliable sources):

Shortly after initial AP reports attributing the attack to Israel, a tweet from Israeli social media influencer Hananya Naftali, who has worked with Netanyahu, echoed that the strike was carried out by Israel. This was deleted after more details emerged, but was misattributed for a time as a deleted statement by a government spokesperson.

– SJ + 14:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sj, thanks, I also believe it isn't worth adding, although I did see it today even appearing in the news segment of the Spanish TV channel LaSexta. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas as perpetrators

The only source claiming Hamas bombed the hospital is the IDF. Before they said this, numerous outlets, including Reuters, claimed Osrael bombed it. Are we really supposed to be repeating claims from the IDF as settled fact? That tag should be removed immediately 75.162.154.142 (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with OP. How on earth can you even trust Israel when they lie, lie and lie repeadetley. I will never forget them lying about Shireen's death. 2600:6C50:5900:1B2F:75E2:2B70:BE47:26F5 (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's fair to say IDF is not objective, but to take Hamas's word is ridiculous.

Reuters and everyone else did not ever independently claim or verify that it was an Israeli strike, they just repeated Hamas's assertion that it was Israel. And Hamas besides lying all the time has literally just been shown to kill rape women children and babies at point blank, so how are they a more reliable source? 129.32.224.67 (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Taking into account that the hospital has already been bombed (5 deaths) by Israel AND they have previously targeted hospitals and health care facilities, the level of deference being afforded the IDF in this instance beggars belief. 2600:8801:D102:5400:CC22:5F05:40EC:BA84 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

طلب تحرير موسع ومحمي في 17 أكتوبر 2023 (3)

Taha.F.T (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

| perpetrators = Israel ( air strike by Israel Israel ) news|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-assessment-shows-failed-islamic-jihad-rocket-launch-caused-gaza-hospital-blast/%7Ctitle=IDF says assessment shows failed Islamic Jihad rocket launch caused Gaza hospital blast|newspaper=The Times of Israel|date=17 October 2023|access-date=17 October 2023|first=Emanuel|last=Fabian}}</ref>

References

 Not done: if you're asking for the Israel rocket launch claim, it is already in the article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep Edit Warring and this Article will be Full-Locked

I know that BNO news posted a compelling video and speculative tweet about the failed rocket. Just wait and keep the explosion cause as disputed before this article gets locked. -- Veggies (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I only found 1 discussion about BNO at RSP and it suggests that it is not reliable. Selfstudier (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't doubt that BNO is a reliable source, just that casting the definitive blame on this is something that requires a lot more sources than a single tweet. And keep in mind that it's likely that many Arabs and pro-Palestinian people will never acknowledge that it was a Hamas rocket (assuming that's what it was). -- Veggies (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Veggies, I attempted to add a sentence about BNO News's video and that was reverted. Why is TOI and The Guardian given WP:UNDUE weight? TOI especially as it does cast blame, but BNO News's sentence about it is not allowed? If that is the case, I request the TOI sentence also be removed as it gives WP:UNDUE weight in the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

When you say BNO News, do you still mean just that tweet? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. BNO News is basically a full-social media based news organization. And while that might not seem RS, it is. When the COVID pandemic happened, they switched to Twitter as their primary outlet, rather than "paper"/electonic articles. Basically imagine if CNN switched to using Twitter as their primary outlet. Would they still be RS? Yep. Same thing here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If the RSP discussion is all there is, BNO cannot be said to be reliable, you need to ask at RSN if it is reliable for some statement and see if editors support that.Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

LOL! So you are saying BNO News isn't a reliable source, without a discussion occurring to say it isn't a reliable source? On top of another editor above saying "I don't doubt that BNO is a reliable source"? Wow. Read up on WP:RS because that is the opposite of WP:RSN. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I can do it for you if you don't know how? Selfstudier (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There's this discussion from 2020 at WP:RSN, and having had a look, the company still does not provide information about its editorial board, and most articles are still not bylined. Wikishovel (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Occurred a month prior to this article] from Bloomberg News which was completely about that tracker. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Paywalled, sorry, not a subscriber. Wikishovel (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Archived without paywall. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

1. BNO News may not be RS per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_288#COVID-19_data_compiled_by_BNO_News.

2. Per WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." A simple tweet of a video is closer to a primary source than a secondary one.

3. Even if we decide that the tweet is a secondary RS, its conclusion isn't 100% clear, they just write "appears to show failed rocket". Per Oxford Language: "seem; give the impression of being". It's a weak assessment, more like a guess.

4. In any case, other secondary RS say otherwise, so it's still disputed. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

(Small-text for a reason (not complete serious) - Being as kind as I can, while assuming good faith. I don't really except your analysis given you consider this event to be "geopolitical" and not an event in history. That is too much of an extreme differing viewpoint from my own that my mind instant ignores it. Analysis from others though, I would accept. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

In other news (no pun intended), as mentioned just before your longer post (point 1), the discussion occurred prior to other WP:RS using/mentioning the tracker, so it is outdated by a lot. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes but as said above "the company still does not provide information about its editorial board, and most articles are still not bylined". (Yes, the war is geopolitical, so more controversial and subject to a higher level of scrutiny than weather events) Also, according to the IDF, the perpetrator is the Islamic Jihad, not Hamas. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

To end this discussion off, I do admit my mistake that I said Hamas instead of Islamic Jihad (oversight on my end) & I did edit war (for sure broke the 1RR and technically 3RR). Either way, I'm going to stay off this article as a self-induced 24-hour "topic block" as I deserve a block for violating the 1RR/3RR stuff (please don't actually block, I plan to do some weather-editing). Nonetheless, I do disagree with the statements said that BNO News isn't a reliable source, but the problem is solved and article is verifiable, which is the important aspect. Cheers y'all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

New video published

A new video has been published which proves that the explosion resulted by Jihad' failed launch:

• Tal Schneider, Security cameras of the Ben Ben Nursery in Netiv HaTara recorded the failed launch, Kan 11, October 17, 2023.

Pacifico (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

there has been at least 5 debunked videos 'proving' that it was really an Palestinian rocket that did this, what a fucking joke. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. Twitter. If a ToI reporter get it published by them. Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You can literally see the waft of smoke from the hospital in this video, prior to the launches. Did you mean the post the video that the IDF shared, which takes place 40 minutes after the Hospital strike happened? Or perhaps the one Netanyahu shared that was 20 minutes after? Or maybe the one being proliferated that happened in 2022?173.70.121.247 (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Footage from that particular cam has appeared in previous years, as reverse image searches reveal, except with Gaza not previously being in blackout. This time, however, the usual timestamp is missing from the top left. I'd like to see an explanation for that. Also, if the two sides are exchanging rockets or bombs, the explosion could be due to either side.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2023 (3)

Include a link to source - Al Jazeera Live Broadcast. https://www.youtube.com/live/bNyUyrR0PHo?si=4lhesTAFb_NQDrEn. And Include information: Al Jazeera Live Broadcast at 18:59 local time shows the hospital explosion and rockets launched. D11w4i (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Live broadcast doesn't seem necessary, and please provide a source showing that the explosion and rockets are the ones in this article. Also, please provide a clip of the video, since a timestamp isn't possible (livestream). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC closure

User:Veggies and User:MaterialWorks Why did you close the RfC? RfC main goal is to ask for a third opinion but litteraly no one aside from User:Cullen328 participated in the disscussion as a third opinion because all of them have already voted in the disscussion above! Closing it like that making RfC with no use! ☆SuperNinja2☆ 21:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Please back away from the horse carcass. The Kip 21:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not a policy, so stop repeating it every now and then like you just discovered it. PLUS I have all the right to question suspicious actions. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 22:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It's describing a behavioral problem. Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Like I said in my closing comment, RfCs should not be used for page moves. Make a move request instead. — MaterialWorks 22:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clarifying and sorry for the confusion. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 22:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

why named an explosion and not a massacre?

Hello, As i'm seeing all articles about this war, I saw only palestinan actions are called as massacres, beenwhile all Israeli bombing are called as explosions or airstrikes. This bombing should be at least named as a massacre, according to Palestinian version.

That's my opinion. Anas1712 (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If you had bothered taking one minute to read the talk page before posting, you would have known. Discussed in detail already. Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't find any useful discussion in the talk page. Everyone is talking about to change the name from "airstrike" to "massacre", not from "explosion" to "massacre". It's a question about the neutrality of Wikipedia. All sources called it airstrike or massacre or bombing (whether it's Israel or Hamas). But the title seems that it's just an accident. If massacre is not given, at least "bombing" or "airstrike" should be titled, not "explosion" in anyway. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

I saw reports on Twitter that suggested that we were taking one side or the other in this fast moving story. I doubted that but I came here to have a look. I just read the talk page, and the back and forth, and although emotions are clearly running high - as they naturally should in the face of such a horrific incident - I am really proud of the outcome at this moment and the hard work of several people who are putting the NPOV ideals of Wikipedia first, and personal opinions or desires to blame second. My own perspective is that we, the world at large I mean, don't know yet what happened. Some people will spend the rest of their lives believing one side or the other without evidence. Wikipedia, and good Wikipedians, will wait for evidence, for the arguments to play out, and we know that this dispute may last forever or may be settled one way or another in a few days time.

Thank you, Wikipedians. Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the initial revert Jimbo Wales! Didn't realize it was you! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Jimbo, you are essentially saying Wikipedians should sit in the coward's chair while Gaza gets steamrolled and act as if Israel's wildly ridiculous and unsupported claims hold any water? I'm sure it's easy to be smug once the dust has settled, but by being silent and entertaining these claims, we are indirectly supporting the dominant party and rhetoric. 208.180.58.74 (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeap. Wikipedia strives to be neutral. There are places on the internet for folks to take sides, but that place is not Wikipedia. Our job is to summarize reliable secondary sources such as newspapers and books, and that's it. If it takes reliable newspapers and books awhile to figure out the cause of the explosion, so be it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly something to be proud of. More of a grim responsibility. 208.180.58.74 (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I am really proud of the outcome at this moment and the hard work of several people who are putting the NPOV ideals of Wikipedia first - Jimmy Wales

Be right back, putting this on my resume.

