Jump to content

Talk:Al-Shifa Hospital: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply
Line 482: Line 482:
::::::He is quoted in the below section. he said there were tunnels but did not say who built them. Newsweek says Israel built some tunnels and it seems logical that they would connect the underground spaces somehow. Hamas probably added some more but we need to look into this more. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::He is quoted in the below section. he said there were tunnels but did not say who built them. Newsweek says Israel built some tunnels and it seems logical that they would connect the underground spaces somehow. Hamas probably added some more but we need to look into this more. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Also, Hamas and the Gaza health ministry denied there were tunnels. [[User:Drsmoo|Drsmoo]] ([[User talk:Drsmoo|talk]]) 17:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Also, Hamas and the Gaza health ministry denied there were tunnels. [[User:Drsmoo|Drsmoo]] ([[User talk:Drsmoo|talk]]) 17:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Yeah. It seems like that's where the "goalposts are moving," no tunnels to unimportant tunnels or something. This article still has almost absurd anti-Israeli POV issues. [[User:Nogburt|Nogburt]] ([[User talk:Nogburt|talk]]) 14:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


== Photos of Israel built basement ==
== Photos of Israel built basement ==

Revision as of 14:03, 24 November 2023


Proper name of complex

As a note, the proper name of the hospital complex is actually 'dar al-shifaa", though obviously the common name is simply shifa. If proof is needed, I can take a picture of the plaque with the name at the administrative building next time I'm down there. Tarek (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use as bunker is alleged

I looked at the sources regarding the use of Shifa as a hamas/militant bunker. Here are the direct quotes from the two sources: "Senior Hamas officials in Gaza are hiding out in a "bunker" built by Israel, intelligence officials suspect" [1] and "Some Hamas leaders are believed to be hiding in bunkers underneath the largest hospital in the Gaza Strip, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials" [http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/hamas-leaders-believed-hunkered-underneath-gaza-hospital/]. This is obviously a politically charged topic, and I expect people to fall on the side of their politic. However, I think unless there are more reliable sources, at this point we should report it as the articles have: an allegation. Tarek (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Shifa Hospital. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of potentially subjective language in introduction

The use of the words "de facto headquarters" could be considered hyperbole, and should not be taken literally. The inclusion of this phrase in the original Washington Post article could be interpreted as an exaggeration of the presence of Hamas military personnel in the hospital, and overall, the use of this particular Washington Post article as an objective source of information is questionable (see the 'Controversies' subsection of the Washington Post Wikipedia article). Moreover, considering its subjectiveness, the inclusion of the phrase "de facto headquarters of Hamas" in the introduction of this Wikipedia article unnecessarily devalues the hospital's primary purpose of providing medical care. In order to maintain the objectivity of the article and avoid misleading readers, this phrase should be removed from the introduction. Stockrbonk (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is also already mentioned in the history section of the article, no need to have it in the lead The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with the complete removal. The lede should summarise the article and now it contains nothing about its use by Hamas. I'll try to make it more concise. Alaexis¿question? 20:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: This issue has been resolved. Stockrbonk (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with you and TGMoE on this. I don't think something that can't be confirmed to be empirically true should be in the summary because no further context is provided for the claim in this section and it can be misleading to readers. And, as you said, it undermines the crucial role the hospital plays in providing shelter and medical care to Palestinian refugees.
Alaexis claims that the lead should summarize the article, but there's nothing in the lead about other information included in the History section like the Israeli occupation in 1967 or the hospital's current role in the conflict. Only including information about Hamas in the lead and nothing else presents a biased and potentially misleading message.
Additionally, these statements are not cited properly in the lead, and citations need to be included next to this information. Wormparty (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not *claiming* that the lead should summarise the article, this is the policy. Feel free to add the summary of the history, including the occupation in 1967. I've added the citations. Alaexis¿question? 09:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your insertion is not NPOV, as you mentioned that its used by Hamas, but nothing else. You're right that policy asks us to summarize the article, but that doesn't mean "cherrypick certain facts from the article and summarize those while ignoring the rest".VR talk 15:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree. This is exactly what I meant in my comment about the summarization and why it may be misleading. I think you articulated this point better than I did. Wormparty (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“something that can't be confirmed to be empirically true” what specifically are you referring to? Drsmoo (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Stockrbonk said, claiming that the hospital is the "de facto headquarters of Hamas" is hyperbolic, and the Washington Post article from which this claim is taken cannot and should not be used as an objective source of information. What I really meant by "empirically true" was "objectively true" and "can be proven".
Because of this, I do take issue with the claims about Hamas included in the History section (particularly with how it is written), but my main concern is the lead. Wormparty (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“the Washington Post article from which this claim is taken cannot and should not be used as an objective source of information.”
It is, can, and should. Please research how reliable sources work on Wikipedia. The Washington Post has the highest level of reliability on Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean we should be quoting its phrasing in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem here is the page's undue emphasis on quite a lot of essentially claims/rumour about the presence of Hamas at the hospital. Only the Amnesty report is really worth reading into. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Claims from primary sources reported on in journalism and analysis from highly reliable secondary sources Drsmoo (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a couple of grammatical errors, but I think the format we have now is appropriate, and on par with most Wikipedia descriptions of other hospitals. Stockrbonk (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of me is still worried about the potential misuse of this article, though. The IDF has used the presence of Hamas personnel to justify attacks on medical facilities in the past, which makes some of the claims made in the "Use by Hamas" section of this article a little dodgy. Just how much of it can we trust? Of course, most Wikipedia articles follow the principle of each person being responsible for their own fact-checking, but it might be a good idea to mention where each source comes from with more clarity. Still, these claims deserve to be present in the article. Like I said before, I think the structure we have right now is appropriate, though it could use a little refining. Stockrbonk (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2023

Change "During the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, al-Shifa Hospital was overwhelmed with wounded and dying people, and was running short on fuel, beds, and medical supplies.[22]

