Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Conclusory lede

The last sentence reads as conclusory to me, as all independent sources still note that the official cause of the explosion has not yet been verified and they are still investigating, yet the lead suggests that "strong evidence" was that it was a rocket misfire. Articles actually say that the US and Israel both allege to have strong evidence, and personally I agree with independent experts that based on the size of the blast I think it was a PLJ rocket, there is still always the possibility it was shot down or it was indeed an Israeli munition. Should the lead not reflect reliable sources? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. The lack of positive evidence for one claim (that it was an air strike specifically) does not imply that another claim (that it was a rocket misfire) is automatically true. OJDrucker (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thirded. Any suggestions on rewording? — AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit out of date - the evidence in favor of it being a misfired rocket is stronger now - but I previously added Neither account has been independently confirmed, but preliminary analysis indicated that the cause was mostly likely to have been a misfired rocket. I think something like that would be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that there's at least a some evidence or beliefs that it was an Iron Dome interceptor rocket / that the rocket was shot down rather than misfired, I don't think we should something which indicates that it was likely a misfired rocket.

We should wait at the very least until those claims are analyzed by content experts and there's more of a consensus or feedback on the before we identify anything in the lede as a possible cause. At best we could make a claim that it doesn't seem to have been intentional, but I feel like that would violate WP:SYNTH OJDrucker (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

OJDrucker, has this been reported by any others than Al Jazeera making their own analysis? — AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Under the first edit request for today (Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023 there's a cite from Le Monde citing an independent analyst. OJDrucker (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

OJDrucker, I can't read the article behind the pay wall, but the provided quote ends with said Goya, avoiding any definitive conclusion. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@AdrianHObradors That's sort of my point, really; the lede shouldn't reflect one POV on the event when a good number of experts refuse to provide a definitive claim (a null result is also a result) and there's alternate explanations. OJDrucker (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources say it was a rocket fired by the PIJ that massacred civilians in Gaza. There are some wp:Mandy statements, but not a single bit of evidence of an air strike. We should follow sources and not strive for a wp:falsebalance Cursed Peace (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Not implying we should take all claims at face value, just that there's analysis out there that could be included that support an Iron Dome interceptor event as well as a few NPOV from Turkish back sources which think it was an airburst JDAMs. If the lede includes anything about it being a rocket misfire, it should be strongly couched. OJDrucker (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

If those are the same Turkish sources I saw earlier then they aren't reliable; we shouldn't be considering them here. BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel it is now clear that the majority of independent experts, while not conclusively stating that it was a PIJ rocket, are now in agreement that the evidence is inconsistent with the "Israeli airstrike" narrative. Sources like al-Jazeera and aforementioned Turkish media seem to be the minority opinion among analysts. We should not try to create a sense of false balance if the evidence leans in one direction. Jogarz1921 (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz: With respect to this diff, there is nothing curious about it. The lead should be factual, noncontroversial, and a summary. It should not require ref bombs. The information you re-inserted is covered exhaustively in the body.--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Factual: Not really, see WP:Verifiability, not truth.
• Noncontroversial: I don't recall any rule precluding "controversial" matter from leads. Should we not mention things like: Climate Change, Vaccination, Evolution, age of the universe, etc. because they are controversial?
• Summary: The sentence in question was a single sentence summarizing what independent experts and analysts said regarding attribution. Are you saying this is not worthy of mention in a summary about the event?

Yaakovaryeh (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I still have yet to see any independent analysts describe their "take" as final - if the lede includes the fact that more investigation is needed, it would not be conclusory, and therefore not an issue. "While neither cause has been independently verified, some independent experts say that the -insert facts- are not indicative of an Israeli airstrike." I think would be appropriate. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I hear your point now, and appreciate your diligence in bringing it up. Your suggestion for the revised sentence raises important considerations, and is a step in the right direction, but I believe it may inadvertently introduce a sense of false balance or ambiguity that is not present in the majority of the reliable sources we have reviewed.

Your proposed phrasing: "While neither cause has been independently verified, some independent experts say that the -insert facts- are not indicative of an Israeli airstrike," suggests a degree of parity between two sides of an argument (i.e., the cause being either a failed internal rocket or an Israeli airstrike) that the current body of expert analysis does not support. The term "some" could imply that there is significant support for both possibilities, which is not the case based on our sources.

The majority of independent analyses, as cited from the sources, lean heavily towards the damage being inconsistent with the characteristics of an Israeli airstrike and potentially pointing towards a rocket failure. By saying "some" experts, we may underrepresent this consensus and create a misconception of an evenly divided opinion among experts where there isn't one.

To maintain neutrality, while also reflect the weight of expert analysis, perhaps we can consider something along the lines of:

"While ongoing investigations into the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion are yet to draw a definitive conclusion, preliminary analyses from various intelligence agencies and independent experts suggest the damage is indicative of a malfunctioning rocket potentially originating from within Gaza, rather than a typical Israeli airstrike."

I think this rendition more accurately portrays the current state of expert opinion, highlighting the predominant view without neglecting the fact that a conclusive, official determination has not been reached. It avoids implying a false equivalence of opinion where the majority of reliable sources suggest otherwise. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yaakovaryeh: With respect to "Factual," the page you linked to describes itself as an essay, and its nutshell is: "Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source." I don't see how that refutes my position that the lead should remain factual in the sense of "Pertaining to or consisting of objective claims" (wikt). If I print the page you linked to as a PDF, it takes up 8 pages. I hope you don't expect me to guess at what part of those 8 pages you are referencing to support your argument. Regarding "Noncontroversial," the Lead section page of the Manual of Style does say that the lead should reflect the contents in a nutshell, contain less detail than the body, and avoid redundant citations in the lead. Regarding "Summary", it's not so much the length of the sentence that was a problem, but rather it being followed by seven refs, i.e., a WP:REFBOMB. Also, I don't think it's appropriate to say, paraphrasing, "almost all the smart people already concluded based on strong evidence that the Israelis didn't do this," when it has been three days since the event occurred in a place with no electricity or independent observers and deep within the fog of war. That is a far cry from climate change, vaccinations, evolution, or the age of the universe--all topics on which there has been ample time for an informed consensus based on objective and repeatable methods to emerge.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your detailed response, and I understand your concerns, particularly regarding WP:REFBOMB. However, I'd like to clarify a few points to ensure we're on the same page regarding Wikipedia's content guidelines.

1. Verifiability and Truth: While I acknowledge that WP:Verifiability, not truth is an essay, it underscores a fundamental principle of Wikipedia: the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. It means that the information we add doesn't necessarily have to be true, but it must be verifiable against reliable sources. The content I reintroduced is well-cited, adhering to this policy. Nonetheless, I recognize the concern about the volume of citations and am open to discussing how we might streamline them to avoid the appearance of ref-bombing.

2. Controversial Content in the Lead: Controversial information isn't inherently excluded from the lead if it's significant to the subject's notability and is presented neutrally, with due weight, as per WP:LEAD. As I mentioned, things like Climate Change, Vaccination, Evolution, and the age of the universe are controversial, but they are well supported by reliable sources and thus treated as such.