But seriously, thank you Jimbo! The Kip 00:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll do that too LOL Abo Yemen✉ 18:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Well this is a career highlight. AryKun (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2023 (4)

Add the following after the quote from the Jerusalem Post:

Palestinian Ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansour has contested this narrative, calling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “a liar” for blaming the strike on the armed group, Islamic Jihad. “He is a liar. His digital spokesperson tweeted that Israel did the hit thinking that there is, around this hospital a base for Hamas, and then he deleted that tweet,” added Mansour.

Mansour also pointed out that a spokesman of the Israeli military previously suggested that hospitals could be possible targets and should be evacuated.(THE TWO REFERENCES TO BE ADDED HERE ARE THE FOLLOWING: 1- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-hamas-war-live-iran-warns-resistance-front-may-attack 2- https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2023/10/15/%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B4%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%BA%D8%B2%D8%A9-2 113.212.64.109 (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Why should we add that? What information does it bring? We know both sides blame each other at the moment, so how is this WP:DUE. Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It adds 1) the information about the deleted tweet; 2) it tells the reader that Israel has been very open about its intent to bomb hospitals. Both are new pieces of info that add to the article 113.212.64.109 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there someone else than Mansour confirming the existence of these tweets? Should be easy to prove? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Most of the article is about hearsay and accusations; this person reported and that person reported... where is proof that "that Hamas puts "their command and control units inside hospitals"... who confirmed that? Same logic here. The article is conveying what is being said by different parties, it is not aan official UN report. No need for double standards. 113.212.64.109 (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Also a link to an image of the tweet:

https://twitter.com/JoeKassabian/status/1714369907444351261/photo/1 113.212.64.109 (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It also adds more balance to the article as the Israeli narrative is the dominant one at the moment in the article 113.212.64.109 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That is your own interpretation, not what the source says. Jeppiz (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

not sure what source you are refering to now... 113.212.64.109 (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

To the disruptive IP. Your edit request has clearly been answered. You may not like the answer, but that's irrelevant to whether it has been answered or not. Stop your purely disruptive edits. If you want to discuss, discuss. Jeppiz (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. thanks for the tip 113.212.64.109 (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add here that coming from somewhere else - that is, watching Al-Jazeera and stumbling a little (or wondering how much there is to it) over the Ambassadors statement, I checked it (that is - the fact that a Tweet was put out and then deleted again) and it seems true - for detail see here: Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#For_future_reference_-_Hananya_Naftali_(deleted_tweet)

I'm unaware of how affiliated or unaffiliated this person is to the Israeli goverment, but seems that its a pretty controversial thing to do if he **was** affiliated, and given that its been reported, I don't really see why it *shouldn't* be in the article ?

Regards, Sean Heron (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We might be looking at different parts of the suggestion. I agree the deleted tweet is relevant. In contrast, Mansour calling Netanyahu a liar is hardly relevant. Jeppiz (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Lebanon's minister of education announces that schools and universities will be closed on 18 October in the wake of the Gaza hospital strike"

I added that, but just want to discuss if that's too trivial for the Wikipedia page? FunLater (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, what's the standard way of citing these microblog-like news? What do I put in the title field?

Example: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/17/world/gaza-news-israel-hamas-war/7a1ff81f-702d-57df-a1a4-a55391fe3d61 FunLater (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You're addition of Hezbollah's response was relevant. Lebanon closing schools seem rather irrelevant, though (in the scope of things). Jeppiz (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I removed it. :) FunLater (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Is there a reason this tag is still present? The initial addition of the tag seems to have been resolved, and the article seems pretty neutral now. Pinging: @WeatherWriter. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Just removed it! Cheers y’all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! also congrats on reverting Jimbo Wales :) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

For future reference - Hananya Naftali (deleted tweet)

Obviously, what we write in the article is what other people (ie, Reliable Sources) write.

Still I though I'd share the results on a claim I was checking: Palestine's Ambassador to the UN (the one quoted in the edit-request section above), in the same press conference referenced a Tweet - that was deleted - by what he claims is an ~ Israeli (digital) spokesperson (he's not that, at least not officially, as far as I can tell).

The tweet in question is said to claim that the strike was by the IDF. This appears to be the now visible Tweet on the topic. https://twitter.com/HananyaNaftali/status/1714346975326330957 . Notice the "community notes" below the tweet - obviously "receipts" for Tweets can be faked, but this one seems to be referenced from multiple directions, so (imho) seems unlikely.

As said above, this doesn't change anything for the article (as of now). Just thought it might be good to give a heads up, cause possibly someone somewhere might be reporting on this soon.

P.S. I'm anything but an expert, but the impression from the video (embedded in his current tweet) I get is certainly not an errant rocket (from a volley ?). But that's just btw, it wasn't my point here.

Sean Heron (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Self reply: As I wrote the above, I had only skim read the edit-request section. Since Al-Jazeera reported on Palestine's UN Ambassador referring to the deleted tweet, I reckon that statement / claim could also be included in the article. Sean Heron (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is a specific link to Al-Jazeera's mention of the deleted tweet, if helpful. Conerd (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That is highly relevant, I think. It doesn't mean it's correct, but regardless whose rocket it was, the tweet in itself seems relevant to include in Reactions. Jeppiz (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Any mention of this seems to have been deleted from the Wikipedia article. 133.106.41.137 (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Why explosion and not bombing?

The current name for the page makes it sound like this was something like an accident, like those explosions at fireworks factories that sometimes happen. Regardless of whose claims we believe (Gaza or Israel), both parties here claim this was the result of a rocket explosion, thus a bombing. I do recall such pages (plenty from Ukraine for example) being named bombing instead of explosion, so I don't see why the current name is what it is. It would also hopefully help calm people down because it'd be a more neutral name to begin with.

And let's face it, if we were talking about the usual suspects like Russia or Turkey, none of us would spend nearly as much time questioning the claims of attacks on civilians. I'm not saying any editor here acted in bad faith but let us consider the circumstances. This is a drama that Wikipedia does not need, and we need to look at this catastrophe for what it is. --Dynamo128 (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We are not the ones making claims, we only report on what reliable sources say. This far, there is only speculation so we cannot claim who did it. Jeppiz (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say we are making claims ourselves obviously, Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source, but we are interpreting them. And even just going to so many mainstream sites (Al Jazeera, The Guardian, BBC, just to name a few, and these are sources that are partly also cited in the article too) do not refer it as an "explosion" before referring to it as an airstrike or bombing. This isn't even a case of reliable sources being mendacious, which can sometimes happen, this is a case of, in my humble opinion, a misleading term being used in a misguided effort to achieve neutrality when in reality using bombing would've done a much better job at that. --Dynamo128 (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the article should be renamed to: Al-Ahli Arab Hospital bombing Spudst3r (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence it was a bombing and we can't come with our own conclusions. dov (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective ☆SuperNinja2☆ 23:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I read a few of the best-looking sources of this article. None of them seem to have any doubt that the incident in question was a bombing, even if they did not use that specific word or gave the idea that the bombing was done accidentally by the Hamas authorities. They all agree that it was a rocket that caused the explosion. The only controversial part of this story is the whodidit, not whether or not this incident was caused by a military rocket that hit the hospital. SparklyNights 01:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Article name updated. Spudst3r (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the move was justified. Bombing implies intentionality. The dispute is whether a militant group was trying to launch a rocket at Haifa and accidentally dropped it on the hospital. If that's what happened, I wouldn't call it a bombing. And if it's true that Israel dropped a bomb on it, I would call that an airstrike. What I would expect in an article containing the name bombing is an event involving a bomb planted at a location and then detonated. I think consensus should have been developed before Spudst3r boldly moved it.--Orgullomoore (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I would support keeping it as "explosion" until further investigation or proof is published—it seems there are only claims. —  Melofors  TC 05:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't get that impression from "bombing", that the word implies intentionality. I changed the article name as this is a fast-moving story and there was relative consensus here in the talk page. The leading explanations for what happened: a misfire, an iron-dome interception, a deliberate strike, all fit with the concept that the target was bombed. This reflects a large quantity of reporting on the subject also. But as I see there is disagreement now we can try to work for a new consensus. Spudst3r (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If I throw a bomb at my neighbor two doors down, but it falls on your house, did I bomb your house? Not really. I would have bombed my other neighbor's house, had I been successful, but your house got in the way. Was there an explosion at your house? Yes, there was.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r I think changing from bombing back to explosion is a really un-credible move. There is no disputing based on the footage that is actually fully confirmed that it was caused by a bombing, some form of missile. To name it anything else is just passive language for no reason. LoomCreek (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed ☆SuperNinja2☆ 10:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I reversed the move. If you want to rename it, develop a consensus first.--Orgullomoore (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I found the move bizarrely premature. "Bombing" makes it sound like a deliberate act. Maybe it was. Maybe it was a stray rocket and unintentional. -- Veggies (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Al Jazeera refers to it as bombing. Al Jazeera is a reliable source, so I think it is niw appropriate to call it so. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sources that don't:

  1. BBC - "Hospital blast"
  2. The Guardian - "Hospital blast"
  3. New York Times - "Hospital explosion"

  One source using "bombing", particularly one that we have bias concerns about, does not mean we use it. BilledMammal (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Purpose of Having this Page Up in the First Place

If people aren't even going to agree on who committed the act in the heat of the moment, is there really a reason to keep this page up? It should probably just be taken down until the heat of the moment has died down, lest people become woefully misinformed. 208.180.58.74 (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

While I agree the page was put up in something of a rush, it contains useful information and I don't think people are misinformed by it. Selfstudier (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@208.180.58.74 this is not how Wikipedia works Abo Yemen✉ 11:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

at least the wording should be more evasive, instead of "caused an unprecedented number of deaths" should be "allegedly caused an unprecedented number of deaths" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.104.196.124 (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of having this page up in the first place was to provide more content for the media/public relations war against Israel. Now that the assumption that an Israeli airstrike hit the hospital is in dispute, or will possibility be discredited, this page lost its original purpose.