On the 17th of October 2023, an explosion which was likely the result of an Islamic Jihad misfire damaged the hospital.[23][24] It has pushed the hospital beyond its capacity to treat wounded people and it is close to collapse.[25] The hospital is also housing thousands of displaced Palestinians seeking shelter from airstrikes during the war.[26] "

To "During the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, al-Shifa Hospital was overwhelmed with wounded and dying people, and was running short on fuel, beds, and medical supplies.[22]"

The 2nd paragraph needs to be removed as it has nothing to do with Al-Shifa hospital, but rather the Al-Ahli Hospital: المستشفى الأهلي العربي located ~3km from Al-Shifa. Jeromecort (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the second paragraph, it seems to be someone mixing up the hospitalsThe Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing use by Hamas for torture and command center as a discrete subject

I can’t see a rationale for removing the use of the facility by Hamas for torture and murder as a discrete subject. This it certainly not normal use of a hospital, or something that should be listed within normal history. Drsmoo (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal where precisely? You mean as a discrete section? The mentions are pretty scattered, and many of them a bit ropey - some are just Fatah accusations. The most concrete fragments are an HRW mention in 2006 and an AI mention in 2014. Overall, however, given the scattered nature of the mentions, the material is best contextualized within the conflicts to which they apply. The last mention was notably in 2014, so that's nearly a decade ago. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presence of Hamas fighters

Someone added "The medical staff are suffering from fear and terror, particularly of the Hamas fighters, who are in every corner of the hospital."

What is the context here? Are the Hamas fighters using the hospital to launch rockets? Are they there guarding certain patients (as across the world, certain patients are accompanied with police either because they need protection or because they are dangerous)? Are they there receiving treatment? Without context, its pointless to WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. If the intent here was to add this to make a point that Hamas uses this as a base, then that might be WP:OR.VR talk 16:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The context is provided in the source and the sentence. They were murdering alleged collaborators. Drsmoo (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most critically, this is first and foremost an article about a healthcare facility. If anything is missing in this article, it is details of the history of the building/organisation as a hospital, not its occasional, partial misuse. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Gaza Health Ministry press conference to the bottom of the article

The Gaza Health Ministry convened a press conference discussing the IDF's claims of the presence of a Hamas military base located beneath the hospital. Due to Wikipedia's blacklist, I'm unable to include a link to the conference here, but a live video of the conference was published by Al Jazeera and remains freely available on Youtube.

The conference appears to have been held in a crowded emergency unit of the Al-Shifa hospital. During the conference, Salama Marouf, the head of the government media office in Gaza, refuted the Israeli claims and presented plans for the hospital complex. Marouf accused the Israeli government of fabricating evidence in order to justify a strike on the hospital, where, according to Marouf, upwards of 40,000 civilians are taking shelter.

Since this article has been locked, I thought it might be useful to suggest updates to the article here. Stockrbonk (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead already says that Hamas denied these accusations and that one of the doctors said it's an excuse to target the hospital. Alaexis¿question? 12:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2023

Assertions made by the Israeli government during wartime are being printed as fact in the first paragraph. Using words such as "revealed" rather than claimed or asserted. Other organisations have refuted the allegations and these have not been cited at all. In example, Al Jazeera who has a media base in Gaza have refuted these allegations as has Hamas, who has only as much reason to lie as the Israeli government. The claim is not independently verified and should not be reported as fact.

https://news.sky.com/story/israel-accuses-hamas-of-commanding-attacks-from-inside-gaza-hospital-12994074 2A00:23C7:B680:F901:3413:57C8:FFC9:D303 (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't the the word "revealed" any more, so someone must have fixed it already. The lede also mentions the denial by Hamas and the claims are worded carefully and attributed. Alaexis¿question? 13:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123:, simpley change "revealed" to "claimed", because these are one-side narrative that is NOT proven, all claims are just stories that the biased media keep publishing, even the resource that is added is an israeili one, so where is nurality here? Mervat (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mervat: I'm not finding "revealed" anywhere in the article. Can you please clarify? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2023 (2)

"Evidence" in the first main paragraph needs citation. 2A00:23C7:B680:F901:3413:57C8:FFC9:D303 (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This wording is the result of the latest round of changes. I don't see this specific word in the sources, so maybe we could change it to "... was described as a refuge of Hamas leadership and Hamas headquarters." Alaexis¿question? 13:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence lists numerous events where this occurred, which each being a section of their own with the evidence cited there. It is not necessary to cite all the same evidence, as it is an opening summary sentence of the greater detail to follow. Pilotjc (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israel releases videos of captured Hamas fighters admitting that they have a hideout under Al-Shifa Hospital

Source, which includes the videos of said admissions: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/in-interrogation-video-hamas-fighters-confirm-terror-groups-hideout-under-gaza-hospital/

This should be added to the article, as part of Israel's claims that Hamas has a command center beneath the hospital. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have an obligation, as a free and objective encyclopedia, to present the evidence to the claims made by all sides in the conflict. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there are too many dismissals in this article of Hamas's control and usage of the hospital as a human shield. Such as using Dr. Ghassan Abu-Sittah's statements as suggested fact and a neutral humanitarian party, when he is a career-long supporter of Palestine. Pilotjc (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, Israel has spread fake news about Gaza basically every day for the last one month. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Object to adding these claims as confirmed details. The sourse added (up mentioned) is an israeli resource that is biased, and not neutral. moreover, nothing has really been proven to be true, all are fake news and many professionals refuted the fake news and videos that israeli's published. Mervat (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2023

Change citation 22 source to: https://news.sky.com/story/israel-accuses-hamas-of-commanding-attacks-from-inside-gaza-hospital-12994074 Jako81624 (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done. Pabsoluterince (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"de facto headquarters"