3. Recent Events and Neutrality: I share your concern about the proximity of recent events. We must be particularly cautious with WP:RECENTISM, avoiding giving undue weight to new developments. However, the statement reintroduced doesn't make a definitive claim but summarizes the prevailing view among independent experts and analysts, sourced reliably. It doesn't state that "Israelis didn't do this" as a fact but reflects the sourced viewpoint, critical in the context of the event's coverage. That said, I understand the sensitivity and agree that we should be vigilant about the language, ensuring it aligns with WP:NPOV.

4. Regarding the Ref-bombing: The multiple references were an attempt to robustly verify the information given the subject's sensitive, and as you mentioned, controversial nature. However, following WP:CITEBUNDLE, we could consolidate the citations to make it more reader-friendly while still maintaining verifiability.

In light of these points, perhaps we can collaboratively review the sentence and its citations, ensuring it complies with Wikipedia's standards without overwhelming the reader or compromising the article's neutrality and verifiability. Would you agree to such an approach? Yaakovaryeh (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yaakovaryeh: I am absolutely down for a collaborative approach. I think one way to solve this is by starting with a relatively basic and unobjectionable sentence and building from there. I think we could start with this: "In the days following the explosion, numerous analysts opined that the cause was more likely a misfired rocket than an Israeli airstrike based on the nature and extent of the damage observed."[citebundle] Feel free to whack and hack at that: I'm just proposing it as a starting place. And of course others should feel free to chime in.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mhorg Same thing with this diff. Obviously Israel is not going to say they struck the hospital with a missile three days earlier. This is what's in the body of the article currently: "According to a statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, two upper floors of the hospital were damaged by Israeli rocket fire late on 14 October,[17] leaving four staff members injured.[14][18][19]" Please keep the lead consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section which says that "the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents" and "gives the basics in a nutshell" and that "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material" seeing as "[l]eads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source." Thanks.--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

How do i bold both of these comments LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

No sources questioned that three days earlier the hospital was hit by Israeli missiles. So the issue is not controversial and is important enough to be put in the lede. Mhorg (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Please explain why it should be in the lead. It's something that happened 3 days before the event that is the subject of the article and is not among the article's most important contents.--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. This sentence doesn’t belong in the lead. It’s a piece of circumstantial (at best) evidence about the case, it belongs with the rest of the evidence in the body. Jogarz1921 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Mhorg that inclusion of this sentence in the lead is appropriate; it is relevant context backed by reliable sources. It could be folded into another paragraph of the lead to eliminate any wp:synth concerns, but the Manual of Style does note that the lead should "establish context". I think the sentence is necessary to achieve that end. I don't think it's fair to read the MoS as requiring that the lead should be entirely "noncontroversial", particularly when the topic at hand is such a strenuously-contested current event. And even if that were the policy, I am not sure that "controversy" is established by one side's unwillingness to admit something. That is, I'm not aware of a rule that all statements in the lead must be admitted by all parties to a controversy, provided the thresholds of verifiability and notability are met. WillowCity (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

What matters is what reliable sources say. I provided the exact quotes in the citations, but here's a summary:

• NPR: The report suggests that emerging evidence, including photos and videos, leads most independent analysts to believe the damage is inconsistent with a typical Israeli airstrike.

• BBC: The BBC's consultation with various experts laned toward the rocket theory are based on the size of the explosion, the nature of the subsequent fires, and other circumstantial evidence. Some experts note that the characteristics of the event, including the smaller ground explosions and the pattern of fires, suggest a malfunctioning rocket carrying fuel rather than a standard aerial munition.

• The Independent: Analysis from GeoConfirmed and observations about the damage support the theory of a failed rocket. The inconsistent damage across the scene, the absence of airstrike hallmarks, and the visual evidence of a malfunctioning rocket breaking up lend credibility to this scenario.

• The Economist: The article emphasizes the existence of strong evidence pointing to a Palestinian rocket failure, highlighting the rush to blame without clear substantiation.

• The Guardian: Experts cited, including a former Pentagon official, argue that the damage's characteristics, especially the crater's nature and the lack of specific shrapnel patterns, are not consistent with standard aerial bombs like JDAMs. The observations suggest a different cause, leaning toward a rocket-related incident.

• The Wall Street Journal: Independent analysts note that the damage does not match what would be expected from Israeli munitions, with indications leaning more towards a rocket's fireball.

• The Telegraph: The headline ("Hospital explosion probably caused by missile fired from inside Gaza, analysts claim") underscores the analysts' claims that the explosion was probably due to a missile fired within Gaza, backing Israel's assertions.

Additionally, in the past few hours since my edit, France's Directorate of Military Intelligence has also concluded that: “The most probable hypothesis is that a Palestinian rocket exploded with a charge of about five kilos,” and that there is "nothing to indicate... an Israeli strike".

- Yaakovaryeh (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#Economist_Leaders_piece regarding The Economist. Every other source you quoted is included and appropriately cited in the body of the article (except the French source you mentioned, which I guess I will need to go track down now).-- Orgullomoore (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Claimed by...

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

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

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

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

Exactly. Conerd (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Yeah, that is really equivalent. 2603:8080:7D05:7200:4C00:E1D6:F88:67A (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel has access to the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs, which have a 20-25 foot blast radius depending on which warhead is used. If the GBU-39 was airburst (which is very possibly with the JDAM or Paveway guidance packages, both of which Israel has possessed since 2015 if not earlier) then the damage would absolutely be consistent. The claim that the IDF does not have lightweight precision munitions on that scale is objectively false. 216.227.105.137 (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Im not even going to comment on guilt either way, just pointing to the notion that Israel doesnt have access to smaller more precise munitions. 216.227.105.137 (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

One analyst suggested that it might be a LORA (missile). Iskandar323 (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

If it is very possible, there must be plenty of actual cases even during last two weeks to compare the signature. Do any of the sources cite such cases? Deinocheirus (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

1.) GBU-39 doesn't have an airburst capability as far as I'm aware.

2.) GBU-39 doesn't use a JDAM guidance package. It can't. It has it's own guidance. It is a precision guided glide bomb.

3.) GBU-39 would create a crater far larger than we observed. The sources/experts in the reliable sources we have currently seem to be saying this is consistent with a far smaller warhead than that. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Al-Ahli Arab hospital: Piecing together what happened as Israel insists militant rocket to blame | Israel-Hamas war | The Guardian Ksperber (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That was supposed to be a link: www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/18/al-ahli-arab-hospital-piecing-together-what-happened-as-israel-insists-militant-rocket-to-blame Ksperber (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Massacre

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

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

Please do not call it an “airstrike” without reliable sources calling it an “airstrike.” 2600:1017:B827:9E5B:6881:1158:B4F4:17FA (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas as perpetrators

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

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

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

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

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

This is (and was at the time) a lie about what said reliable sources were reporting.