Maybe we can leave the rival claims as "in dispute" until there is better evidence. Truth suffers when there is a rush to present anything. 108.222.9.189 (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Response

Hamas has stated they had bombed Gush Dan,Tel Aviv and the Ramon Airbase in retaliation for the attacks, gunfights and protests have also engulfed the West Bank. Hezbollah declared October 18th to be a day of “unrelenting rage on Israel”. Should these be added? A.H.T Videomapping (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Source? 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:1C3:E2ED:C13B:9883 (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas Storing Weapons in Protected Places

@Spudst3r @Stephan rostie -- Stephan removed my edit incorporating a Jerusalem Post article citing IDF reports that Hamas stores munitions in controlled areas like hospitals because in their words "JPost is citing an old IDF claim in 2014. It can’t be written as if it is JPost investigation or “JPost proved …”. It is just refreshing 2014 IDF claim, which can’t be written as a proven fact of course." Fine. Then, I posted a much more thorough article written years ago from The Washington Post which goes into the evidence that Hamas has done this in the past and Spudst3r removed it, claiming "Remove article written in 2021 from before the attacks, that isn't about the current attack. IT is WP:SYNTHESIS: SYNTH cautions against original research by synthesis, where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources." What I added exactly was: "Hamas has been known to store munitions inside hospitals, mosques, and schools in the past.[CITATION]" So what exactly is going on? Where am I SYNTHing anything? It isn't unreasonable, in light of the counterclaims by Israel that they had nothing to do with it, to note a very important and cited fact about these very same groups in the past. -- Veggies (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

How does it occurring in the past have any bearing on the present situation? 208.180.58.74 (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is a valid point to make in the article, but to cite an older article to make that point is synthesis on your part by connecting this claim to the current event. What you need to do to get this added is find a reliable source that makes this point *in relation to this specific attack*. Otherwise, you are connecting two concepts together to make a point, aka synthesis. Spudst3r (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that you are writing IDF claims in wiki voice as if they descend from god. IDF claims are not facts and can’t be written as a one in wiki voice, instead, write “IDF claims that …” and attribute the claim to the IDF. And of course @Spudst3r point too. Stephan rostie (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• I find this restored material to be undue: [3]. The article is from 9 years ago and is not related to the present incident. Brings WP:SYNTH to mind; lack of neutrality is also a concern. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is original research. If a reliable source reports that weapons were stored at the hospital that can be added. Until then its original research to speculate. Drsmoo (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Okay, I've removed this: [4]; there's sufficient consensus that this is undue / synth. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Pentagon spokesperson

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "undue -- the spokesperson was speaking in generalities"; she was not alleging that it was happening at the hospital in question. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Disputed or unknown

Would it be better to put disputed or unknown in the info-box? I see both examples in info boxes during attacks. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

”Disputed” is the better call here, since it was pretty clearly one side or the other; we just don’t know which.

”Unknown” is moreso used for stuff like yesterday’s attack in Brussels before the Islamic State claimed it, in which case we genuinely have no idea who carried it out. The Kip 01:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Disputed or Unknown are both problematic. If Russia bombed a hospital I'm pretty confident wikipedia would be attributing the perpetrator quickly rather than allowing spin and propaganda muddy the waters. At some point this article is going to need to definitively declare who did it, no matter what the spin says, based on strong reliable sources and independent consensus. Spudst3r (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Spudst3r I agree with you on that, but there is currently no "strong reliable sources and independent consensus."--Orgullomoore (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

MSNBC quote

@Stephan rostie: Regarding this edit, the added sentence is not in the provided source? BilledMammal (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm removing this. A 45-second clip, via Twitter, from a pundit on cable news is not a good building block for an article, least of all in this area. Neutrality^talk 01:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That’s not a pundit, that’s a journalist. No reason not to include it. —Megiddo1013 02:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's speculation on breaking news. Neutrality^talk 02:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, speculation is not a basis for the removal of content in a current event. In the Nordstream pipeline sabotage article we posted plenty of speculation but labeled it as such. There is nothing else to go on but the statements from reliable sources that allow the reader reach a conclusion. If the material is sourced and directly relevant to the incident they should be preserved. Spudst3r (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's just not an accurate statement of policy. The project of building an encyclopedia is distinct from just compiling information: we do not indiscriminately post "plenty of speculation" - we have to follow due weight, and the fact that some information exists does not means it goes into an article. (This applies even to verifiably true content, so it applies with especially great force to speculation.) And we already represent the various conflicting claims in this article. Neutrality^talk 02:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

We are reaching a level of evidence in this story where the preponderance of evidence is on Israel to explain how Hamas could have done this with their level of technological capability. So much so that I would argue, once we get more RS confirmation from nation states and NGO's, it will rapidly become UNDUE to keep the article in the state that it is, pretending that the facts are still disputed when they are not. If this article was about Russia (e.g. the Mariupol Theatre bombing) we would have already assigned the perpetrator by now. Spudst3r (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the article I’m not seeing any evidence like that; can you link some of the relevant sources here? BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources on Twitter are coming to that conclusion, which are not considered RS so can't be officially linked in the article, but e.g.: https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1714419377305428295?s=20 Spudst3r (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn’t pay any attention to tweets like those; we can just as easily find tweets saying the opposite, and we can probably even find tweets saying that aliens did it. Unless actual reliable sources are saying it then it’s worthless. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Sources on Twitter" 🤦‍♂️ -- Veggies (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

As I stated already I didn't post it or let it influence the article as it is obviously not RS. Journalists are struggling to figure this story in real time along with the rest of us. Spudst3r (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That little screed above shows it's already influenced your preconceptions and you seem like you're champing at the bit to assign blame to one side—but you only have tweets thus far. -- Veggies (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Change title to: "Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital Missile Strike (Undetermined Origin)"

Since it has yet to be determined which side or group is responsible for the missile strike (and it was a missile, not just some random explosion). Then the article should call it a missile strike and not an "explosion". Yes, missile strikes result in explosions, but so does a build up of sewer gasses, and this "explosion" occurred during a war.

If Hamas or Islamic Jihad did this, or even the IDF. Then it would be a terrorist bombing. But we don't know that yet, and most likely it was unintended (collateral damage) cause by one of the two sides. But it was a missile strike of undetermined origin at this point. 47.149.186.81 (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

My two cents on this: take it easy. This event will be investigated and reinvestigated for years to come. It just happened. Give it some time and we will rename it accordingly. Right now all we know is something big blew up and a lot of people died and both sides are pointing the finger at each other. There's no deadline.--Orgullomoore (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Major points that the article needs to include per sources

• IDF didn’t publish evidence to support its claims, it claims to have intelligence information but none was published.
• Palestinian militant groups don’t have the capability to produce a rocket that makes such scale of blast or destruction (per the guardian)

• "there are incidents in the past where the israeli military has said things in the immediate aftermath of an incident that turned out to not be true"

Stephan rostie (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is definitely failing at holding the necessary skepticism towards Israel's and IDF's claims, the insistence in maintaining the claim the Hamas was the perpetrator of the attack was staggering. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

References

• Do you any source for the "no capability" claim, other than a single conclusory sentence in a single liveblog? This speculative assertion does not appear in any other source that I have seen – not Reuters nor AP nor AFP. Neutrality^talk 02:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, it appeared in the guardian. So until another source reject that and say otherwise, you have no right to reject reliable sources or block/omit it because of your own personal opinion. Stephan rostie (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So I take it that the answer to my question is "no," that you have no additional sources to point to. Again, we don't indiscriminately include information. Unless this is more widely reported, a single statement in a liveblog is not due weight. We are an encyclopedia, not a collection of everything that has ever been claimed or said. Neutrality^talk 02:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The opinion that Hamas lacked the rocket capability of this scale to trigger the kind of explosion witnessed is a point that has been made by at least the Guardian, CNN, and MSNBC. It may be speculation, it may even by wrong, but pointing that out is not undue. If it is indeed incorrect, if there is another credible explanation provided by RS for this current event then cite them and add them to the article. We can condense what is due and undue once that happens. Spudst3r (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: @Stephan rostie: I agree. Point me to these sources and I will add them as they are stated. I see no reason not to; that is an important detail. I was unable to locate it in the link you provided, however. —  Melofors  TC 03:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

BBC's John Donnison, CNN's Clarissa Ward, and The Guardian all find the scale of the explosion incongruent with what the rockets fired by Palestinian militants are capable of. As such that much is worth including, even if it's a form of opinion as it could be phrased as "are of the opinion that". HOWEVER, these opinions pretty obviously presume that 200+ casualties is indeed the case. If the true number killed was a couple dozen, we should exclude based on them apparently operating off of a mistaken presumption.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

We had an MSNBC broadcast quote attributing this that got removed, it was added as: MSNBC reported that "this kind of death toll is not what you normally associate with Palestinian rockets ... they do not tend to kill hundreds of people in a single strike." Spudst3r (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's just speculation though. And demonstrably bad speculation at that. If there are two equivalently sized earth quakes, one in Hong Kong the other in the Sahara desert then you can conclude more injuries in Hong Kong is proof that the earth quake there was stronger, but you'd be wrong. All sources state that the population density in Gaza is one of the highest in the world and the hospital was particularly packed. The obvious explanation is higher density thus more casualties. You can say, "oh that's WP:OR" but the quote you linked is just purely speculation from the author not fact stated by MSNBC. Alcibiades979 (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Neutrality If you have sources that demonstrate Hamas has rockets of this size please add them to the article. Spudst3r (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/irans-rockets-palestinian-groups

The Wilson Center reports that Palestinian Islamic Jihad have the Badr 3 rocket via Iran, which they unveiled in 2019 and which has a warhead up to 882 pounds. Drsmoo (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Got a neutral source rather than a "US thinktank"? We have not seen the use of any of the large hardware depicted in that WC claim. 14.2.207.173 (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This article has become a real one-stop shop for all your WP:FALSEBALANCE needs, per the OP's points. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231004-rockets-drones-on-display-at-islamic-jihad-parade-in-gaza

”An Islamic Jihad official told AFP that around 4,500 members of Al-Quds Brigades, the armed wing of the Palestinian militant group, took part in Wednesday's parade.