Alaexis, the Washington Post said "which has become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices." Please correct the source misrepresentation you returned. nableezy - 17:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now we are saying "During and since the 2014 Gaza War The Washington Post called it "the de facto headquarters" of Hamas." when that is simply untrue. nableezy - 19:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the problem, I'm happy to use the wording used by the source, or even a direct quote. Alaexis¿question? 21:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what I did in the body. Im not sure why a report on some leaders being at al-Shifaa in 2014 belongs in the lead of the article now though. nableezy - 21:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's quite notable for a hospital to be described as a headquarters of a militant group. I've fixed the wording in the lede. Alaexis¿question? 21:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true it would be more than one line in one news article in 2014. How are you giving one line in a news article from 9 years ago that much weight? You also have not fixed the quote. nableezy - 22:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
just seeing this now, but per my other edit to this talk, I concur with nableezy. The lead is now deliberately slanted editorializing. Also the context for the hq comment was surely the PA seeming to lose power locally to Hamas, with the PA minister being turned away on his way to the hospital. Was it then previously PA hq? :) A very fluid temporal situation which is hard to justify having in the lead. 78.18.95.194 (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say “during and since” in the source? Has another source called it a de facto headquarters? Also note the difference been “a” and “the”. Also please don’t use scare quotes around collaborators. Alleged collaborators is sufficient. Drsmoo (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. nableezy - 01:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are plenty of sources that support the de facto Hamas headquarters point. I'm not sure why there is such opposition to a neutral (non effectively pro-Hamas) POV in this article. Nogburt (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ive again removed this line from the lead as having UNDUE weight, but it remains in the section on misuse, just properly quoted so as not to appear that WaPo supports something they do not. nableezy - 02:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As explained here[2], the who "de-facto" headquarters is problematic. The WaPo article doesn't cite any sources for its claim and doesn't give much reason either besides that unspecified Hamas leaders were spotted at the hospital. Its claims are WP:EXCEPTIONAL and would be more widely reported if they were true.VR talk 03:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exceptional, covered by multiple reliable sources. Please read up on reliable and secondary sources Drsmoo (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is absolutely WP:EXCEPTIONAL because there is no agreement among RS on where Hamas' headquarters are, whether they are even inside Gaza (some say they are in Qatar[3]). The Economist recently published that Hamas' headquarters are in Gaza City Center[4]. Even in 2014, other sources were speculating if Hamas headquarters were actually in Turkey[5].
    Secondly, there are not multiple sources, only sources that simply reprint each other, or sources that don't cite any sources at all. We don't blindly quote RS as RS too can sometimes make mistake. And WP:DUE-ness (which is required if you want this in the lead) is established only with high-quality scholarship.VR talk 04:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Differences between sources is why we present both sides. But no, it’s not exceptional. Those links have no bearing on Shifa hospital, and the contention that they do is Original Research. Please research how reliable sources and secondary (preferred) sources work on Wikipedia, along with WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT Drsmoo (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm flabbergasted. If tomorrow a source claims the capital of UK is Manchester, we need to only show them other sources that say capital of UK is London to show that the claim is quite WP:EXCEPTIONAL. We don't need a source to directly say "no the capital of UK is not Manchester".VR talk 05:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I don’t see the relevance of your example, and none of the criteria for WP:Exceptional apply here. Drsmoo (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that Hamas' headquarters is at Al-Shifa is contradicted by many sources above, which argue that Hamas' headquarters is somewhere else.VR talk 06:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another issue is that none of the sources you've quoted so far give any references or indicate how they know Al-Shifa is Hamas' headquarters. Policy says "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint". Yet the authors you cite simply mention Al-Shifa in passing. By contrast you have Mads Gilbert who was a doctor who worked at Shifa Hospital for a long period, and has published several[6][7] peer-reviewed articles dedicated entirely to the hospital refuting claims of military usage of the hospital. The quality of the source, with respect to the exact subject matter at hand, matters. The sources you present may certainly be experts in their relevant field, but we have no indication how they'd know anything about Shifa.VR talk 10:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. No offense, but it doesn’t seem you’re familiar with how that works on Wikipedia. Secondary sources like Washington Post, Lawfare, and Amnesty are MORE trustworthy and reliable than primary sources. Not going to argue one of the pillars of wikipolicy. Please read WP:PST for clarification. Drsmoo (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like an overly technical argument. It seems like most every source heavily relies on either the IDF or Hamas. These arguments could be made as to a lot of the content of this article but seem to be advanced only against a single POV. Nogburt (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drsmoo: please respect WP:BRD. You boldly added this info to the lead on Oct 9[8] Prior to that the WP:STABLE version of the article didn't contain this in the lead. It has since been subject of edit-warring by multiple parties[9][10] etc (including by you[11]). As this discussion shows and as the RfC below shows, consensus has not yet been reached on whether this should be in the lead or not. Please respect that process.VR talk 04:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

amnesty report

Zanahary this is a change completely unsupported by the cited source, kindly self-revert. Drsmoo, the AI report is discussing violence against alleged collaborators with Israel, why did you change that to their Palestinian opposition? The AI report never says anything about the violence being directed against Hamas' Palestinian opposition. nableezy - 18:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you not just revert me? Zanahary (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is a 1RR in this topic area, and because I like to assume users will do the right thing when errors are brought to their attention rather than just revert them. nableezy - 18:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You got an attitude for no reason. Zanahary (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA. Are you not going to correct your source misrepresentation? nableezy - 18:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a misrepresentation. The accused collaborators are Palestinians who allegedly worked against Hamas. Sounds like alleged Palestinian resistance. It’s important to note that these detainees are Palestinians, as AI explicitly makes clear in their 5/27/2015 news item about the revelation. Report also names Fatah and PA. Zanahary (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And later the article says:
” Amnesty International documented how the Hamas forces used the abandoned areas of the hospital to abduct, torture, and kill members of their Palestinian opposition under an operation codenamed “Strangling Necks””
is this not true? Because the change I made just reflects that. Zanahary (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not true, that is the change Drsmoo made that the Amnesty report does not support. The Amnesty report is about torturing and killing people Hamas accused of collaborating with Israel during the 2014 war. nableezy - 18:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, Palestinians who resisted Hamas? Zanahary (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel during a war. Please dont substitute your judgment for the sources. That is what Amnesty reported. nableezy - 18:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NableezyI did not make that change intentionally, I simply rolled back that section. When I originally wrote it, I think I wrote “alleged collaborators” And I agree that’s what it should say. Drsmoo (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind restoring it? nableezy - 19:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m under 1RR as well Drsmoo (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would have been a self-revert for you though, but its been corrected regardless. nableezy - 01:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lead edits