Lies should not be the basis of edits on Wikipedia. 2600:1017:B827:9E5B:6881:1158:B4F4:17FA (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Ahli hospital

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also think we should be citing reliable sources that it was a “bombing” and that there are “500 people dead” 2600:1017:B827:9E5B:6881:1158:B4F4:17FA (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Auto archiving

Would it be useful to set up auto-archiving on the talk page? David O. Johnson (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely!-- Orgullomoore (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

agreed this place is becoming hard to follow. we should also coalesce the different threads talking about the same thing into one Ashvio (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the autoarchive is already set up to archive "after 1 day of inactivity." David O. Johnson (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Finally! [1]-- Orgullomoore (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw it in the History and was just gobsmacked. Lol. David O. Johnson (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli rocket?

"The hospital was damaged by Israeli rocket fire three days before the explosion", I think the rocket that was directed at Israel was “Palestinian”. Exx8 (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This was a separate incident three days prior. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

it's 100% confirmed the hospital as hit by Israeli fire several times before the major explosion Ashvio (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It has absolutely no place in the lead. The fact does not make it any more or less likely that Israel was the cause of the subject explosion; it is therefore not relevant for inclusion in the lead. It can be included in the body with the other discussions behind cause, but to put it in its own paragraph in the lead is obvious NPOV at this stage, where we really have no conclusive proof either way (regardless of what a lot of editors want to believe, on both sides) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 22:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

it's relevant context that doesn't imply anything in itself. it's worth noting in an article about explosions in a hospital what previous explosions/attacks the hospital has faced Ashvio (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Well said. I made a similar point above (where the same issue is being discussed, which is a bit unfortunate from a consensus-building perspective). WillowCity (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

We do not include any other evidence regarding the cause of the explosion in the lead. Do you think it makes sense to include a single sentence about cause in the lead, with its own paragraph? Including all of the facts is neutral - including some facts - even true ones - is not neutral. And I would still maintain that it not actually relevant to who caused this bombing - from a logical standpoint, the fact that it had been hit by Israeli strikes in the past does not actually go toward establishing that it was an Israeli rocket on this occasion. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 23:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue is your characterization of this as "evidence regarding the cause of the explosion", when the advocates for its inclusion view it rather as context. Context is permissible, and in fact encouraged, under the MoS/Lead. In an article about, say, an industrial accident, it would likely be appropriate to note past safety incidents in the lead, if reliable sources have commented on them in their own coverage. In an article about an alleged (but unconfirmed) shark attack, it would be relevant to note whether or not sharks are found in the area, if (as here) reliable sources have commented on it. I am on board with merging the sentence into an existing paragraph, but I think it is relevant context for the lead. (As an aside, I do not necessarily agree that it's logically irrelevant. But again, inclusion here is not about evidencing a particular POV) WillowCity (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I see it has been removed from the lede; I think that is a good decision, as the important of it and the coverage has received doesn't indicate that such a prominent position is WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not on face evidence. Readers may interpret it as such but we don't write articles around interpretation, we only write them for NPOV. Important context is always useful to include, as it is informative and the primary goal is to inform readers. Ashvio (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

A few sentences down, the prior rocket fire damage is already mentioned and cited.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Overemphasis on United States Perspective

I think the article treats the US different from other countries, because of its inclusion in the attribution part of the infobox and the fact they have their own section in 'analysis'. I think third parties should all be treated the same. There are countries other than the US who have attributed the attack to PIJ who are not in the infobox and there are other countries that have attributed the attack to Israel that are not in the infobox. I propose:

1. Remove the US attribution from the infobox

2. Move the US analysis to the reaction section

I make this proposal to be more consistent in terms of how we treat countries in the article. I think the primary players (Israel, Palestine, Hamas) should be treated differently than third parties. I think there may be different view, so I would really like to hear these different perspectives. Dhawk790 (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The degree to which the article currently emphasizes and centralizes the American position is WP:UNDUE. WillowCity (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Not all countries have even close to the same level of intelligence apparatus as the U.S., who spends the budget of many countries on its military, for better or worse. Many countries have just cut and paste the Hamas position, which would be undue to equally credit. If Russia wasn't decaying as far as it has, it might actually have intelligence meriting coverage. This article's extent of coverage of the US's role is pretty commensurate with the extent of such coverage in media.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with including the US perspective, I just don't think we should call it out separately from the view of other countries' views, because there can be questions (as with other countries as you mention) with impartiality. I certainly do not think that its view should be in the infobox. Dhawk790 (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with Dhawk790's proposal. All the 3rd parties should be treated the same. I don't see any compelling reason as to why we should do otherwise. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  What other 3rd parties are claiming to have intelligence on the issue?-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is the relevant point. There will likely be many countries with intelligence examining the strike and some of those may become publicly reported, I doubt that we will want to list each of those countries in the infobox or give them their own section in the analysis section. My proposal did include moving the US analysis to the reaction section, but when detailed about the intelligence are reported, I think that it would make sense to list that as with the other analyses. Dhawk790 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dhawk790 this comment was prescient, considering that France shared its own view only a few hours later. I don't think the French or the American position should have their own subsection. WillowCity (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Dhawk790 (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Why not restructure the Analysis and possibly Reaction section(s) so the arguments for responsibility/cause are given headings and whatever entities espouse a view fall under those headings? Then there is no issue of which nations have their own sections. It becomes pure about the content, not the mouthpieces. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea for the future as the actual details about the intelligence become available. Right now the US intelligence is just about the conclusion and not about how they reached that the conclusion. The first part of analysis section right now has details about the analysis. Dhawk790 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Strong agree that entire section has severe NPOV issues and lacks detail on Palestinian positions Ashvio (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The united states currently has a very advanced intelligence community. I don't think you can really argue with this. They are the global hegemon in the so called "rules based international order", and are generally seen as the leader of the western world militarily/economically. They are the leader of NATO, the largest military alliance in the world, and whose combined economy accounts for almost HALF of the worlds GDP. They are, by most accounts still, the worlds sole superpower. They are a country whose conclusions on this are worth noting. I don't think there's any undue emphasis placed here; they are kind of a big deal. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Certainly notable. I am saying that I don't think it should be called out distinct from other countries. The changed made in the analysis section I think are an improvement. I still think the US should be removed from the infobox. Dhawk790 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSN note

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_Hamas_and_Gaza_ministry_numbers_reliable? Andre🚐 18:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Calls for an independent investigation

The article does note that the UN has called for an independent investigation. But I think under "Aftermath" or "Reactions", it would be appropriate to have a few sentences (or possibly a subsection) about calls for an independent investigation, since this has been raised by more than just the UN. Sources calling for an independent investigation:

- European Parliament ("MEPs call for an independent investigation into the Al-Ahli hospital blast in Gaza")

- Amnesty UK ("attack on Al Ahli hospital in Gaza must be independently investigated")

- The Independent ("Irish deputy premier calls for independent probe into Gaza hospital strike")

- Khaleej Times ("The UAE has called for a full, independent investigation into the bombing of Al Ahli Baptist hospital...")