The event showcased domestically produced rockets atop trucks draped in green camouflage fabric, missiles and three types of drones.

"The new Buraq missiles have a range of 85 kilometres (50 miles), and the improved Badr 3 missiles have an explosive warhead weighing 400 kilos (880 pounds)," said a spokesman for Al-Quds Brigades.” Drsmoo (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2023

The IDF Arabic page on facebook had posted 2 hours prior to the attack a message, « Due to the lack of medical equipment and the lack of medical staff, it was decided to bomb the baptist hospital in gaza and give them euthanasia. » A deleted tweet by Hananya Natfali, Israel’s digital spokesperson appointed by Benjamin Netenyahu had a statement that the attack was in fact Israeli because there were Hamas bases in the vicinity of the hospital. 45.246.216.210 (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@ARandomName123

The deleted tweet can be seen here. https://twitter.com/GUnderground_TV/status/1714375105944432715 Villeum (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

A random Twitter account with paid verification is not a reliable source. The Kip 03:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, tweets are not reliable sources, although it would seem pertinent that a now deleted facebook post where the IDF gloats about carrying out the attack should count as evidence towards the uncertainty and controversy of who perpetuated the attack. However I am unsure how this would ever be included as a source as all that remains as far as my knowledge are screen captures that were posted on twitter: https://twitter.com/omarsuleiman504/status/1714372463398670695 since they require secondary verification that the screen captures are not tampered with. Drocj (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the IDF Arabic page post? Conerd (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Some deleted IDF posts are discussed here:

• "Israel’s spin about hospital massacre quickly comes apart" by Ali Abunimah

There must be other sources that discuss this? 133.106.41.137 (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Ahli hospital

On X, there are a lot retired US army experts, claiming that it was a J-DAM rocket. 24.203.249.33 (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

X is not a reliable source. We don't lead. We can certainly integrate that into the article if a reliable source picks it up, though.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSPX says that verified accounts of subject matter experts can be used in some cases, but we should certainly proceed with extreme caution before citing from that bubbling cesspit. Wikishovel (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think a bombing with 500 people dead is the kind of case in which we should be citing Twitter at all, no matter how much a a subject-matter expert the person may be. AryKun (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The LK-99 article cited twitter extensively as that story broke, and people complimented wikipedia for it.

As this is a current event, the latest information will sadly be on twitter... Yet, social media posts themselves are not RS. However, and I think there is an exception if the twitter post links to an authority (like a news outlet or clip of a broadcast) that should be considered RS unless its authenticity is in doubt. I.e., the social media post is sharing a reliable secondary source. Spudst3r (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

France24

According to France24:

European Union, France and African Union do NOT mention Israel as the perpetrator of the hit.

France strongly condemns after the statement by foreign ministry.

According to Afrikan Union chief the hit was a 'war crime'.

EU chief (who?) said the strike that killed hundreds was outside 'international law'.

UN rights chief (who?) said the attacking was totally Unacceptable.

Hamas is blaming Israel;

"the cover for its aggression"

Israel is blaming Islamic jihad militants... Kartasto (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek reference

WP:NEWSWEEK says that Newsweek is generally unreliable, and references from that source need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. "Explosion and responsibility" section currently cites this reference in three places. Comments please on whether this can be used for the most contentious part of a current event article. Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think we should be using Newsweek for that. That did happen, though, and I'm sure it's going to receive attention. I'll try to find another source.--Orgullomoore (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The same goes for WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, which is not reliable in this domain.--Orgullomoore (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Haifa targetting - confirmed?

One minute before the explosion Hamas bragged it was firing at Haifa. No such rocket arrived. https://abualiexpress.com/%d7%95%d7%9b%d7%93%d7%99-%d7%9c%d7%a1%d7%92%d7%95%d7%a8-%d7%90%d7%aa-%d7%94%d7%90%d7%99%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%a2-%d7%a2%d7%93-%d7%94%d7%a1%d7%95%d7%a3-%d7%94%d7%96%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%a2-%d7%94%d7%a6%d7%91/

And coincidentally the rocket attempt was filmed, it fell and exploded in the hospital: https://abualiexpress.com/%d7%95%d7%94%d7%a0%d7%94-%d7%a2%d7%95%d7%93-%d7%a1%d7%a8%d7%98%d7%95%d7%9f-%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%9b%d7%99%d7%97-%d7%92%d7%9d-%d7%90%d7%aa-%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%a7%d7%95%d7%9d-%d7%94%d7%a0%d7%a4%d7%99%d7%9c/

this video was published by Hamas, in the Shahab news agency.

Shovalis (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait until more reliable publish this. Alaexis_¿question? 06:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

IDF posted video evidence

1 Doesn't seem fake. The video was also showen on al Jazeera. This seems to be the highest resolution footage posted until now. I'm not an expert on copyright rules, but if it's free use I think we should incorporate it into the article. dov (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait for RS to confirm; the last couple videos the IDF have posted have been proven to be fake. AryKun (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, previous videos were proven to be fake and not explained at all by the IDF why they were posted in the first place. Talk about a credibility issue here. Hopefully reliable sources will investigate what is going on. 133.106.41.137 (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Was also broadcasted in al Jazeera which is considered RS. dov (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

OSINT experts affiliated have already analyzed the explosion site and WP:RS would be released soon. The consensus is that the explosion does not match an air strike and more likely to be a misfired rocket. - 2402:4000:1241:6635:CC28:65BD:161:753A (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Cool, tell us when the RSes are released. AryKun (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Aric Toler

It's worth noting that Toler's assessment is more nuanced than what's mentioned in this article.

He did question the timestamp from the Israeli government's original X post, but his more recent posts on X recommend using an Al-Jazeera post that reports the barrage began at 7pm, far earlier than the initial post cited by both Toler and the Israeli government.

(Yes, I understand social media posts are not considered valid, but this is response to a section of the article that already sources Toler's X account.)

https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1714380810269196323?t=8sXrdjnICn9s0jfAE9iPgg&s=19

I took out the Aric business. It's original research and undue.--Orgullomoore (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This guy is cited as the source for the timing of the video by multiple RS; it is definitely not OR or UNDUE to mention him when we're essentially just citing his analysis via the RSes. AryKun (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Please learn how to reply in-line. I never made any claims about Toler claims being either undue or original research, only that his assessments are being cited selectively. Do we even know that Toler's response is why the Israeli government's initial post was taken down? If not, it should frankly be removed.73.168.37.85 (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm using the automatic Reply tool; it's super glitchy and I know it messes up the indentation half the time, but it's clear from context here that I'm replying to Orgullomoore. AryKun (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's fair.

To be honest, unless we can prove Toler's response specifically is what prompted the Israeli govt to remove their initial post - as is heavily suggested by the current wording - linking Toler to the post's disappearance seems like speculation/SYNTH. 73.168.37.85 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: More references for both sides

It appears that some OSINT groups and analysts have analyzed open-source data and claim that the attack was the result of rocket fired by Palestinian militant groups, see e.g. GeoConfirmed and Oliver Alexander. On the contrary, U.S. congresswomen Rashida Tlaib, a well-known pro-Palestinian activist, has sided with the Gazan ministry of health, declaring that the IDF is to blame, see this statement. I think that adding both claimants to the article could help the reader better understand the situation. JaywalkerPenguin (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, we already have claims by both sides and the reactions to them by RS in the article; adding every random OSINT analyst and congressperson's reaction will just lead to unmanageable bloat and unnecessary arguments about who to include. AryKun (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Unrelated quote?

I see that there is some quote attributed to Israel's PM that is unrelated to this incident. I believe it should be removed as it is unrelated to the incident.Exx8 (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

What quotes? Jeppiz (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple RSes mention that quote in connection to the bombing, as some people see it as showing genocidal intent. Netanyahu removed it soon after the bombing, likely due to this negative association. It's probably due. AryKun (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be kept but there has to be a paragraph explaining it. After all, it seems online discourse is that the tweet suggests a motivation for the attack. The fact that he then deleted then makes it all the more relevant. Hovsepig (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Then we must include quotations from Hamas and Jihad officials who urge that Gazans must serve as human shields and die as martyrs for the Palestinian cause. Perhaps we should also include quotations encouraging children to pick up arms?Exx8 (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Was it said on the die of the explosion? Hovsepig (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@AryKun The relationship between the PM's words and the explosion is speculative and tendentious, and the fact the some RSes mentioned it does not make the relationship any less speculative. Let's not forget that many RSes, especially Al Jazeera, jumped to conclusions without all the facts and uncritically cited the number of 500 casualties. It is clearly an attempt to paint one side as guilty of genocidal intentions. I would argue strongly that the quote has no place in the article. Stick to the facts. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"This is a struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness, between humanity and the law of the jungle."