User Alaexis constantly edits the lead against consensus [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] All of these edits have been reverted by multiple editors. None of them have had wording proposed on the talk page. The editor’s edit summary often justifies reverts by instructing editors to use the talk page, yet here and here are two talk page discussions with no consensus for these edits. The editor’s edit summaries are sometimes factually mistaken. The editor has demonstrated incompetence, letting stand an egregious unsourced mangling of a source that is their main point of interest.[19] (“During and since”, “the de facto hq” etc.) This misinformation was the lead of the article for more than 24 hours. (This period was when I first encountered the article.)

It’s not acceptable to simply keep coming back to the article every couple of days and hope your edits stand this time.

I propose user Alaexis use talk and stop editing the lead entirely. 78.19.232.73 (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are based on the WP policies and I obviously I've been using the talk page to discuss contentious issues. Please note that WP:NPA is also a policy, so please refrain from personal attacks. At this stage I believe that we need outside feedback to resolve this. Alaexis¿question? 19:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Critiques of your editing are not personal attacks. They are verifiable. 78.19.232.73 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your rfc should link previous discussions on the topic. 78.19.232.73 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These concerns about editing behavior belong at WP:AE, not this talk page. However, as an IP editor, you do not have sufficient standing to raise concerns about editors relating to Israel/Palestine per WP:ARBPIA’s extended-confirmed restriction for edits and project discussions relating to the conflict signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: summary of Hamas activity in Al-Shifa hospital

How should we mention past Hamas presence in the hospital in the lede?

Option 1: Senior members of Hamas were seen in the hospital and Israel has accused Hamas of using the hospital to shield it from attack (like here)

Option 2: Israel has accused Hamas of using the hospital to shield it from attack, ... (like here)

Option 3: Other, please propose another wording that summarises the section Accusations of misuse by Hamas.

