Jump to content

Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Naftali

I think the tweet of Hananya Naftali, an aide to Israeli PM Netnyahu, belongs. The tweet says: “Israeli Air Force struck a Hamas terrorist base inside a hospital in Gaza. A multiple number of terrorists are dead. It’s heartbreaking that Hamas is launching rockets from hospitals, Mosques, schools, and using civilians as human shields.”

It has been discussed in an article in a peer-reviewed journal, co-authored by Israeli professor Neve Gordon. It has been discussed in other sources too[1][2][3][4][5][6].VR (Please ping on reply) 15:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The journal article is a highly partisan source, stating as fact claims that reliable sources generally reject, such as that this explosion was caused by Israel bombing the hospital. A single highly partisan journal article doesn't establish that inclusion is WP:DUE, and given that including this has been discussed and rejected in the past I don't believe it is appropriate to make - and restore - a WP:BOLD edit on the basis of such a source. BilledMammal (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe this particular source has ever been discussed, which was only published on Jan 19. And WP:POVSOURCE doesn't affect reliability, it remains reliable and scholarly. Plus, I did provide 6 other sources here.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I didn’t say it did; I was referring to WP:NPOV#Bias in sources and WP:DUE - although taking as fact, despite no expertise in the field, a position that Is extremely marginal at best, does raise questions about reliability.
This source hasn’t, but the content has. The source may warrant reopening the discussion, but not ignoring the previous consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
As demonstrated by VR this quote was discussed in multiple sources, so the claim of undue doesn't hold, especially when considering that this is an aide to the Israeli PM. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
He wasn't an aide - he was some sort of social media manager - and those sources around last time this was discussed. BilledMammal (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Still means he has a very close professional connection to the premier and one of his "arms". Also, quote still widely reported in RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Wasn't the source being used to highlight the tweet as an incidence of the presumptive use of the "human shields" defense/excuse before the IDF has muddled its way towards whatever its ultimate story? It wasn't establishing facts about the event, but commenting on reactions (one specifically). Iskandar323 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The journal article outweighs all the news articles combined here. The claim that it is not due is based on nothing. nableezy - 18:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The David Zweig line doesn't match the citation at all


This sentence in the lead is wrong:

-> Reports of the number of deaths vary widely. Many English-language media outlets reported the Gaza Health Ministry as claiming 342 injured and 471 killed. Journalist David Zweig reported that these claims appear to have originated from a mistranslation of an Al-Jazeera Arabic tweet, which correctly translated claimed over 500 total victims or casualties, not 500 or near 500 killed. [1][2]

The David Zweig article is about the English-language media reporting that the Gaza Health Ministry reported "over 500 killed" or similar (when it was 500 victims total). The David Zweig article and its mention in the CJR is not about the 471 killed / 342 wounded figure. Those numbers are not mentioned in the sources at all. This is either an incorrect WP:SYNTH or just a misunderstanding of what the David Zweig article is about. The paragraph should be changed to:

-> Reports of the number of deaths vary widely. Many English-language media outlets initial reported the Gaza Health Ministry as claiming that over 500 were killed. Journalist David Zweig reported that this figure appears to have originated from a mistranslation of an Al Jazeera Arabic tweet, which is correctly translated as reporting over 500 total victims, including injuries, not 500 killed. The Gaza Health Ministry later reported a more precise figure of 471 killed and 342 wounded. [1][2][3]

And if we include the David Zweig source, the end of this sentence in the Casualties section should be deleted:

-> As of 19 October 2023, the death toll reported by the Hamas-led Gaza Health Ministry was 471, revised from their initial estimate of 500.

I would also delete this line in the infobox:

-> ~500 total casualties (killed and wounded) (Gaza Health Ministry) [5][6]

This is redundant if the same source provides a more precise figure. Bitspectator (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Andre🚐 22:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Allsop, Jon (30 October 2023). "The silence and the noise". Columbia Journalism Review. Archived from the original on 30 October 2023. Retrieved 30 October 2023.
  2. ^ a b Zweig, David (October 28, 2023). "Did the Entire Media Industry Misquote a Hamas Spokesperson?". Silent Lunch. Retrieved October 31, 2023.
  3. ^ Barnes, Julian E. (19 October 2023). "U.S. officials say the death toll from the Gaza hospital blast is between 100 and 300, according to early assessments". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 20 October 2023.

Unclear sentence in lead


I think this sentence from the article is unclear. I've included the context and bolded the sentence I think is unclear:

-> The Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem, which manages the hospital, reported 200 people killed. US intelligence agencies assessed a death toll between 100 and 300. A report by Human Rights Watch also questioned the Health Ministry's casualty figures.

The previous two sentences don't directly talk about questioning the Gaza Health Ministry figures, and without reading properly a reader may think "Health Ministry" refers to the Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem managing the hospital. It's also not immediately clear in which direction HRW are questioning the figures. I think the last sentence should be changed to:

-> A report by Human Rights Watch similarly found that the casualty figures of 471 killed and 342 injured provided by the Gaza Health Ministry were probably inaccurate, with evidence from the site indicating a lower death toll.

Bitspectator (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right, the sentence doesn't follow from the prior, but there's a straightforward fix to that by simply reordering, as I have done now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Content/edit for review

Someone may want to review this edit and my reversion thereof. I'm not very familiar with the underlying content here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS: I tweaked the paragraph to attribute the claim to Le Monde. That should clear up any potential WP:SYNTH issues. - Ïvana (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2024

I request an edit of the lead section which currently includes this statement: "Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel, and cast doubt on the errant rocket launch theory in a visual investigation published on 15 February 2024, saying that "what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive". The sentence is self-contradictorily, as it in the beginning states that "Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel" while it ends with a verbatim quote of Forensic Architecture that states "what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive". Either Forensic Architecture concluded that it was Israeli munition or they conclude that "what happened remains inconclusive". Both statements can't be true at the same time. Given that the primary source is still available (reference 15) and does not conclude that the blast was a result of munition fired from Israel but does indeed conclude with the statement, that what happened at Al-Ahli remains inconclusive, I request to change the sentence to: "Forensic Architecture casts doubt on the errant rocket launch theory in a visual investigation published on 15 February 2024, saying that "what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive". I also suggest the removal of references 14 and 16 as they add nothing to the sentence that isn't covered by the primary source (reference 15).

MiBerG (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The second FA investigation from February contested claims regarding a misfired Palestinian rocket but did not refute its initial finding that the blast originated from munitions fired from Israel. Instead, it concluded that the cause of the blast remains inconclusive, which the current sentence now clarifies. - Ïvana (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I think Ivana's current edit to the lead re FA is a good improvement as it is nicely concise and is also very clear that there were two different investigations (and indeed the second one doesn't supersede the first) so helps avoid misunderstandings.
I also agree it is very much due in the lead, and that we should keep the secondary sources which confirm it is due. However, I'm not comfortable with the definitiveness with which it's reported here in contrast to the caution in FA's own account. Their first report used the words "more consistent" rather than definitively concluding it was an Israeli munition, and their second report explicitly says that the origin remains inconclusive. So I worry that we give a false impression and do FA a disservice. But maybe the place to deal with that is in the body not the lead, so we keep the concision. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion/Archive_9&oldid=1258038829"