Recording of the conversation between Hamas operatives, affirming that PIJ was behind the explosion

The IDF has released a recording of Hamas operatives, where one operative tells the other that the explosion was a result of a misfired rocket by the PIJ. Link: https://www.facebook.com/idfonline/videos/1542410406515943/ Thisissparta12345 (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither Facebook nor IDF are reliable sources to attribute blame. Jeppiz (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

And if the American intelligence services affirm it? Would that count as a reliable source? Thisissparta12345 (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Enough to include in the article as a claim, if reliably sourced. Not in itself enough to change the article to say in Wikivoice who did it. Jeppiz (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is already enough to include it in the article as a claim. Jogarz1921 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's try to find a reliable secondary source that refers to (or links to) the primary Facebook source. Wikishovel (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

this article in Haaretz mentions the recordings, but doesn't link to them. Wikishovel (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The IDF is not a reliable source; it is an army that is well-known for its psychological warfare, disinformation and propaganda campaigns. This is absolute junk. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Iskandar323. In itself, this is barely noticeable. If widely sourced, can be included in one sentence among the different claims, that's all. Jeppiz (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is not a reliable source; it is a genocidal antisemitic murder cult that is well-known for its psychological warfare, disinformation and propaganda campaigns. Anything from Hamas is absolute junk, right Iskandar323? Cullen328 (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Yes, obviously. But I'm not aware of anyone proposing using any primary Hamas sources at this time though? What's the point here? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The point is that the charge that Israel bombed this hospital comes from Hamas, and the the fundamental premise of this article from the beginning is based on Hamas propaganda. And when the IDF responds in detail to deny that charge, some folks point out that the IDF is a "psychological warfare, disinformation and propaganda" source, as if Hamas and the news outlets that instantly parroted Hamas aren't. Let's be rigorous about the neutral point of view, please. Cullen328 (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that argument doesn't make any sense. sure, Hamas isn't reliable but do you disagree that the IDF is any more reliable?

we can't trust either testimony until it has been widely and independently verified that Israel or PIJ did it. Hamas can be as unbiased as you want, but even from a NPOV, that doesn't mean Israel is trustworthy Genabab (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we are rigorous. We wait for confirmation before attributing blame, and don't take the claims of any involved party at face value. Jeppiz (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the earliest versions of this article, Jeppiz, which consisted of uncritical and credulous regurgitation of Hamas propaganda. Cullen328 (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If early versions of the article were a problem, that's something we should learn from and try to do better in the future. However it's clear that whatever mistakes were made there, we will not do better by allowing content sourced only to the IDF as a primary source. While I think Iskandar323's specific wording was unhelpful and caused unnecessary distraction, the fundamentally unreliability of such primary sources in a war seems to be the key point being made that is correct. If and when such claims are covered in quality reliable secondary sources then and only then can we start to consider inclusion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

But were primary Hamas sources used at any point? Other Palestinian sources do not, by default, simply regurgitate Hamas statements. Many are Fatah-aligned and opposed to Hamas. Obviously international reporting is more independent and preferable, but Palestinian reporting cannot be assumed to be inaccurate simply by virtue of being Palestinian and repeating Hamas statements. Unless challenged at WP:RSN, sources are just sources - short of proof, we cannot simply assume certain sources do not conduct any of their own independent fact-checking. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not sure exactly which sources were used at the very outset of this article, and I intend no comment on any specifics. My point here is a rather more general one. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be frank here: this recording says basically nothing, even if it's real. We don't know what importance the two speakers in the clip have within their organization, we don't know how much they actually saw, and they don't affirm that PIJ launched the rocket, only mention that "they" say it was.

Additionally, there's a lot of tells that make this an aggressively fake recording. The arabic grammar is awful, they regularly say "us" when referring to PIJ (perhaps to tie into the IDF talking point of Hamas = ISIS), neither man has a Gazan accent, they conveniently geotag themselves for Twitter, and the entire conversation reads more like a Learning Arabic 101 course exercise than an actual person-to-person conversation.

That having been said, it's usually not Wikipedia's job to make a decisive take on the situation, especially this early. It probably should be in the article, but my personal opinion is to wait until professionals unaffiliated with the US/IDF/Hamas/PA wake up, analyze the recording, and likely find it wanting.173.70.121.247 (talk) 09:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2023 (2)

Under explosion and reaponsibility, it should be mentioned that Israeli government Digital spokesperson announced at the beginning that they targeted the hospital vicinity to kill terrorists" over a tweet before deleting it once the size of the catastrophe was clear. Image of the tweet attached.

• 
  Hananya Naftali Tweet on X

188.120.128.242 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please provide the link to the original tweet rather than a screenshot. Wikishovel (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Already included, read the article first. Jeppiz (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Information about this seems to have been since deleted from the Wikipedia article? 133.106.41.137 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

A single source used to support Israeli claim in lede

Currently the lede has shifted from neutral to leaning towards the Israeli claim. This is based on one single source, in The Telegraph (a newspaper with a somewhat dubious record of accuracy). I would recommend removing that part, unless more widely confirmed. Jeppiz (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

And the Economist; both The Telegraph and the Economist are green at RSP. BilledMammal (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz Agreed. The Telegraph's source is a Twitter account run by volunteers. The phrase "independent analysts" gives it far more weight than is warranted at this point. Alpyne (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources give that analysis weight then we need to do the same. BilledMammal (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not really a single source, even at this early stage:

• Al Jazeera and other live footage showing the rocket trajectory over Gaza and its sudden collapse over Gaza
• geolocation of the above (consistent with many previous Hamas rocket failures)
• IDF radar data showing estimated launch site at Gaza coast
• IDF UAV videos showing the explosion remains at the hospital parking with no crater that would be left by Israeli bunker busters

Only two of these sources are Israeli, but what is most important is that they are all consistent with each other. I agree it's probably too early to add definite conclusions in the article yet, because most of the above are still being discussed over social media (e.g. geolocation) and not yet clearly summarised by WP:RS. Cloud200 (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing is definitely good enough for the body, but I agree this doesn't belong in the lead yet because it's preliminary. DFlhb (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

President Biden affirms the Israeli claim that PIJ was behind the explosion

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw5p48L9j98 Thisissparta12345 (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a live video; you'll need to provide a different source or a timestamp. BilledMammal (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Look at the last few minutes of the live video, they quote President Biden saying "Looks like hospital blast caused by other team". Thisissparta12345 (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It will be properly sourced soon, we wait for that. Jeppiz (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The ticker is saying "Biden: Looks like hospital blast caused by other team". However, I would prefer to wait for a print source before adding that to the article. BilledMammal (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's a printed source: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-18/ty-article-live/israeli-army-blames-islamic-jihad-for-hitting-gaza-hospital-in-deadly-strike/0000018b-40a6-d881-abab-edae5c5d0000 Thisissparta12345 (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

And a source by CBS: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/israel-hamas-war-biden-visit-gaza-hospital-attack/ Thisissparta12345 (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So are we going to add it? Thisissparta12345 (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Also Washington Post, WSJ, New York Times. However, if we add it we should also state that Biden hasn't clarified what evidence he was referring to. We also shouldn't make it seem more certain than it is, he's clear that this is preliminary, not conclusive. DFlhb (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

We could at least mention that he said so. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course; we should - DFlhb (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

OSINT suggesting Israel airstrike

According to an analysis by team formed by Mario Nawfal :

Based on the evidence, this could not have been the Islamic Jihad, as claimed by the Israeli Defense Force, based on our analysis of the information we have so far.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:

This is an analysis is preliminary, and is done by a Marine Corps Veteran Explosives & Ordinance Expert, and reviewed by many others.

It needs to be mentioned in the article similar to how Geolocator analysis on X (twitter) was mentioned too. Stephan rostie (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source reporting on it? BilledMammal (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, the conclusions in that tweet don't seem to be in any way connected to the observations in the beginning, and the observations don't seem to be in any way supported by evidence. The only conclusive sentence in this analysis is "we CANNOT come to final conclusions just yet". Cloud200 (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems like some random bloke on twitter. The benefit of the OSINT quoted in the RSs like The Guardian or The Economist or the BBC is that the RSs lend credibility to the experts they're interviewing. Without that credibility this is just some bloke on twitter stating his opinion. 2A02:908:13B2:91C0:E96C:980D:5F4:22F (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

BBC Verify initial report

BBC Verify initial report

Relevant Quote:

"While there is no overall consensus, one said the fact that hospital buildings have not collapsed, some cars are undamaged and there is no visible deep crater suggests that this was not consistent with an Israeli air strike." 2A06:C701:4442:4F00:BA30:1EBD:A340:2588 (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Don´t bring every media article to the talk page. That short article merely says BBC is looking into it, nothing more. Bringing it to this loaded talk page seems borderline disruptive (presumably done in good faith, but not helpful). Jeppiz (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added it to the article; it's a better source than many we are currently using. BilledMammal (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

N12

According to News 12 Networks, News 12 cameras placed in Netivot proved that the explosion at al-Mamadi Hospital in the heart of Gaza City was caused by a failed launch of a rocket by the Islamic Jihad.