For the avoidance of doubt, this RfC is only about the first sentence of the paragraph. Alaexis¿question? 19:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Option 4 (see below) or Option 1. Several non-Israeli reliable sources mention the presence of senior Hamas militants in the hospital during the previous conflicts, so saying that it's only an Israeli claim would mislead the reader.
  • The Guardian (2023), Guardian journalists in 2014 encountered armed men inside one hospital, and sightings of senior Hamas leaders inside the Shifa hospital have been documented.
  • Washington Post (2014), At the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, crowds gathered to throw shoes and eggs at the Palestinian Authority’s health minister, who represents the crumbling “unity government” in the West Bank city of Ramallah. The minister was turned away before he reached the hospital, which has become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices.
  • PBS (2009) WIDE ANGLE reached a doctor in Gaza who believes Hamas officials are hiding either in the basement or in a separate underground area underneath the hospital and said that they moved there recently because other locations have been destroyed by Israel— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaexis (talk • contribs)
  • Option 2 - sure, there are sources that say in 2014 senior Hamas members were seen at al-Shifa and there is one source that says it had become "a [not the] de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders", but this isnt an article on al-Shifa during the 2014 war. What has been true for a period of time to make note of in the lead are the accusations by Israel that Hamas has used al-Shifa to shield it from attack. But does that mean we should include that some leaders were seen at the hospital 9 years ago in the lead of the article? Of course not, and it is an absurd WEIGHT violation to do so. We dont include the multiple times the area around the hospital has been bombed (including today when an ambulance outside was hit by an Israeli missile Reuters report). But we should include one sentence from an article 9 years ago in the lead? How does that make any sense, how is that a proper summary of the accusations? nableezy - 19:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 per Nableezy, it is a serious WEIGHT violation to include in the lead activity that was observed at the hospital nine years ago. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2: Dated claims should not be given undue prominence and featured (suddenly undated) in the lead in wikivoice. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2: is concise and accurate. Option 1 would only be acceptable WEIGHT-wise if the, relatively limited, and clearly dated context were expanded and attributed fully. The Gdn source is simply documenting that earlier accounts exist, it endorses nothing in itself. Pincrete (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback, could you suggest specific wording? Alaexis¿question? 12:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4. The current two sentences that are in the article, plus add a sentence about the hospital being a Hamas headquarters during the 2014 conflict, since The Washington Post is a very reliable source and this is an important piece of information. Israel has accused Hamas of using the hospital to shield it from attack,[3][4] and human rights organization Amnesty International accused Hamas of using areas of the hospital grounds in 2014 to interrogate, torture and execute Palestinians accused of having collaborated with Israel.[5] Hamas, along with al-Shifa's medical leadership, have denied the claims, but captured Hamas militants have supported them.[6] In 2014, the Washington Post stated that the hospital was a "de facto headquarters" for Hamas.[20] These three lead sentences are a decent and proportional summary of the article body. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That nine years ago WaPO said something, will not make us use this old allegation in this article. Btw, WaPo is not the best source in the world for adding such a challenging claim. --Mhhossein talk 20:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4, per Novem Linguae. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 is the best—essential info included and dated. Zanahary (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 Detailing current Israeli accusations of Hamas activity in the lead is more relevant than 10-year-old reports of same, taking up a quarter or more of the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 is the best—essential info included and dated. Parham wiki (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 as provided by Novem Linguae is the most sensible option that satisfies WP:BALASP. I don't accept Nableezy's point about WEIGHT being an issue in this case. The subject's notability is heavily tied to the discussion of use/abuse by Hamas, and that is precisely what is reflected in the article body. In fact, the inverse is true: diminishing the significance of the allegations by excluding their substance from the lead would be an egregious WP:WEIGHT violation. AlexEng(TALK) 23:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The subjects notability comes from it being the largest hospital in Gaza - this page would not exist were it not that. As the largest hospital in Gaza it has been the long-running target of allegations of misuse for obvious political and military reasons. Take it from Mads Gilbert, the Norwegian doctor who's actually worked at the hospital for 16 years. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's surely relevant, but a large proportion of the RS coverage regarding this hospital is about use/abuse by Hamas and activity during the various periods of conflict. There's more than enough of such coverage to meet GNG, even if the hospital were not the largest in Gaza. If you feel that such coverage is granted undue weight, then that's a problem that requires attention beyond the scope of this RfC. The lead should summarize the article per WP:LEAD. AlexEng(TALK) 07:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Old stories have less weight, certainly not enough for the proposed size in the lead. Just UNDUE, I can't even see how that is arguable. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and summarizing doesn't mean repeating individual factoids. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 is preferable I think, although you should include some content in reference to evidence submited. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose Option 4 and any other option that wants to put the Washington Post alleged "defacto headquarters" thing in the lead. That violates policy for many reasons:
    • First it makes the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that Al-Shifa are the Hamas headquarters. If this was true, we'd find more than one source in the world calling them the headquarters. In fact, there is no agreement among RS on where Hamas' headquarters are, whether they are even inside Gaza (some say they are in Qatar[20]). The Economist recently published that Hamas' headquarters are in Gaza City Center[21]. Even in 2014, other sources were speculating if Hamas headquarters were actually in Turkey[22].
    • Second, the article cites absolutely no sources for its claim. Literally the only piece of evidence it cites is "Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices", without actually citing which Hamas leader was there. For example, was the Hamas director-general of Gaza Health Ministry working out of the hospital? That would be very different than a militant leader working out of the hospital. And in 2014, it was reported[23] that Hamas leader Haniyeh's father went to Al-Shifa to visit wounded patients. Unfortunately that article doesn't give any context at all to a Hamas leaders being seen in the hospital hallway.
    • Third, did the WaPo author actually visit the hospital or was he told about the above claims by someone else? If so, who? Also troubling is that the WaPo author, William Booth, had been previously accused of plagiarism.[24] By contrast, the WaPo's claims are contradicted by Mads Gilbert who worked extensively at Al-Shifa during this period and published the internal workings of the hospital in detail.[25] VR talk 03:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your first argument, the WP doesn't say it was *the* headquarters. Personally I'm not insisting on using this word in the lede, by the way, but it seems like Option 4 is preferred to my Option 1.
    The second argument is irrelevant. We are saying exactly what a RS has reported.
    As to the evidence, there could be many reasons for the WP not to uncover its sources, for example not to endanger them. There is no reason to trust Mads Gilbert more here as it would've been decidedly unwise on his part to criticise Hamas while being in Gaza. Alaexis¿question? 08:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is relevant in the weight given to the isolated claims of a single RS. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 As the most neutral and in line with reliable sources. For another source, Lawfare by Orde Kittrie p.306 Drsmoo (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does he actually cite a source? It is highly improbable that he visited the hospital himself.VR talk 04:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

A few editors have said that the presence of Hamas in the hospital in 2014 should not be mentioned in the lede because it was 10 years ago. This is a legitimate argument, however you can't use it selectively. Now ([26]) most of the second paragraph deals with the events in the hospital during the 2014 conflict, including Gilbert and Fosse's interviews from 2015.

So we should either remove all the details about the 2014 events from the lede or mention the Hamas presence, something that was reported not just by Israeli sources. Alaexis¿question? 09:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert has been reported again on 3 Nov, 8 Nov and 10 Nov. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Amnesty International for activity at the AL-Shifa hospital

The article doesn't adequately cite the claim that Amnesty International has confirmed torture at the hospital. I do not have editing privileges, so another Wikipedia editor needs to add an archived version of this link from Amnesty International's website to the first section of the article.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/ 47.145.107.214 (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right, the present sources (Gdn and ToI) don't support the Amnesty claims, so I have used your link - although we generally prefer a secondary source (ie an account of what Amnesty reported). Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think AI is secondary, their report is the secondary source for what occurred. Sorry about the mixup of using the summary and not the actual report when I made that edit, my bad. nableezy - 18:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Things in historical context

I disagree with this re-arrangement[27] by nableezy. Previously, the allegations of Hamas misconduct were made in their own respective historical sections. And that's how it should be. Hamas roaming around killing alleged collaborators in the hospital is very different from (allegedly) launching rockets from the hospital. Likewise, Mad Gilbert's denial should also be in its proper historical section. Gilbert worked extensively during the 2014 war, but AFAIK is not currently at the hospital. I'm restoring the longstanding version in which the allegations were made in their respective historical sections.VR talk 02:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the chronological approach, and not having dedicated section. Per WP:CRITS it is best to avoid dedicated criticism sections (which is essentially the risk here) in favour of contextualising information. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Finkelstein's claims on the matter

Norman Finkelstein seems to make two claims about this matter in his book wrote in his book Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom, University of California Press:

  • Professor Sara Roy "consulted a clutch of her own Gaza-based sources, whose personal and professional integrity she attested to. The consensus among them was that although rockets had been fired in the vicinity of al-Shifa (but not from hospital grounds), it was highly improbable that Hamas made military use of the hospital building."
  • That the IDF itself did not accuse Hamas of using the hospital for anything more serious than "security service interrogations", at least not in its official postmortem of the conflict.
  • Criticizes Amnesty report on Shifa hospital for being one-sided and not taking contrarian reports into account.