Another potentially relevant source:

- Politico ([German Chancellor Olaf Scholz] stressed: 'It is important that this incident is investigated very thoroughly.") WillowCity (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I would condense it to one sentence, until and unless such investigation starts. Calling for an independent investigation is cheap. Alaexis_¿question? 19:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Article source

The source currently cited for "U.S., Experts Say Evidence Suggests Palestinian Rocket Hit Gaza Hospital" is The Wall Street Journal. While the WSJ site is the original source the citation link leads to the WSJ article at MSN Shouldn't the citation be something like The Wall Street Journal via MSN? If MSN is cited perhaps its shorter URL should be used. Could the WSJ URL be cited as well? Mcljlm (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Does this diff address what you're talking about? The issue with linking to WSJ is that it is completely paywalled off, whereas MSN gives you the full text without a paywall, and also allows archive.org to save the text for when the link dies. I'm not aware of a way to also link the paywalled WSJ URL while at the same time preserving the MSN URL. Anybody else have a comment on this?-- Orgullomoore (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware Orgullomoore of the WSJ paywall problem {similarly with many other quality sources} and also that many articles are at MSN and sometimes republished by other newspapers. On WP I've tended to use the original URL for readers able to access the article at source adding (creating if necessary) an archived URL.

I see you've added "via MSN", but what about the shorter URL. There's also an archived MSN version if it's wanted. Mcljlm (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"Hamas stated that Israel deliberately shelled the hospital."

@Orgullomoore:

In this edit, you changed The Gaza Health Ministry said the explosion was caused by an Israeli airstrike into Hamas accused Israel of deliberately shelling the hospital.

What source is the changed statement based on? (Shelling and airstrikes are very different things.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I changed it. Andre🚐 17:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@HaeB I was just translating Hamas directly (they use قصف), but on reflection, I think you're right that it should say airstrike. It appears قصف is used more loosely in Arabic than shelling in English.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Literally it means bombardment with artillery, but the word قصف has been used as a sort of blanket statement for bombardment, in this case airstrikes The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on how to decide when "consensus" is reached and is no longer "contested"