According to the documentation, you can see the launch site of the Islamic Jihad, from which several rockets were fired at Israeli cities and villeges at 18:59 ( israel's local time). One of the rockets can be seen falling on the hospital in the Gaza Strip - resulting in an explosion. https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/6361323ddea5a810/Article-ed733c15b124b81026.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802 here the journalist at arabic https://twitter.com/N12News/status/1714585332228702459 and english: https://twitter.com/N12News/status/1714582806007865366 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:120:3B69:3FBC:8EF6 (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove all new threads based on Twitter (X) from talk page

Lots of users, both IPs and registered users, keep starting numerous threads here based on a single tweet saying what they themselves want to believe. Could I suggest we hereby agree to just remove such new threads at sight? We will not make any changes to the article based merely on tweets in any case, and the impression starts to be that some users are abusing the talk page to push rumours. As per WP:DENY, WP:V and WP:NOTAFORUM, I suggest all new thread starts based on a tweet be removed. Jeppiz (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; any comment with the only source(s) being tweet(s) should be removed as not helpful. BilledMammal (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:TPO applies -- WP:TALKOFFTOPIC indicates removing any comments which are about the subject itself and not about improving the article, so anyone should just do this.—Alalch E. 10:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The tweet in question is a high ranking israeli official - a personal contact of Netanyahu - publicly bragging that the IDF committed the attack. A direct assumption of blame from Israel. A totally damning piece of evidence unless you need to believe otherwise. 2600:1008:B17E:3DC3:25D1:42D0:2339:B7A0 (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

IP, there is no "tweet in question". My suggestions refers to all different users bringing lots of different tweets just saying what they want to believe. It refers to all discussions referenced to a tweet, not discussions in reliable sources about a tweet. Jeppiz (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It just seems strange that Hananya Naftali, who is extremely close with Netanyahu, claimed Israeli responsibility for the massacre, but this isnt even mentioned in the article. 2600:1008:B17E:3DC3:25D1:42D0:2339:B7A0 (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes! Too much of "muh favorite obscure, unknown blogger who's totes an expert on all things war-related tweeted that..." -- Veggies (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on 18 October 2023

In the "Reactions" section, after the sentence beginning 'Biden stated that he was "outraged and deeply saddened...", please add the following:
'Biden subsequently said at a meeting with Netanyahu that, "based on what I've seen it appears as though it was done by the other team, not you"'.

References

2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:29E6:2B0:E677:2E30 (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. MarkiPoli (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian

@User:Hmbr, why did you remove The Guardian statement? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a good removal; these initial reactions are now WP:UNDUE and have been supplanted by sources that have done more in-depth analysis. BilledMammal (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

When you say "undue", you should represent both points and this is one point of view and it should be represented. The Guardian is a reputable reliable source and its pov should be represented for the article not to be UNDUE. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Read WP:UNDUE. It means something specific in Wikipedia. What you are talking about is WP:FALSEBALANCE. DeCausa (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly as DeCausa said. Also agree with BilledMammal and the point is relevant more generally as well. There were a lot of initial reactions yesterday, published in many reliable sources, that have since been supplanted. In many cases, the original stories remain available, but using them to push points the sources themselves no longer hold is not proper use of WP:RS. Jeppiz (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see, sorry for the confusion. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Good observation @BilledMammal. In addition the shift in terminology from 'attack' to 'explosion' across most news outlets, except Al Jazeera, is notable. For a more balanced representation, it would be prudent to replace the Al Jazeera source with one that aligns with the prevailing terminology. Marokwitz (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ: I see you re-added this, but without an edit summary explaining why; can you explain? BilledMammal (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

500 dead?

The 500+ death toll seems rather dubious - the damage doesn't look enough, see it here. I found a Sky news article vaguely saying the IDF "suggested this number was inflated" but is there maybe a better source for the dispute that I could add? Evercat (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I've just updated the Palestinian health ministry's latest estimates to 471 in the infobox, with a RS. Wikishovel (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Death count is still uncertain as the event is fairly recent, but seeing footage following the airstrike the number of deaths seems to be very high The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to add something like "disputed by IDF" if I can find a good source (Sky News will do I guess). Evercat (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I now found The Times of Israel quoting Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari as saying "They went as far as to inflate the number of casualties" - would anyone object to me using this to say that IDF disputes the figures? Evercat (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh we actually have the dispute mentioned in the opening section, so all that's really needed is to add something like "disputed by IDF" to the infobox. Would that be OK? Evercat (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• I added a sentence in the article (based on this existing citation [5]) that first public mentions of the hospital explosion were at 7:20pm local time. That appears to be UTC +3 time. I see a tweet from SkyNews at 8:35pm UTC +3 saying "At least 500 people killed in hospital bombing in Gaza, Palestinian officials claim."[6] Maybe there are earlier reports, I haven't pinpointed the minute the claim was first made, but this 500 deaths claim was made incredibly quickly. There would be no way to accurately assess the number of dead within 1-2 hours. Whatever the event cause is, is a tragedy. But Hamas also knows what the incredible power of making that death count toll so quickly would be. Obviously, our article should continue to cite the claim, as well as reliable sources as to its veracity as they develop.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2023 (3)

In the first paragraph sentence "which would make it one of the deadliest attacks on a hospital in decades", the word "attacks" should not be used as the exact cause of the explosion is yet to be determined. This is NPOV. Seffardim (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you suggest a reword? Evercat (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually the whole sentence should be deleted. The source does not say that the explosion is the deadliest in a hospital in decades, it says nothing about how the casualties compare with other hospital destructions. Please delete it. Seffardim (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If it was caused by a PIJ rocket which landed at an unintended location, it's still an attack. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It may confuse the readers, "attack" would mean that Israel fired the rocket and deliberately targeted the hospital. Seffardim (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It will become more clear how to phrase this as secondary sources cover the subject further. There also does not seem to be consensus for the change at the moment. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Who did it?

As more and more information comes in, there is more evedience supporting Israeli claims:

1. Videos showing the explosion occuring during amid rockets launch towards Israel (for example, this video captured by Israeli channel 12 news: [7])

2. The aftermath of the strike doesn't fit the aftermath of Israeli ariel srtike (IDF spokesperson, BBC Verify as stated in the article)

3. OSINT experts claims it is likely that the explosion was caused by a misfired rocket (Telegraph as stated in the article)

4. President Biden says American intelligence showes that Israel is not behind the explosion (CNN [8])

Right now there is no major evidence suppoting Hamas claims. Therefore, I suggest to put first in the article the Israeli claims and just than the Pelastinian ones. Yonathan33 (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I dunno - the order of the claims (i.e. who said what, when) is important for understanding the media debacle this has been. Evercat (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not in the article's body but at least in the infobox. Yonathan33 (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So obvious that Islamic Jihad did it by accident. The audio of the Hamas operatives who learned about it is enough proof for me. The fact that it landed in a parking lot (and certainly did not kill 500 civilians), and left no crater is just further evidence. Israeli strikes are precise and destructive, which this was not.

Also, Hamas accused Israel of bombing the hospital and killing 500 civilians fifteen minutes after the explosion occurred. It is IMPOSSIBLE to count 500 dead bodies, verify this claim, and report it in fifteen minutes. Humoring any evidence given by Hamas in this case is irresponsible and the media organizations who are perpetuating this obvious propagandistic lie are shameless. Do not stoop to their level, and use nuance and media literacy for this. Al Jazeera is unreliable. Sorry. They're a propaganda machine. I'd ban them as a resource if I had the power to do so here. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

BBC Verify said there was no consensus and they couldn't verify. The IDF audio is already being ripped to shreds on social for its badly faked accent, as well as other consistencies. There are still layers upon layers of disinformation surrounding this attack, and Biden speaking up for the Israeli narrative is not exactly revelatory. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Says an obvious pro-palestinian user. You better provide a source for the "badly faked accent". Who says so? Doubting the accuracy of provided IDF proofs seems somehow legitable. But doubting either the Biden regime or the Pentagon requires at least two things: the first, a lot of intelligence and the second is stupidity. I truly ask myself what's the right option in your case. Lilijuros (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera shouldn’t be used as a source going forward. Its reporting on this was very inaccurate and effectively Hamas propaganda. 2601:100:827F:6F0:3D73:BA3C:DBB6:C94E (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I just stated that above. Their journalist integrity has been destroyed, here. They cannot be used. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSPSOURCES already says Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. That is consistent with how they reported on this event. My advice is to make clear we are citing Al Jazeera when we must, and use a better source when we can. I don't think we can ignore them altogether because they are one of the few media organizations with boots on the ground. For example, they caught the explosion on camera during a live broadcast--as far as I know, no one else did.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence says "...caused an unprecedented number of deaths–more than any other single event in Gaza since", and the next sentence contradicts this: "The number of fatalities is still uncertain". As I understand this situation there hasn't been confirmation of even 1 death yet, let alone "more than any other single event in Gaza", so the first sentence in this article should be struck. 93.172.228.243 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Should be "caused an unknown number of deaths–if any." Seffardim (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

and why? Abo Yemen✉ 15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of details about US attribution, addition of details about "Alleged proof posted online by the Israeli government"

@Melofors: In this edit, with the edit summary "adding important detail to lede", you:

1. Added the statement Alleged proof posted online by the Israeli government was later deleted, after its timestamps were revealed to be incorrect
2. Removed the statement Pentagon intelligence supports the Israeli version
3. Removed the statement US president, Joe Biden revealed that Pentagon sources confirm Israeli claims
4. Removed the statement In a tweet Médecins Sans Frontières, which had doctors at the hospital, attributed the attack to Israel
5. Removed the statement US president, Joe Biden has affirmed that according to US intelligence, the strike probably resulted from an Islamic Jihad misfire, not an Israeli strike
6. Removed the statement Furthermore, Biden cited Pentagon sources in his support of the Israeli stance

For #1, the source says The Israeli government’s X/Twitter account later edited a tweet to remove what appeared to be video evidence of the strike after The New York Times noted the clip was recorded 40 minutes after the time of the Gaza hospital explosion. Further, I think the general inclusion of that sentence - let alone the prominence you have given it by placing it in the lede - is WP:UNDUE, given the body of evidence that is emerging.