VR talk 04:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some serious scholarly secondary sources is the most obvious means of escape from the circular discussions that are currently being had about the largely dated news sources that presently exist on page. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

""The hospital underwent a major Israeli renovation in the 1980s as part of a showcase project to improve the living conditions of Gaza residents"?

during the period of 1965-1980 Israeli government renovated and modernized the facility few times (1969, 1972, 1982, 1989). Both Israeli and Gaza medicine staff were employed there during this period. But instead of writing about the improvement of medical treatment, you decided to take one side: "showcase project". Like the fact that the renovations saved lives and improved the health is some "show".

Also, "When Israel occupied Gaza in the 1967 Six-Day War, the entire Egyptian administration and staff in the hospital were taken prisoner" missing some crucial info: the hospital used was used by Egyptian military during the war. 192.114.1.66 (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updates To History of Hospital

There is a lot of good content on the Yediot website about the expansion of the hospital, it's takeover following the surrender of Egyptian forces etc. https://www.ynet.co.il/architecture/article/syyihpw76

Article though is protected. Is someone able to translate and expand a bit more on the history of the building, departments etc.? SpeechFreedom (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some more content here too.
https://xnet.ynet.co.il/xo/articles/0,7340,L-3106522,00.html?utm_source=Taboola_internal&utm_medium=organic SpeechFreedom (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation about "destroyed solar panels".

Currently, a paragraph in the article claims that "On 6 November, Israeli forces struck and destroyed the solar panels atop of Al-Shifa Hospital, leaving the facility totally reliant on back-up generators powered by rapidly dwindling fuel supplies." and gives an Al Jazeera article as source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/6/israeli-forces-target-solar-panels-at-gazas-al-shifa-hospital. This is presented as fact--however, in the same article the IDF Chief of Staff denies that they targeted these panels. There has also been no verification of this claim by an independent third party. I suggest changing the wording of this paragraph. Learnedtortoise (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Al Jazeera reporter that reported this is an independent third party. It also comes in the context of multiple strikes on solar panels across Gaza. The IDF Chief of Staff is a belligerent and can in no way be trusted in the context. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. The Al Jazeera reporter did not perform verification. They are also clearly not an "independent third party". Learnedtortoise (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "The IDF Chief of Staff is a belligerent and can in no way be trusted in the context." is not an argument. Wikipedia strives to be neutral. The IDF's side should be included. Learnedtortoise (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Gershon Tzapor and Benjamin Edelson"

When I currently google shifa hospital Gershon Tzapor and Benjamin Edelson only this wikipedia article shows up. In fact, I also can't find anything when I google Gershon Tzapor architect. Maybe the spelling given in this article is unconventional? If these two architects expanded the hospital, there should be more sources.VR talk 04:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

Per TeleSur, the Al-Shifa hospital courtyard was bombed yesterday by Israel, allegedly with the use of the AGM-1114 R9X Hellfire missile, killing six Palestinians and wounding six more.

Link:

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Israel-Bombs-Hospitals-in-Gaza-20231110-0001.html

Archived link: https://web.archive.org/web/20231110131814/https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Israel-Bombs-Hospitals-in-Gaza-20231110-0001.html RavioliChamp (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you perhaps have other sources? TeleSur seems quite biased in this war, all their articles support one side in one way or another 78.157.164.59 (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong picture

The picture used in the article is of Dar Al-Shifa hospital in Kuwait, not Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza.

The media entry clearly calls it “Dar Al-Shifa Hospital” which is a different name.

The picture is unfortunately linked to erroneously in several Wikipedia pages in several languages & is now being used in news accounts when referring to the hospital in Gaza. Ahmad Alhashemi (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmadH: you are correct[28]. I'll remove it.VR talk 17:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Al-Shifa Hospital

There's a page called Draft:Siege of Al-Shifa Hospital that talk page watchers may be interested in. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas military use is disputed

I added the sentence to the lead before all the claims and counter-claims: "Whether Hamas has militarily used the hospital is disputed". To me, this summarizes the paragraph, and further it avoids the question on whose side should we present first? This was we are giving reader an accurate one sentence summary of the dispute before jumping into the details. Yet this was removed.

There are enough sources in the article to show that this is disputed.VR talk 04:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Drsmoo (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Israeli POV Issues

This article seems to suffer from pervasive Anti-Israeli POV Issues. A look at the talk pages and a lot of edits seems to show that efforts at presenting a more neutral POV are being repeatedly suppressed. Much of what's going on now ultimately goes back to either the IDF or Hamas. In particular, if the same level of scrutiny were applied to similar claims of both sides, this article would either look much different or would be gutted of most conflict related content.

The alleged use of Al Shifa as a military base is extremely notable. Most folks looking at this article today are probably just looking for it in relation to its involvement in the conflicts there. So the military base stuff belongs in the opening paragraph. A POV flag is also appropriate. Nogburt (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article also has contested statements presented as fact, even misrepresenting the source material (see the 'Disinformation about "destroyed solar panels"' topic above). Learnedtortoise (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I’ve never seen an argument that we can’t use Washington Post, or numerous other reliable sources, BECAUSE they’re secondary sources Drsmoo (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sara[h] Roy

The reference to “Professor Sarah Roy” should probably be “Professor Sara Roy”. 2001:4644:13BE:0:BA2E:EDEF:EEC1:10F2 (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 17:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Intelligence + Command Center built over 16 years

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/12/world/middleeast/gaza-hospitals-shifa.html

“The militants, Israeli security officials say, have spent the better part of 16 years building a vast command complex under the hospital, and setting up similar bases underneath other medical facilities in the enclave. American officials agree, citing their own intelligence.”