A meta discussion on how the project will assess when a consensus that has gone off into the weeds and is addressing the topic of American elections certainly qualifies as an internal project discussion. Any extended-confirmed editor is welcome to start a discussion on this topic. This is an arbitration enforcement action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: Reposting my earlier topic with some edits for neutrality and to make it appear come off less aggressive. I confirmed with the clerks that I have the right to engage in discussions on the talk page, so long as it is not an "internal project discussion," so please do not revert this topic discussion. As another side note, though I am relatively "new" to Wikipedia in terms of # edits, I have edited on and off for 5+ years and have professional journalistic experience in real life which informs my ability to participate here. I would like to start a meta-discussion on how to objectively decide on when we can remove "contested" wording. It feels like most of these discussion veers into WP:OR in terms of deciding which arguments are most reliable, which is a flag to me we should decide on an externally verifiable metric rather than argue the merits of each and individual argument, which is beyond what we are supposed to do here. We could have some objective metric, such as the follows (wording could be different of course): Until a consensus of worldwide WP:RS coverage on the hospital explosion consistently report it as conclusively caused by one side or the other, we will retain "contested" wording on the page, while following WP:DUE for describing each side's claims. In addition, we should not rely only on English or Western sources for this. In order to be neutral and abide by WP:DUE on a conflict that largely is happening outside of the English-speaking world, we should use the few non-Western sources that have English versions as representations for the non-English (especially Arabic) media in those regions (editors can verify that non-English media has similar perspectives using Google Translate on some of those outlets). A worldwide media consensus is important for us to be able to accurately and fairly report the matter to English speaking audiences. Even if some regional media (such as Western media) is coalescing on one cause, if the other regions are not doing so then we cannot say that it's no longer contested with an NPOV. I hope that makes sense. Open to thoughts and discussion! Ashvio (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC) What matters is a reliance on reliable sources with a reputation for editorial oversight, fact-checking, and neutrality. In other words, good journalism and news reporting, which is a hallmark of healthy democracies. What does not matter, is labeling sources by language or region. I hope that helps. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC) I agree for reliability that is all that matters. But for WP:DUE shouldn't we consider perspectives from other regions equally? I believe RS Perennial list is only based off media with an English section, which is understandable. However we shouldn't let that prevent us from including perspective from RS of other region's media at an equal weight as western regional media. Ashvio (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC) I agree that English-speaking/Western sources are not inherently superior or more reliable, but the contrasting narratives need to be based on something other than passion. Pretty much all of MENA + Iran immediately blamed Israel, but have not provided anything objective to support the blame. The circumstantial arguments made by Hamas and their supporters are given their space in the article, as well as Al Jazeera's timeline argument and Channel 4's sonic analysis points. What else is there, irrespective of language or origin? I have not seen, for example, a Gulf source saying, "Based on X, we think Y." Happy to look at it if it exists.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC) We should only be using RS to represent various viewpoints is what I am saying, including RS from non English media. AJ is the only mainstream representative of this in RS Perennial, but Arabic media as a whole is reporting similarly. Since we don't have a lot of ability to qualify those other non-English sources, we should use AJ as a proxy for the Arabic media at large for WP:DUE as it's an RS. Ashvio (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC) I absolutely agree with this. I have repeatedly said that this article should, in fact, divide its presentation of arguments based on subject or merit rather than on geopolitical ownership, also. It seems to me that an insistence on using the nationality of speakers as the criterion for whether they appear in the article or are given preference only helps one narrative in this information contest... Inmymoonsuit (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC) I do not appreciate the insinuation of a "narrative" on my end. I am trying to make sure we keep a fair an NPOV tone for a global issue, recognizing that we are (at no fault of our own) naturally limited to seeing perspectives that are more Western-oriented in our every day life, which may not represent the whole picture. Ashvio (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC) The narrative I referred to is that of Hamas. The information contest has been between Hamas and Israel. However, if Wikipedia does not present information based on merit and consensus, but based on who is speaking or where the speaker is from, it thereby aids only one of these parties. That was my point. I accused you of nothing. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Additionally, as I've repeatedly advocated for here, this article needs to acknowledge the role of mis/disinformation in this conflict and needs to refer to the article on disinformation in this war or something. Leaving that out is like intentionally misleading readers about the nature of the narratives around this event. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC) We do not consider "merit" in deciding how to write an article, only verifiability and NPOV. I don't believe we can decide what the "merit" of the arguments are here without it being WP:OR. The job that has to be done here is telling a story based on the reliable sources we have available without favoring any perspective. If you have a problem with reliable sources, then go to the RS section of Wikipedia and contest it there. Simplifying the conflict to between "Israel and Hamas" is also not quite helpful, as there are many other parties involved (Israeli and Gazan civilians for instance). Ashvio (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Sure, many parties are involved. But only two are at war, using information as a weapon, and that is acknowledged in many sources. Wikipedia is complicit in spreading wartime disinformation if this article does not acknowledge that reality and present information with a sensitivity to it. And sure, the quality of sources is debatable and should be addressed elsewhere. However, is it not tantamount to original research to selectively include certain sources based on arbitrary criteria? Is it not a violation of the responsibility to present a neutral and reliably-sourced encyclopedic overview of this subject to attempt to cherry pick sources based on geopolitical criteria, and does that not create a massive point-of-view bias in the article? Or to omit a massive dimension of this event -- the information war around it? It may not be the intention, but is in the de facto result. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC) "to attempt to cherry pick sources based on geopolitical criteria" This is kind of my point here. We already are doing this, unintentionally. I am saying we should represent all media sources, because at the very least it's worth noting how the media of other regions are covering this issue, and at most we are potentially not being NPOV on the inclusion of RS. Ashvio (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC) I think this is an excellent suggestion with which I agree in full. I myself am guilty of litigating the nitty-gritty, and I think a hollistic approach based on some defined standard is a good idea. The suggested rule is broad enough to leave ample room for discussion and growth, and sensitive to WP:NOTLEAD. Regarding the issues with present coverage in many English-language sources, Wired has published helpful commentary (also linked above). I agree that additional, global sources could enhance readers' understanding of this topic, provided they are sufficiently reliable (as many foreign-language sources are). WillowCity (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the comment! Ashvio (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC) My pleasure! I'm not sure what you had in mind, but here are some international examples: Here's coverage of the strike from El Colombiano (Google translate and some rudimentary Spanish): "Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have accused Israel of bombing the hospital, which housed thousands of patients, relatives and refugees, while Israel has said the centre was hit by a projectile fired by Islamic Jihad. For their part, the countries of the region have been unanimous in their condemnation of Israel for its role in what happened." Likewise, Jornal do Brasil posted an article on the 17th entitled: "World leaders condemn massacre at Gaza hospital"; I'm not aware of subsequent coverage, other than an update regarding Lula's comment on what it describes as an "Attack on Gaza hospital" ("Ataque contra hospital") And here's one from the Portuguese newspaper of record Diário de Notícias: "the truth is that no one has been able to conclude who was responsible for the attack on Al-Ahli Hospital, in Gaza City" Portuguese sources are Google translated. WillowCity (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Awesome, I dont have edit status but someone who does should integrate these sources into the article. We could even have a subsection describing international media coverage potentially. Ashvio (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC) As a starting point for seeing what I mean by the fact that the interpretation of the explosion varies heavily in different regions, I would take a look at the Arabic Wikipedia article on this topic, which has quite the pointed tone. (removed for derailing conversation) look at this Arabic media article or this article on the hospital explosion. I'm not at all saying we should phrase it the same, we shouldn't, but it's clear that the perspective on "who did it" varies heavily by the culture and region. Ashvio (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Just read the Arabic version of the article. Clearly no attempt to be neutral. For starters, the title of the article is "Baptist Hospital massacre." The first sentence begins with: "The Baptist Hospital massacre, also known as the Ahli Arab Hospital massacre, is a massacre committed by the Israeli Air Force when it raided . . ." It does not mention a single expert analysis, etc. Does not mention PIJ's claim to possess pieces of the munition but failure to produce or otherwise provide proof. It's only recognition of Israel's denial is under the heading "Israeli propaganda." I get that there are opposing views, but is there anything encyclopedic that can be salvaged here?-- Orgullomoore (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC) I didn't mean to derail this conversation with quality discussion about Arabic Wikipedia, my bad. I should have linked an Arabic media source instead. Ashvio (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC) That's no problem at all. And again, if you have something that you believe is a good example of what we should strive to incorporate, I am more than happy to review it. I have checked Asharq Al-Awsat, which publishes/translates some articles in English. I am also an avid junkie of Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, etc. live streams on YouTube. Highly entertaining. But as you say, the tone is very similar to the Arabic Wikipedia article: They start out with the conclusion that Israel did it and that their denial is propaganda. Here is an example: Why is Everyone Avoiding a Probe into Gaza Hospital Massacre? At least that one calls for a neutral investigation. But it still says "Israel is making extraordinary efforts to absolve itself of direct responsibility for this particular massacre." What's glaringly absent is "PIJ has killed Gazans with their defective rockets before, and it does not want to take responsibility for killing hundreds of Palestinians in their efforts to rid the Holy Land of Zionist aggressors. PIJ claims to have the proof, but has not shown it." Why? Why not say it? The RS we cite acknowledge both points of view and look at facts weighing in favor and against all possible scenarios. And even say: "We do not know, but this is what we think." If anything, these sources are guilty of initially assuming the Palestinian narrative was correct and that the IDF had in fact struck a hospital and killed hundreds of civilians in direct violation of international humanitarian law. Note: The previous sentence should not be taken as a statement that Israel does not commit war crimes; it just looks like they didn't commit this war crime.