For the rest, I think it may be appropriate to remove the #3 and #4 - we don't need to say twice in the lede that US intelligence support Israel's findings, and MSF is not a good source for this as they have no expertise in this area. However, the rest should have remained. BilledMammal (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I believe this was due to an edit conflict; I only intentioned for #1. Will fix. —  Melofors  TC 14:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Melofors: Thank you, but I think what you added for #1 goes both beyond what the source says (the source says nothing about "alleged proof" etc), and is WP:UNDUE for the lede. Can you explain why you disagree? BilledMammal (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I gave it a reword and added a source. I believe this detail is due weight as of now, as no expert evidence has been published as of yet. It is an important detail now, but of course is subject for removal as events unfold. —  Melofors  TC 15:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe this detail is due weight as of now, as no expert evidence has been published as of yet Sorry, can you explain? That doesn't quite follow?BilledMammal (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: This detail is given attention because, as no independent verification of the origin has been published, all "clues" are important, regardless of which side it is from—and this is clearly reflected by its inclusion in numerous reliable sources covering the event. This is not undue weight, it is a single sentence in a three-paragraph lede, reflecting what is expanded upon later in the article. —  Melofors  TC 15:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you repair it? Marokwitz (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz: All seem to have been sufficiently repaired. I apologize for the inconvenience. Please alert if anything else needs repair—edit conflicts seem to be occurring often. —  Melofors  TC 15:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

👍 Marokwitz (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Neither account of the origin has been verified by any independent source"

I think this is now out of date, with the US verifying Israel's account - I note that the source came out before the US did so. BilledMammal (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is now apparent that this horrific catastrophe was caused by friendly fire. Palestinians kill Palestinians.Exx8 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: The US government does not serve as an independent source, which should be an entity that is impartial and not directly involved in the conflict. I am not sure what you are referring to by I note that the source came out before the US did so. —  Melofors  TC 15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I’m not entirely sure if the US can be considered an independent source - what we mean is waiting for independent media sources to verify either account. The Kip 15:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Melofors and The Kip, what's the basis for this assumption? The US is independent, not a participant in the conflict, and they have no issue blaming allies if the intelligence supports it. See for example US intel officials saying Ukraine was likely responsible for an attack despite Ukrainian denial. DFlhb (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is an ally of Israel, it has taken a consistently pro-Israel position. The idea the country that pledges unwavering support for Israel would somehow be an independent source is silly. nableezy - 15:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the U.S. not an ally of Ukraine? DFlhb (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Not to the point of pledging undying support for them. And regardless, we include the US assessment, we just include it as the US assessment. Not as an arbiter of fact. nableezy - 16:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There are no "arbiters of facts" in the real world. Everything we know comes from somebody and we have to judge it based on evidence, not messenger. The fact is: only large bureaucracies like government and international agencies are reasonably capable of investigating ultra-complex issues like these. It's the same principle as plane crashes. Government and civil agencies investigate and release their findings with evidence. If an El Al flight crashed in the US and the FAA and FBI released detailed reports that included chemical analyses of bomb-residue on wreckage and concluded "This was foul play due to an in-flight explosive" would you roll your eyes and say "They would say that, they pledged their UNDYING support!" It's a bit silly. -- Veggies (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The US has staked out a maximalist support of Israel position on this conflict. To act like they are independent judges is what is a bit silly. I am treating their position as one that has considerable weight, per the sources discussing it, but as simply their position. What we always do is say who says what with due weight to each of those whos. nableezy - 17:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact is: only large bureaucracies like government and international agencies are reasonably capable of investigating ultra-complex issues like these. I don't think that's necessarily true, see Shireen Abu Akleh for example (also a good example of why we should only treat the US assessment as just an assessment and Israeli assertions as not necessarily reliable). Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we're disagreeing. Actually, that case rather deflates the above contention that the US and Israel are inextricably in ideological lockstep. However, one person being shot is not quite as complex as what happened to the hospital, which would necessitate an intricate knowledge of ballistics, SIGINT, airspace intelligence, radar intelligence, etc. to unravel. Also, Haaretz did a fairly good investigation themselves, which is a credit to the news organization, who some might think would toe the initial Israeli story. In any case, yes, the source needs to be attributed, however, no reasonable person could believe that Al-Jazeera conducted a conclusive investigation before they pronounced that Israel was guilty. -- Veggies (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, that case rather deflates the above contention that the US and Israel are inextricably in ideological lockstep I don't think that it does, the US procrastinated, blockaded and is still resisting calls for what they themselves said was necessary in the first place.

Agree with the AJ comment but only because it was their reporter and they were understandably upset IsGov is trying to shut them down in Israel, no surprise there. Anyway, this is drifting off topic. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

NYT:What We Know About the Explosion at the Hospital in Gaza

"Neither side’s claims about who was responsible had been independently verified. The death toll could not be independently confirmed, though video footage verified by The New York Times showed scores of bodies strewn across the hospital’s courtyard, suggesting the number of victims was high."

which is where we are at. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2023

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: WP:SNOW close. This is the third attempt in the last 24 hours to get the page moved to this title, despite consensus firmly being against it in the first RM. Drop the subject. (non-admin closure) The Kip 15:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion → Al-Ahli Arab Hospital massacre – according to these sources: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/doctors-without-borders-calls-attack-on-al-ahli-baptist-hospital-in-gaza-massacre/3023824 , https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-biden-rafah-e062825a375d9eb62e95509cab95b80c , https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-hospital-blast-deadliest-war-rcna120849 , and others Abo Yemen✉ 15:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe Jihad wanted to blow up the hospital. It was aimed at Israel. Massacre is an intentional crime.Exx8 (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes except that Israel are supposed to be the ones behind it Abo Yemen✉ 15:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel in the last day has been publishing many proofs that the shooting came from the strip. Are there any proofs that it was an Israeli airstrike? Exx8 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

SNOW Close (and salt) - This is the third time in less than 24 hours that someone has proposed this. And time is not making this prospect any more appealing with compelling evidence that it wasn't a deliberate targeting. -- Veggies (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

SNOW CLOSE and warn Abo Yemen about WP:ARBPIA rules. Opening yet another move discussion is just disruptive at this point. Jeppiz (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry what does "Snow close" mean? Exx8 (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Exx8: The proposal is so unlikely to pass that keeping it open would waste time. WP:SNOW:

"If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process."

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

all previous discussions were closed immediately and no rename tags were put in the main article Abo Yemen✉ 15:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Impossibly exaggerated casualty numbers

Now that many different reliable sources have published pictures of the hospital parking lot.. can the ludicrous death toll as indicated by Hamas please be removed from the article? There is literally only a baseball sized 'pothole' crater visible, along with a handful of burned out cars.

Clearly the 300-500 death toll is challenging the very laws of physics.

Frankly, this article is becoming an embarrassment to the Wikimedia Foundation. 2A02:A456:1FDA:1:30B4:37FF:3ACF:EC59 (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

2A02:A456:1FDA:1:30B4:37FF:3ACF:EC59, we don't do original research WP:OR. The article right now clearly states that the indicated toll is Gaza Health Ministry's claim. It also indicates in the lead the following: IDF spokesman Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari criticized media outlets for quickly disseminating what he termed as "unverified claims" by Hamas regarding the death toll: Hagari claimed that it was implausible for Hamas to accurately determine the casualty figures so swiftly after the incident. If you find any other more updated sources do share them — AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

We aren't doing original research!

We are challenging the claim of the death toll. Hamas jumped the gun and made a claim of 500 deaths less than fifteen minutes after the attack. This is ludicrous. THe media organziations that made articles on this reiterated their claim. Hamas is a first party source, and is thus not acceptable by Wikipedia standards. The event was a journalist mess, and many articles have changed the headline from "500 dead" to "hundreds dead," which is still ludicrous.

There is nothing that has been published about this so far that would actually be reliable because it it is too soon for anything reliable. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's doing original research if we make claims/accusations that aren't backed by reputable sources, such as the claimed death toll being "ludicrous."

As long as we stick a "(claimed by Hamas)" tag on the casualties, rather than report them as an objective number, we're doing exactly what we're supposed to. Wikipedia lists the facts of the situation, we don't sell the narrative pushed by either side without independent confirmation. If that makes the article an "embarassment," perhaps this isn't the right website for you. The Kip 16:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Obviously. There is so much wrong with this article. Can we wait until we have verified details and the full picture?

Everything here is propaganda! Literally!

The rocket landed in a parking lot. It caused a small fire and a few burned cars. This death toll is outrageous, absurd, and completely delusional 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is clearly stated in the article that the death toll is from the Gaza Health Ministry. Additionally, if you can provide sources saying the death toll was much lower, I'd be happy to add them. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

THere are no resources that claim there was a lower death toll! Nobody knows what the death toll is! It is too soon to jump to conclusions.

YOu can't just repeat the Gaza Health Ministry's claim and then clarify that's what they said, because then it appears that's fact. There is too much dispute between all the articles that have been cited here to make any claim for death tolls. This is not fair. This is extremely irresponsible! 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's literally what we do. Wikipedia takes material, like news articles, and summarizes it. It's not our responsibility to determine what's true or not. The reader is free to make their own assumptions on the reliability of the Gaza Health Ministry claim. We rely on verifiability, not truth (or whatever you believe is true). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. These claims are not verified. That's the literal problem here. There is no verifiability here. Look I'll be satisfied if the death toll is removed from the infobox. It has no place there. The headlines of the media organizations that originally made the 500 deaths claims for the most part have back down and removed the number from the headline. Most are just rolling with "hunderds" right now. THere is no verifiability in the death toll number. Please remove it. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

They are verified as being from the Gaza Health Ministry, so we report the total as "claimed by Gaza health ministry." Whether they're actually true or not is not up to us. The Kip 16:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

But the Gaza Health Ministry is first party. It is not acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines. They have not been verified by a third part source. It does not meet verifiability! 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

But their claim has been repeated by multiple third party sources. However, since it hasn't been verified, we attribute it to the Gaza health ministry. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

And these third parties have retracted! They have removed the number from the headlines! 69.249.102.223 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? The Kip 17:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Right now there is no number in the headline, and the "Key points" section mentions "an explosion at a Gaza City hospital on Tuesday night that health authorities said killed at least 300 people" rather than "over 500". Deinocheirus (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So is the IDF, and yet you're asserting their own claims as fact in your initial comment.