…

“American officials, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose sensitive intelligence, said they are confident that Hamas has used tunnel networks under hospitals, in particular Al Shifa, for command and control areas as well as for weapons storage. The practice by Hamas has been longstanding, they said, adding that the United States and Israel have independently developed intelligence about Hamas’ use of the tunnel network under Al Shifa Hospital.” Drsmoo (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Key detail: "None of it provides conclusive proof that a sprawling complex exists under Al Shifa." Iskandar323 (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution is fine Drsmoo (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it with attribution. Alaexis¿question? 09:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CNN saying similar Sounds very vague, unnamed officials, etc etc. An "official" leak, methinks. Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Include Israel's history of spreading fake news about Gaza's hospitals?

Israel destroyed a hospital in 2014 and then published fake audio and misrepresented evidence to justify the deed: https://truthout.org/articles/israels-video-justifying-destruction-of-a-hospital-was-from-2009/ Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best not, just stick to Al-Shifa, there is plenty of it going around right now, someone or everybody is lying. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

This revert reintroduces an Easter egg with no basis in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

This edit introduces unneeded duplication by an editor who hasn't taken the trouble to read the article, which now reads as follows: (someone fix this please, I used my 1 revert already).

On 3 November, amid the 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, an Israeli airstrike hit an ambulance convoy, which Israel claimed was being used to transport Hamas fighters and weapons.[1] resulting in dozens of wounded and several deaths. According to Israel, the ambulances were being used to transport Hamas fighters and weapons, a charge Hamas denied.[2] Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Alaexis¿question? 21:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Flower, Tara John, Kevin (2023-11-03). "Israel admits airstrike on ambulance near hospital that witnesses say killed and wounded dozens". CNN. Retrieved 2023-11-14. "A number of Hamas terrorist operatives were killed in the strike… We have information which demonstrates that Hamas' method of operation is to transfer terror operatives and weapons in ambulances," the statement said.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Flower, Tara John, Kevin (3 November 2023). "Israel admits airstrike on ambulance near hospital that witnesses say killed and wounded dozens". CNN. Retrieved 4 November 2023.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2023

According to Hamas appointed Gaza officials, the ambulances were transporting critical injured patients from the hospital to the Rafah crossing with Egypt.[52] TomMichaelColeman (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Source refers to them as Gaza officials, so should we. Pabsoluterince (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page incorrectly says the US National Security adviser confirmed its use by Hamas

He did not quite confirm in the CNN source cited any particular hospital was used: 

 “You can see even from open-source reporting that Hamas does use hospitals, along with a lot of other civilian facilities, for command-and-control, for storing weapons, for housing its fighters,” National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said on CNN’s State of the Union. “Without getting into this specific hospital or that specific claim, this is Hamas’ track record, both historically and in this conflict.” 2A02:2F0C:7006:D200:5850:8B6E:D6:F25 (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


On the other hand 

 National Security spokesman John Kirby said the group stored arms there and were prepared for an Israeli attack.

 This is the first time the US has independently backed claims by close ally Israel that Hamas uses hospitals to hide its bases. Hamas denies this.

 Previously the US administration had only cited open-source intelligence and would not confirm that it had its own sources for this.

 "Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad members operate a command and control node from Al-Shifa in Gaza City," he said.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0C:7006:D200:5850:8B6E:D6:F25 (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent BBC article. Note that that's a different person and job title though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0C:7006:D200:5850:8B6E:D6:F25 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2023 (2)

Remove line including citation [11] [12] citing Ynet. Delivery of incubators and formula by the IDF during siege of the Hospital has been denied by staff at Al-Shifa and is likely Israeli propaganda. 216.165.127.65 (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source for the denial? I have seen the picture of an Israeli soldier standing next to a bunch of boxes (with English labels on them) and Reuters confirmed that the location of that ("medical supplies" and "baby food") was within Al-Shifa. The incubators don't make a lot of sense though, the hospital has incubators, just no fuel/oxygen to use them, so the babies had to be removed from them. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implication of citing US Officials beside conflicting claims

Seriously, we need to talk about quoting US officials immediately after sentences on claims from IDF vs. Hamas vs. Hospital-Staff etc. Sure, it's technically just quoting officials with open declaration as to who they are but it very, very strongly implies that they are some neutral third party to help the reader contextualize or verify conflicting claims and allegations to some degree.

Not only has there been mounting talk for years across the world of the US increasingly not being seen as a neutral arbiter in the conflict, in this case, we have ample and outright insistent claims, in words and in deeds, from US leadership itself that they are fully behind Israel. They've been beyond emphatic about it.

Seriously, this should not be controversial. Citing the US like this is deeply, deeply problematic; not just here but across all the articles on these latest hostilities. How can this problem be addressed? Are there any guidelines? Nandofan (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIASED sources require in-text attribution. But we would typically use them to "[support] information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."[29] What we need to know is whether the consensus is that US intelligence, or other US officials' statements are biased in the context of Israel and this war. If that is the case, then by including both we would be creating an unbalanced article, with 2 statements pro-Israel vs 1 anti-Israel (to simplify the sides). In that case it should also not be used to substantiate the different claims, given, to WP:SUBSTANTIATE we give only "those details that actually are factual." I think a RFC could be used to solve this, or a general discussion. Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2023

Mark or remove questionable source [24] for recent addition regarding an alleged bunker built in 1983.