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC) My intention here isn't to have a discussion on the merits of the content of the articles or coverage, merely to point to evidence that if we are to be factual and NPOV, we can't say that the source of the bombing is not "contested" or "disputed" or that there is a "consensus" when clearly the media in many other nations do not agree with many English sources. Please see WillowCity's comments above on some additional sources to include. I think at the very least the coverage provides a reason to a) not resolve the "contested" status of the source of the attacks and b) potentially add an informative "international media coverage" section to the article to describe how the rest of the world has been covering the event. Ashvio (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Got it. But we run the risk of presenting facts as disputed even if they are disputed dishonestly. Consider the lead paragraphs of Armenian Genocide [a featured article] ("The Armenian genocide was the systematic destruction of the Armenian people and identity in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. ") and Murder of Shireen Abu Akleh ("On the morning of 11 May 2022, according to witnesses and Al Jazeera, she was killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) while covering an IDF raid in Jenin camp as a journalist."). The Armenian Genocide is forcefully denied by Turkey, but the article's lead does not say "The Armenian genocide was an alleged . . . Armenians contend that, while the alleged perpetrators of the crime deny it ever occurred." There is more nuance to the Murder of Shireen Abu Akleh article, but it still presents the issue as "According to witnesses, the IDF killed her." How do we get to the point of: "According to expert consensus, the explosion was likely caused by a misfired rocket launched from within Gaza"? Because we know that hell will freeze over before the PIJ says "Ooops, we accidentally killed hundreds of displaced Palestinian women and children while they were camping outside a hospital." Just as Turkey will never admit to systematically destroying the Armenian people and identity and the IDF will never confirm or impose responsibility for the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Not really sure the Shireen article helps your point because while IDF initially denied responsibility, they later accepted responsibility. For something like a genocide that happened a long time ago, it's different because we have tons of history and reliable sources proving it happened. But right now it's not very clear what happened, and in my opinion there's still a possibility, even if small, that history will find a different conclusion for the cause of the explosion. I also don't think every outlet covering it as an IDF airstrike is intentionally being dishonest in their coverage. Once we have like historiographers and such documenting this event I will totally be on board with including their conclusions. But for now WP:NOTLEAD. Ashvio (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC) The IDF did not admit responsibility. In the article you linked to, the IDF spokesperson said the IDF is "very sorry of the death of Shireen Abu Akleh." The same article you linked to says: "While the IDF admitted for the first time last September that there was a 'high possibility' Abu Akleh was 'accidentally' shot and killed by Israeli fire, its Military Advocate General's Office said in a statement that it did not intend to pursue criminal charges or prosecutions of any of the soldiers involved." That is very different from saying: "IDF soldiers shot her on purpose and we are going to prosecute the individuals involved." And despite IDF responsibility being only a "high possibility" and IDF being only "sorry of" the killing, the Wikipedia article calls it out as a murder based on information verifiable via reliable sources.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC) I'll put it this way: if PIJ apologized for the hospital attacks in any way, we could go ahead and give them responsibility in the first line of the article. Ashvio (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC) I think that's an unreasonable criterion. There is no reason to expect that will ever happen.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC) If it never happens then we should not make assumptions on the behalf of RS, merely for the sake of having a conclusion. There are plenty of events in history that have never been resolved and are still described as such on Wikipedia. For example, death counts on events like Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still listed as disputed, like they are in this article. The justifications and effects of the bombing are also still hotly disputed and listed as such, despite issues like whether the bombs caused the surrender of Japan being a fact that could theoretically be verified if you chose to rely on certain sources over others, like in this case. Ashvio (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC) That's not needed. That's not the evidentiary standard on Wikipedia. Andre🚐 02:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC) I agree, it's far from the only thing that could be used to justify putting it in the article of course. PIJ will never admit fault even if they were the cause. That comment was more just to point out the comparison was apples to oranges. Ashvio (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC) @Ashvio While I agree with the general thrust of your argument and am sympathetic, I unfortunately think you do your argument a disservice here by linking to the Arabic Wiki as a "starting point," and by saying it has a "pointed tone" -- it's very clearly not written with NPOV in mind. I wouldn't really call it a different "interpretations" or "perspectives" on who did it. I think it's a good case study in how the community of editors changes the direction of an article, though, and something that should be kept in mind. OJDrucker (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Yes, it's not an example of NPOV for us but rather the fact that different regions see what "NPOV" is to be very different. The fact that this article is written this way is not an outlier, in Arabic media at large this is basically how the issue is discussed and it's worth noting. Ashvio (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Updated to link to Arabic media instead. Thanks for the call out. Ashvio (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Agreed that we should have analysis outside of the western / English speaking world, which whether people (generally) like to admit it or not, are biased in favor of people from within or who orbit the military-intelligence complex. Even if it's more difficult to source, if we view wikipedia as a source that is truth-seeking at least nominally, we should include alternate sources which may be outside of the epistemologies of the people who wrote the analysis currently present. OJDrucker (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC) At the very least we can continue to use the Arabic news coverage as evidence that the cause of the explosion is still heavily contested. Ashvio (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure that's true. For example, we shouldn't use right-wing US sources as evidence that the 2020 election is "heavily contested". Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Excellent point. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Are there any US RS claiming that? The only mainstream US media that called it contested was Fox News, which is not considered perennially RS as of 2022 for politics. Also, it is factually true that it was "contested" by some, and I would hope the Wikipedia article included information on the fact that there was widespread "contesting" of the election. Of course, not saying those claims of contesting are legitimate in any way, rather saying that for informative purposes we wouldnt leave that out of the article as it was quite important and had many consequences. Ashvio (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC) It is generally given the framing of 1) experts and analysts are in agreement that the 2020 election results were mathematically valid and sound, without any significant irregularities, and 2) a small minority of vocal extremists promote a conspiracy theory supporting Donald Trump's claim that he won the election; to date, there is no evidence supporting their claims. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Personally I don't disagree with you in the slightest. My point is that we can't leave out the fact that it was contested, and I pointed out in another reply that it's listed in the list of Contested elections in American history Ashvio (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC) ^In fact, Wikipedia has a whole article about it WillowCity (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Yeah, it doesnt use the exact verbiage "contested" likely for NPOV reasons in that situation, but it's clear that we did cover the fact that there were people who did not believe the election was legitimate and attempted to overturn /contest its results Ashvio (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC) It's also relevant that many of these "people" you refer to have admitted to spreading false claims. Sidney Powell, one of the architects of the conspiracy theory, just pleaded guilty to conspiring to intentionally interfering with the performance of election duties. You can go down the line with all the people who have promoted the idea that the election was stolen. They are either in jail, awaiting sentencing, or have been convicted of a crime. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Again, I have not a bone in my body that gives any of those people contesting the election credibility in their claims being legitimate or good faith. But they still contested it. It's factual that they contested the election, even though it was a dishonest contest of the results. This is really getting off topic though. Ashvio (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Okay well, there's a list of Contested elections in American history on Wikipedia and the 2020 election is there... Ashvio (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC) That article you link to was started by a conservative Trump supporter who is trying to diminish the historical significance of Trump's refusal to concede. I'm afraid you've been taken in by it. The article was originally located at List of conspiracy theories#Stolen elections in American history and is now a POV fork attempting to legitimize the discourse. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC) I don't really believe that the verbiage of the article is biased at all towards Trump. It's pretty obviously anti-election conspiracy. "The stolen election conspiracy theory claims that the 2020 United States presidential election was "stolen" from Donald Trump, who lost to Joe Biden. It serves to justify attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, including the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. " Ashvio (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC) It doesn't matter what you believe. The edit history shows it was forked from the conspiracy article.[2] Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Right, but the article clearly still labels it as a conspiracy theory. Anyway this is supposed to be a discussion over whether we should continue label a rapidly developing current event as contested when it's still very clearly being contested by many, and it's not obvious at all that there's enough evidence to 100% support one side or the other. Ashvio (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC) I agree that it is still early days, but I do want to point out the problem with your argument: "Clearly being contested by many" doesn't hold much weight without good evidence to contest, and in general terms, there's never really any such thing as "100% support" for one view or the other. So your argument is both unreasonable and unrealistic. That's all I have to say. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Ok let's go back to the 2020 election for a minute. In that immediate period after the election, we knew when that was happening that those claims were not legitimate because every court case and independent analysis of the results unanimously showed that there was no legitimacy to the claims, so there truly was a consensus among RS that it was a fraudulent claim. In this case, there are reliable sources in English and non English who either a) dont conclusively say it was Palestinian rockets or b) claim it was an Israeli rocket fire or c) provide third party analysis showing evidence it could have been Israel. I think it's a very different situation and I do believe that we should be as close to 100%, maybe beyond a reasonable doubt, as possible before stating something as fact. Ashvio (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Let me fix your analogy. Trump claimed the election was stolen before the election occurred, and there are various Trump associates who have talked about how it was a known strategy and tactic to accuse his opponents of cheating to deflect from his own cheating. There’s a lot written on this topic so I won’t continue, you can look it up if you want. In the same way, opponents of Israel have blamed it for the attack on the hospital, before the experts have had a hot minute to examine the evidence. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC) References Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it is not a formal proposal, and the editor who started this thread lacks standing in the extendedconfirmed topic area, therefore, it cannot become a formal RFC. Andre🚐 01:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC) If there's any confirmed editors who would like to sponsor it as an RFC themselves I'm totally open to that. As is, it's meant to be a discussion not a formal proposal. Apology for implying RFC-like on my earlier version. Ashvio (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Andre, is this entire modification of the idea of consensus to now mean *worldwide* consensus, along with other propositions supposedly meant to uphold standards of NPOV etc. but that only decrease the agility and responsiveness of editing this article and providing factual information, not possibly an example of WP:GAME? I'm not assigning intent to anyone, but I feel that policy language is being used here in a way that actually will contribute to less accuracy and more bias in this article. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC) No, of course not, none of this means anything, this discussion is moot. Andre🚐 03:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