Attribution is not equivalent to endorsement, which again, is why we stick "claimed by [x]" on the death toll, perpetrator, etc, versus conducting OR and asserting it ourselves. The Kip 17:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the IDF. The IDF has made no claims about the death toll. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The rocket landed in a parking lot. It caused a small fire and a few burned cars.

This is solely sourced to the IDF. You're complaining about us posting Hamas' claims, clearly denoting it as a claim rather than fact, while at the same time seemingly asserting the IDF's claims as fact.

If you disagree with how we update articles, especially when the content is disputed, perhaps this isn't the site for you. The Kip 17:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is actually what is said in WSJ, quoitng an expert: Damage at Hospital Compound Inconsistent With Airstrike, Expert Says. Deinocheirus (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

And here is BBC: In a nearby car park lie the smouldering wrecks of more than a dozen cars... The surrounding buildings are also damaged, apparently pockmarked by shrapnel. But no large impact crater is visible. --Deinocheirus (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's also CNN - the article gives no body count because it is focusing on the fact that other media outlets have dueling claims.

At the top is a verified image of the impact site. It didn't even hit the hospital. It landed in a parking lot - it's super clear in this image. I'm dobtful it caused 471 deaths, but that's not why I'm requesting for that part to be removed.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/18/media/gaza-hospital-bombing-dueling-claims/index.html 69.249.102.223 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No. I am saying that there is no agreed consensus on the death toll as the sources keep saying something different. I am not basing this on any IDF claim. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No it didn't, according to the NYT, who say that The death toll could not be independently confirmed, though video footage verified by The New York Times showed scores of bodies strewn across the hospital’s courtyard, suggesting the number of victims was high. Loki (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Gazans have been camping in and around hospitals. If it was a giant campsite packed with people before the explosion, there's your people and also your prolonged fire = tents. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for Deletion

Due to the nature of this event, it is too soon to make an article about it. Everything in this article is based on allegation, and there is no definitive answer here. THis is an encyclopedia, not a news aggregate. There cannot be an encyclopedic understanding of the event when we don't even know the details of it.

Shame on everyone here for jumping the gun and echoing the misinformation reported online about this. Give a few days before making an article about it. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:AFDHOWTO and WP:DELAY and WP:RAPID for some materials relevant to your comment.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that even if there wasn't actually an explosion and no victims at all, the reactions this event have caused are enough for it to merit a Wikipedia article. There have been protests all over the world incited by this event, and comments from heads of state worldwide — AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Well the article needs to be cleansed. All the dubious, non-verified information that have not been confirmed needs to be removed until there is a consensus. such as the death toll.

I can't provide any articles, because there are none that would work, right now. This is enough for this to be a problematic article. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph about the conversation

for the paragraph: “ The IDF released a recording purporting to be an intercepted phone conversation between two Hamas operatives discussing a failed rocket attack by Islamic Jihad that landed on a Gaza hospital...”

I think it should move to the “responsibility” paragraph. By having it in the introduction, it creates a bias. And it seems that Arabic speakers online are finding holes in the recording. Of course we can’t cite un-published tweets (even if by Arabic-speaking journalists), but I think we should be safe and move this paragraph because it will likely be edited a lot over the coming days, with people going back and forth on if this is disinformation. Journalist: https://x.com/muhammadshehad2/status/1714608757081018686?s=46&t=5Pr4TVPNdylAEC9-O1__Rg Hovsepig (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That is fine by me. Evercat (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

RS pentagon confirmation

1 2 Also IDF released recordings of Hamas members regarding the misfire. Wether or not IDF or the pentagon are credible evidence, I think it's still should be included.3. Does seem like important information that should be mentioned. dov (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@דוב: Intercepted phone conversations are already mentioned in the article, if that's what you mean. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Revised death toll (per The Times of Israel)

The Times of Israel has stated that the Gazan Health Ministry has decreased the initial death toll, from over 500, to between 200 and 300: [9]. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This article provides more context, discussing the death toll dispute and a claim of 250 by Mohammed Abu Selmia, general director of the al-Shifa Hospital. —  Melofors  TC 17:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The death toll of anything over 100 is just propoganda. Looking at the pictures, the damage is minimal and no major buildings are down. PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 17:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree and wish we had a good source to point that out. Evercat (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

NYT:What We Know About the Explosion at the Hospital in Gaza

"Neither side’s claims about who was responsible had been independently verified. The death toll could not be independently confirmed, though video footage verified by The New York Times showed scores of bodies strewn across the hospital’s courtyard, suggesting the number of victims was high." Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Did this really kill 500? Just think about that for 2 seconds. This amount of damage is trivial. I can't wait for Western media to realize how misled they were by Palestinian propoganda in the next 24 hours. PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 18:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, and against what I previously said, it's reported that there may have been "1000" people sheltering in the "courtyard" (which seems to mean the car park) at the time. If true, hundreds of dead isn't impossible. Evercat (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a crappy Hamas rocket that misfired, killing a couple dozen and setting some cars on fire. All the media on both sides got it wrong. PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 18:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Unverified, on both counts. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I obviously don't know the actual death count, but looking at the videos and pictures of almost no bodies and no interior destruction, it's hard to see how more than 50 could've died. And the other 2 claims are true. It's been proven it's Hamas and videos show the main damage is to the cars in parking lot PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 18:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I keep saying the death toll needs to be removed. Every source is saying something different. There is nothing set in stone, here.

It's too early to list an official death toll, regardless of what the Irish Times reported the Gaza Health Ministry said yesterday.

It is absurd to keep it there. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Just for my interest, what would an "official death toll" be, exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

A death count from UNRWA or some other 3rd party source that is independent. And maybe Palestinian Health Ministry if they actually count the bodies and not just make up numbers. PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 18:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. As it stands, there is no consensus. Various sources are making different claims. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"... all current evidence points towards a failed rocket fired by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad"

I don't think this clause in the lede is an accurate summation of the article. None of us know what the evidence does or does not point to at this time - it's more accurate to say the US and some independent observers have supported the israeli contention.

Frankly, I think israel releasing "video of the attack" that was later revealed to be fabricated suggests israel's responsibility, and I think US intellegence doesn't exactly have a sterling record of reliability on these sorts of things, but maybe that's just me. Jhodders (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's speculation. On your end. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

While I normally dislike such kind of speculation on biased parties I think that given the early stage in the investigation and current lack of on-the-ground investigators, such a conclusory remark is not appropriate as of yet and I have thus removed it. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a real video of the attack and it comes from Al Jazeera. Here is the video, the BBC reported it. https://twitter.com/VerminusM/status/1714391008971042920 PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 18:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please link to the actual reporting, not a tweet? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera never posted an article. The video is from their video feed. https://x.com/yousuf_tw/status/1714367757968384106?s=20

Here is another angle showing the same thing

https://x.com/manniefabian/status/1714377828131553446?s=20 PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 18:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So you don't have a reliable source publishing the video and verifying the veracity of what is depicted. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel themsleves posted the video. I see no reason why it wouldn't be legit PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 18:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I would be concerned if a party to the conflict posts a video supporting their narrative - however the Wall Street Journal reports that they have verified the first video. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian also presents this video as verified. Deinocheirus (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2023 (4)

Suggest deleting this line: "Evan Hill, an OSINT investigator for the Washington Post, agreed that the initial evidence indicates a rocket misfire.[29]."

Footnote links to article in the Telegraph citing tweet by Hill that says a video shows a rocket intercept followed by an explosion at the hospital, not that a rocket misfire was responsible or that the intercept was responsible for the explosion. Hedgerowhedgehog (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

@Neutrality: This edit. Who says we can't use The EurAsian Times? Where's the WP:RSN discussion condemning it? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? The experts are real people - you can look them up. The 2018 source you noted was added subsequently to the rest of the material you removed along with it. I don't see why you couldn't have just partially removed that part. And you also removed an Al Jazeera (WP:RSP) piece that actually provides a proper explainer of the different narratives whizzing around. What gives with that? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Well, what evidence do you have that the "EurAsian Times" is a high-quality source? The burden to establish both reliability and due weight is on the proponent of the source. Neutrality^talk 18:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is better to use citations that are confirmed to be reliable by the Wikipedia community rather than those which have not had any discussion - I share some of your other comments/concerns though. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Cite experts directly, if they are experts. (There is one brief comment by one editor at RSP suggesting ET is not reliable but hard to know without a proper discussion). Idk why AJ would be removed, that is green at RSP. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RSPSOURCES, which says Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict.- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No surprise there, Israel supporters can't abide AJ (and say the same about Amnesty and anyone else that criticizes), why Israel is trying to close them down. It is still green however, presumed reliable. it is always open to editors to bring sources with a different POV if they don't like what Aj says. Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer not to rely on EurAsian Times (never heard of it until today–its Wikipedia article was deleted based on WP:N concerns and another editor called it "an extremely questionable source that seems to lift news or work from other sources without any attempt to vet them") for controversial claims like this.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)