> In particular, in 1983, the Israelis built "a secure underground operating room and tunnel network" beneath Building 2 of the hospital.[24]


The only source is an article form Tablet Magazine. The article does not provide any sources for this claim. Moreover, Tablet magazine has a history of being controversial and biased. Considering the current political climate it would be irresponsible to leave it as this. I suggest removing it until a reliable source is provided, or at least marking this as an unreliable source. SiljeNormann (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biased does not mean unreliable. Here Newsweek says that Multiple sources have corroborated that a bunker or basement was built at Israel's discretion in the 1980s. Why do you doubt this? Are there RS that contradict any of these claims (that the underground structure exists, that it was built by the Israelis in 1982, and that it contains an operating room)? Alaexis¿question? 19:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice this discussion till now; I've switched it to saying that Israel built a basement in the 90's, based on the sources provided by Newsweek and in this article. I don't think we have the reliable sources needed for any claim beyond that. BilledMammal (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually added that, but I've realised since that there appears to be no independent corroboration of the specifics of the tablet mag claims, so they could reasonably be deemed undue, if not extraordinary. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tablet is a very dodgy source. Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

edit request

Please add a hatnote to Shifa Hospital (disambiguation) indicating other hospitals named "al-Shifa"

Please add:

For other hospitals, see Shifa Hospital (disambiguation).

{{for|other hospitals|Shifa Hospital (disambiguation)}}

-- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks. Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the goalposts on hospital tunnels

After claiming Hamas had built an underground city under the hospital, they’re now performing a victory lap over a tunnel with a single bathroom and one sink. I know Israel is a very small country, but I believe their cities should have more bathrooms than that. And after claiming the tunnels were in or under the hospital, they’re now pretending to be vindicated by the fact that a tunnel was found in a street neighboring the compound. How does that justify laying siege to a hospital and killing babies now, especially as the tunnel seems unconnected to the hospital and has no passage into it? We already know Hamas conducts urban warfare, so that it has built tunnels under streets is unsurprising. But that's not all what Israel claimed. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest we make the main editing at Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital and eventually summarize here. Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple tunnels have been found under the hospital. [30]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/22/world/middleeast/hamas-tunnel-al-shifa-hospital-gaza.html
Also not a forum Drsmoo (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which were possibly built by Israel originally. No-one was denying there were tunnels afaik. Still no "command center". A disused room don't count. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are images of what was built by Israel. They were not Hamas tunnels. Drsmoo (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barak confirmed that Israel built tunnels. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He only confirmed Israel built the original bunkers:
“it is already known for many years that they (the Hamas) have bunkers originally built by Israeli constructors underneath Al Shifa....was used as Hamas command outpost... it was at junction of several tunnels (that were) part of this system. I don't know to what extent it is 'major'... probably not only command outpost... there are others under other hospitals or sensitive places, but for sure it was used by Hamas” Masterp555 (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is quoted in the below section. he said there were tunnels but did not say who built them. Newsweek says Israel built some tunnels and it seems logical that they would connect the underground spaces somehow. Hamas probably added some more but we need to look into this more. Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Hamas and the Gaza health ministry denied there were tunnels. Drsmoo (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. It seems like that's where the "goalposts are moving," no tunnels to unimportant tunnels or something. This article still has almost absurd anti-Israeli POV issues. Nogburt (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Israel built basement

Yediot Ahronot has an article showing images of the basement as built by Israel.


https://images1.ynet.co.il/xnet//PicServer2/pic/072014/547060/11_36.jpg


https://www.ynet.co.il/architecture/article/syyihpw76



The source is from the Gershon Tzpoor Collection, Israel Architecture Archive. Would this archive be considered fair use?Drsmoo (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would be useful to know is where these rooms are in relation to the hospital complex so that we can compare with the IDF discoveries. Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Idk why you would bother asking if it is fair use if you were going to add them anyway? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? Drsmoo (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of Barak

Two editors have now added a source from The Hill which misrepresents Barak, claiming he said Israel built the tunnels. which he did not.


See Wikipedia:When sources are wrong, users can not cherry pick an incorrect source, that is contradicted by multiple other sources. Drsmoo (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In an interview with CNN "On 20 November 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, referring to Israeli built bunkers from decades ago, told CNN "It’s already [been] known for many years that they [Hamas] have the bunkers that originally [were] built by Israeli constructors underneath Shifa [which] were used as a command post of Hamas. And, a kind of junction of several tunnels are part of this system."[1] Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't exactly say that Israel built the tunnels but it doesn't say that Hamas built them either. We need to see some historical material about this to see just what is "known". Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added images of the basement built by Israel before. Barak does not say Israel built the tunnels, and as far as I’ve seen other reliable sources correctly attribute Baraks comments to describing the basement/bunker. Not the tunnels built around it. Drsmoo (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, CNN is quoting him, it was their interview.Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CNN doesn’t misrepresent him though, The Hill does. Drsmoo (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still something to learn about this, I think. I would like to know exactly what was built by Israel and where in relation to the hospital complex. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An interview in which Barak never claims Israel built the tunnels, merely that the Israeli bunker was used as a junction for the tunnel system. Masterp555 (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can start with Newsweek and see where that might lead. "The bunker, reportedly constructed decades ago, includes a secure underground operating room and tunnel network. Reports by left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz and other outlets have specifically mentioned the hospital's Building No. 2, which it says was built as an add-on in the mid-1980s and contains a large cement basement initially intended for laundry and administrative tasks. The excavation of the underground concrete floor was corroborated by online English-language Israeli publication Ynetnews." Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

helpful maps/layout here showing the discovered locations, "lie underneath the northeastern part of the Al-Shifa compound. The underground network begins under the southeastern part of the Qatari building, which houses the internal medicine wards. The tunnel is blocked from the side leading to the Shifa – Ezz Aldine Al-Qassam Street." Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“ the underground routes Hamas has constructed in the compound.“ Drsmoo (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"includes a secure underground operating room and tunnel network" built by Israel, according to Newsweek. Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Israel built some and so did Hamas? Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Subramaniam, Tara; Upright, Ed; Hayes, Mike; Chowdhury, Maureen; Vera, Amir (20 November 2023). "Hamas is using bunkers built by Israel under Al-Shifa Hospital, former Israeli prime minister says". CNN.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Shifa_Hospital&oldid=1186632893"