AP news conducted a comprehensive analysis and concluded the cause of the explosion was a Palestinian rocket.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-hospital-rocket-gaza-e0fa550faa4678f024797b72132452e3?taid=653359761b640e00010945be

AP is a respectable and credible source. Ignoring its analysis and the analysis of many additional credible sources will only prove that Wikipedia is led by politics, not seeking facts and truths. 2A0D:6FC7:441:E1CA:878:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Not ignored. Thoroughly explained in the article [3].-- Orgullomoore (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Canada's defence minister says that according to its intelligence, Israel didn’t attack the hospital

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7004384 81.199.249.196 (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Got it-- Orgullomoore (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Addition in India's Reaction

Addition to the "Reactions" section : "Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke to the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to convey condolences at the loss of civilian lives at Al Ahli hospital in Gaza."

Source: https://www.livemint.com/news/world/pm-modi-speaks-to-palestinian-authority-president-mahmoud-abbas-conveys-condolences-for-gaza-hospital-blast-victims-11697720334056.html Saket Sharma (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Wrong place for making such a request. -Lemonaka‎ 12:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

A further WSJ analysis backing Israel released

Please add to the article Video Analysis Shows Gaza Hospital Hit By Rocket Meant for Israel | WSJ Lilijuros (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

the famously unbiased Wall Street Journal, lol. Might as well add Bloomberg News next. 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:A947:B69D:C50C:2E07 (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

you better give a source backing what you just said. Lilijuros (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

WSJ is right-leaning but reliable. Andre🚐 19:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I was writing about this but had power outage😅. Anyway- - -

And it categorically dismisses Al Jazeera's analysis too (1:54). I had raised doubts on Al Jazeera's analysis earlier also, I had asked to not consider Al Jazeera RS for this topic only at least (You can see [4]). No further comments on that from me. Experienced editors are better at deciding. But anyway, WSJ's analysis can get added now.

WSJ analyzed 4 cameras located at different angle capturing before and after shots of the incident [5]. It noted that at around 6:59 PM (local time) a barrage of short-range rockets capable of travelling 12–25 miles (19–40 km) are launched from western Gaza towards North-east of Israel. Then 20 seconds later, a long-range rocket (according to experts) is launched towards North-eastern trajectory. 10 seconds after launch a tiny flash of light is seen, and the rocket starts to veer back west. The flash and change in trajectory are consistent with a "failed rocket", not with Israel's Iron Dome Defense System shooting it down. Weapons experts it spoke to say, "This change in trajectory is caused by the explosion of the rocket motor. In camera 3, the Al Jazeera footage facing east, we can see this minor explosion. Then a trail of fire spreads as the motor blast ruptures the rocket casing and ignites the fuel. The rocket heads west in the direction of Camera 3, with a hospital in its path. 15 seconds after launch, the rocket fails completely and breaks apart. There's a small explosion on the ground, then a second larger explosion at the side of the hospital. A nearby resident captures the moment of impact facing northwest toward the hospital. Fire engulfs the courtyard and burns for an extended period. Experts said, "The large fire is likely due to the amount of fuel still left in the rocket just after launch." Explosives experts who reviewed the blast footage and photos of the aftermath also concluded that the failed rocket was the cause of the explosion on the ground. The crater shows an impact pattern coming from the east in line with a rocket's path. The shallowness of the crater is also consistent with impact from a failed rocket. WSJ noted that failed rockets are "not unknown" to long standing conflict between Isarel and Hamas. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨ 15:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ankraj_giri: The WSJ piece is already in the article [6]-- Orgullomoore (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Orgullomoore, WSJ has done excellent analysis by using many data from different sources. Thanks, we gave it one line mention which was all that required. Jokes apart, I have written extensive paragraph of it, which in my opinion may need to be placed at start of sub-section misfire rocket theory. Why I say that? All other works by diff media organizations were done in pieces. They all didn't conclude many things which WSJ did conclude. Also, WSJ piece source can be added- - side note~ video on archive of WSJ site gives error to me. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨ 16:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ankraj_giri: It's actually given quite a bit of space considering the fact that it's a 4-minute video. Most is in the section having to do with origin and trajectory, because that is mostly what the piece talked about. Putting the two sections together, this is what is said about the WSJ analysis: The Wall Street Journal published a report on 21 October 2023 containing an analysis of four geolocated and verified videos of the incident, concluding that the explosion was caused by a misfired rocket. According to the video analysis of The Wall Street Journal, a long-range rocket was launched from Gaza in a northeastern direction toward Israel. Ten seconds after the rocket was launched, it malfunctioned and veered back toward the west, with the hospital in its path. The Wall Street Journal's analysis also concluded that the impact crater was consistent with a rocket fragment incoming from the east. If you have a specific proposal, I'm happy to consider it. Obviously we cannot copy and paste your entire transcript. But you could say: "Between sentence x and y, I propose we insert the following sentence: _______________."-- Orgullomoore (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ankraj_giri: What error does it give you?-- Orgullomoore (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So this analysis actually seems to corroborate the Channel 4 analysis. The projectile did come from the east or northeast, because of the change of trajectory visible in the videos.

So both of these analyses actually support one another and the existing consensus that this was a failed PIJ rocket. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Inmymoonsuit: That's exactly correct.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"Background" sentence about other attacks on medical facilities

I removed content that basically said "guilty by purported association", i.e., it's not based on any evidence but on an opinion:

"Before the explosion at the hospital, the World Health Organization said Israel had attacked health facilities in Gaza 51 times.

My removal was reverted, and the sentence later expanded expanded to this version:

Prior to the explosion at the hospital, the World Health Organization said Israel had attacked health facilities in the Gaza Strip 51 times, killing 15 hospital workers and injuring 27 others, since 7 October.

The headline of the cited UN source says, "UN chief 'horrified' by strike on Gaza hospital, as warring sides blame each other". The USA Today paragraph: Since the attacks began on Oct. 7, there have been more than 115 attacks on healthcare centers across occupied Palestinian territory, according to the WHO. Fifty-one occurred in the Gaza Strip, with 15 hospital workers killed and 27 injured. The other incidents happened in the West Bank, officials said. The sources didn't support our versions, whether it's the initial one or the expanded version. Current version:

The World Health Organization said that since October 7 there were 51 attacks on health facilities in the Gaza Strip, killing 15 hospital workers and injuring 27 others.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes that is original research Drsmoo (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, sentence has no place here. Some users objected to a sentence saying that Hamas had previously used hospitals to store ammunition as irrelevant. By the same logic, this is equally irrelevant. Jeppiz (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless sources explicitly link this material to the article subject, it should not be included. There is plenty of sourcing for an article about Israeli attacks on medical facilities, though.Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't write NPOV around what conclusions people might take from an analysis of the verifiable facts. The context of hospital attacks is relevant and important context that must be included. Ashvio (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are these previous attacks relevant to this event? To provide corroboration for the possibility that this explosion may have the same cause. I see no other reason for their inclusion.

