Talk:Al-Shifa Hospital

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)

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091021083834/http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=526&CategoryId=23 to http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=526&CategoryId=23

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

UPDATE: This issue has been resolved. Stockrbonk (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

“something that can't be confirmed to be empirically true” what specifically are you referring to? Drsmoo (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

“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)

That doesn't mean we should be quoting its phrasing in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Claims from primary sources reported on in journalism and analysis from highly reliable secondary sources Drsmoo (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The context is provided in the source and the sentence. They were murdering alleged collaborators. Drsmoo (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It does not. nableezy - 01:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Why would you not just revert me? Zanahary (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

You got an attitude for no reason. Zanahary (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Are you not going to correct your source misrepresentation? nableezy - 18:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

So, Palestinians who resisted Hamas? Zanahary (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Would you mind restoring it? nableezy - 19:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m under 1RR as well Drsmoo (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Would have been a self-revert for you though, but its been corrected regardless. nableezy - 01:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

lead edits

User Alaexis constantly edits the lead against consensus [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] 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.[9] (“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)

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)

Critiques of your editing are not personal attacks. They are verifiable. 78.19.232.73 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Your rfc should link previous discussions on the topic. 78.19.232.73 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Survey

• 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

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  Thanks for the feedback, could you suggest specific wording? Alaexis_¿question? 12:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• 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)
• Option 4, per Novem Linguae. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 is the best—essential info included and dated. Zanahary (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• 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)
• Option 4 is the best—essential info included and dated. Parham wiki (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)