So what you're arguing is that you can include information based on an unstated conclusion, knowing this will lead a reader to a certain conclusion, but as long as you argue that you aren't considering readers' potential conclusions, you aren't leading a reader by the inclusion of said information? Inmymoonsuit (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The article on the Kennedy assassination includes the phrase: "In 1963, Kennedy decided to travel to Texas to smooth over frictions in the state's Democratic Party between liberal U.S. Senator Ralph Yarborough and conservative Governor John Connally." By your logic, this should be stricken as leading readers to conclude that Kennedy was killed as a result of internal strife within the Texas Democratic party. An encyclopedia article is allowed to discuss relevant background information for context. WillowCity (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

How is any of that relevant to the PIJ hitting a hospital with a rocket in a friendly fire attack? We could probably provide a list of other rocket misfires to build up context. But since this is unrelated to air strikes, I don't see how they are relevant. Cursed Peace (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You're just begging the question; your comment treats the PIJ theory as a foregone conclusion. And as it stands, rocket misfires are already noted. My point in referencing other articles is to note that Wikipedia policy, if applied consistently, weighs against the reasoning above. It's known as "analogy". WillowCity (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm summarizing what reliable sources say currently. Nobody except for partisans are claiming Israel was involved here. We don't need to aim for falsebalance and pretend an airstrike by an invisible and untrackable airplane is a realistic theory. Cursed Peace (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I second the point about false balance. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The Kennedy sentence quoted by you is comparable to the sentence saying that The hospital sheltered around 6,000 displaced persons, with around 1,000 in the hospital courtyard, i.e., both saying why people were where they were. The sentence about prior airstrikes is analogous to the Kennedy background sentence, As president, he authorized operations to overthrow Fidel Castro's communist government in Cuba; these culminated in the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961. Neither one is relevant to the subject of the respective article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. Much more accurate analogy. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether 24-hr BRD applies here but it's been more than 24 hours. The editor who reverted my removal hasn't weighed in although they have edited on this page, five editors agree with the removal, two oppose it, so I'll go ahead and remove the sentence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 20:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Britain’s channel 4 new analysis, different from its previous one, suggesting israeli airstrike and fabrication of israel proclaimed phone call

someone add it to the article, and also remove this “probably PIJ” in the infobox as there is no consensus among sources or clear cut evidence or official UN investigation until now. Revert it to “disputed” as it was.Chafique (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but most of what you write is wrong. First, Channel 4 has done no analysis; the YouTube clip reports an alleged analysis. Second, the organisation behind that analysis, "Earshot" seems very obscure. There is no information on it, no indication what expertise (if any) they have. (Third, I generally find YouTube clips to be less good sources than articles. If something is noticeable, it will be published in written WP:RS. Jeppiz (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This is your own opinion/commentary, jeppiz, which does not matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4041:4461:7600:9D2F:3F62:5A50:36E2 (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz https://earshot.ngo/ it is an NGO like any other, nothing obscure about it, it's just fairly new but that's it Imagemafia (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

YouTube videos are as reliable as the publisher, which in this case is Channel 4, which anyone can challenge at WP:RSN, though I wouldn't bother. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

And the analysis in this video, taken with the WSJ analysis, supports the consensus anyway. It's not controversial. The impact came from the east or northeast, because the failed rocket changed trajectory once it became damaged. I don't object to either source being used. They seem especially reliable when viewed together. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That is not at all what Channel 4 are saying. Andreas JN466 18:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What do you contend they are saying? -- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ve reverted it, I don’t even know how such a rash edit stayed up for this long. Even the wording isn’t matching Wikipedia The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The video is unavailable? Inmymoonsuit (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Washington Post covers this video and analysis

"A UK-based partner organization of Earshot, Forensic Architecture, conducted analysis of the impact crater. It found that the crater’s size and fragment spread indicated smaller projectile landing from the northeast — consistent with Earshot’s analysis, but not with the IDF account. Others will need to duplicate the findings for them to be verified, however — it’s clear from the track record of both organizations that they are no friends of the IDF.

On the evidence we have so far, Hamas’ claims of a deliberate Israeli airstrike on the hospital should be dismissed. The AP’s analysis of multiple videos provides by far the most plausible case for what happened, including that the massive fire that resulted from a small explosion would have been caused by unused rocket fuel. The Forensic Architecture suggestion that an artillery shell would also be consistent with the crater couldn’t explain the fire.

Uncertainty is normal in times of war, and it would take undeniable evidence to even begin to change minds in the Arab and Muslim world as to what happened at the hospital.[...]" Inmymoonsuit (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not a WaPo news article. They printed a Bloomberg opinion. For some reason, that's mentioned below the opinion. The WSJ analysis explains why the rocket fragment came in from the east. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 22:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox information and references

A few days ago in reply to a question in the Wikipedia:Teahouse {unrelated to this article} I was told that "material that is in the article with references doesn't need to have a reference when reused in the infobox." but this article's infobox includes 12 references most of which also appear in the article. Are all of them necessary or should material not already in the article be included in it and the references deleted? Mcljlm (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering how contentious the topic and subject matter is, I think it's helpful that the infobox references remain in place for now. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Questionable categorization

This edit added the article to Category:Friendly fire incidents, but nowhere does the article state conclusively that this was a friendly fire incident. I'm genuinely unclear on the policies applicable to categorization, but this seems inappropriately conclusory. If we're adding categories based on allegations that have yet to be conclusively verified, Category:Israeli attacks against the Gaza Strip would likely also be appropriate.

I really don't want to litigate the consensus issue with this thread. I know others (typically non-EC, like myself) are going to descend on this to point out how supposedly incontrovertible the "expert" opinion is. I'm not interested, I've read the talk page, I know about RS and NPOV. Can we drop the stick regarding the rush to judgement? Editors with vastly more experience than myself are saying to wait for an RfC before we take a side. So either let's not use categorization as a trojan horse, or let's include this page in all potentially applicable categories. WillowCity (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This was a friendly fire incident. This was not an Israeli attack. | Orgullomoore (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That has yet to be established as a fact, and categorization does not allow for any nuance. It should not be in that category unless and until it is established as a fact. nableezy - 02:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Then the war crime categories should also go. | Orgullomoore (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes they absolutely should. nableezy - 02:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I just removed them. It had been removed earlier in the day here [7], but I'm not sure who added it back. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

They were re-added by The Great Mule of Eupatoria in this diff | Orgullomoore (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done | Orgullomoore (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson

I have reverted the edit with an undo, so it might have undone the blurb without me intending to. i will change it if it hasn’t been fixed already The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Great Mule of Eupatoria ,can you explain why you added the "war crime" categories back in this edit [8]?— Preceding unsigned comment added by David O. Johnson (talk • contribs)