Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Forensic Architecture reliability

There is an RFC open on this topic. Splitting the discussion is not productive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

~~We have a source (Twitter.com) [1] discussing a seemingly fictional army, the IOF. Is this reliable enough for Wikipedia? Cursed Peace (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)~~

I know you think youre being clever here, but IOF is a, yes biased, name for the IDF (Israeli Occupation forces). If you are unaware of that, see Wafa using that name. Yes, it is biased, but bias is not related to unreliability. nableezy - 17:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Its an entirely fictional name. If a source were to refer to hamas as "the hummus boys" or some other racist trope, they'd equally be unreliable/useless for an encyclopedia. Cursed Peace (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Theres something racist about calling the IDF the Israeli occupation forces? But youve made your point about this several times, and you are only allowed to participate in these talk pages related to the conflict to post constructive comments related to the article. If you continue to do otherwise Ill be asking that your ability to do so be revoked. nableezy - 17:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and ask. Tell someone "an editor is asking if a source is reliable, I'd like him silenced". I am pretty sure we are meant to discuss sources here. Cursed Peace (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:GOODFAITH - I also think you would be better served posting to the reliable sources noticeboard to get consensus on if FA is a reliable source. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"you are only allowed to participate in these talk pages related to the conflict to post constructive comments related to the article. If you continue to do otherwise Ill be asking that your ability to do so be revoked."

That is way off base and just comes across as super aggressive and not conducive to consensus building. Assume good faith, and don't threaten to ban editors for challenging the validity of a source.

I'd also agree that the source is unreliable due to coming from the cesspool that is X/twitter. At the very least we should be linking the actual report, not a bloody tweet. From what I can see however, there is no actual page/article/report on this. There's just a tweet.

Using an inaccurate term for the Israeli Defense Force, when no other reliable source uses that term would point to a clear bias that goes well above and beyond the bias of any other source. I'd also question whether it's a reliable source, and why it'd be okay to use this source but not a source like the Institute for the Study of War, which has said "The Hamas-run Health Ministry contrastingly and falsely claimed that an Israeli airstrike hit the hospital and that hundreds of people died". At least the ISW isn't calling Hamas "Hummus" or something like that, and they both seem to go into the same level of detail (ISW states this on their website, Forensic Architecture says it in a tweet). When we have an ACTUAL article, not just a sentence on twitter, then we can consider adding it. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The tweet is no longer cited, the New York Times, al-Jazeera, and Bloomberg are. As far as off-base, meh. Id take a look at this for how things are headed based on largely the influx of users refusing to comport themselves with the required standards related to these specific articles. nableezy - 22:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Warnings like that raise the temperature and contribute to a more heated environment in a contentious topic. That's not going to help things and will contribute to the thing that you're frustrated about. Just my two cents. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the Twitter cites to "Forensic Architecture" and an obscure NGO called "Earshot." Aside from the reliability issues, it is not due weight to cite to Twitter posts here. There are multitudes of better sources out there. What's more, this "Earshot" group was founded by Lawrence Abu Hamdan, a Lebanese-British visual artist who asserts that he uses sound to "bridge art and politics" (Al Jazeera profile). Although he purports to be an "investigator" there is no evidence he has scientific expertise, and he acknowledges that he uses "experimental" and "cinematic strategies."

This is a hard no as an encyclopedic source. If there is secondary source coverage that picks up these groups' claims, we can discuss that. But we are absolutely not cherry-picking claims on Twitter like this. Neutrality^talk 18:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Earshot is not obscure, and it is cited by Channel 4. Forensic Architecture is part of the Goldsmiths, University of London. In what world do you think you decide whether something is an encyclopedic source by yourself? But hello, Channel 4's report cites it. nableezy - 18:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, both are cited by Channel 4, so the reliability is Channel 4's, but also, yes, Forensic Architecture is a well-established forensic research team that uses spatial mapping techniques, and yes, part of an established research university. It's a perfectly valid source at any time, but doubly so when reported on. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

FA's website doesn't include any content on this incident yet; it seems their claims are limited to Twitter at the monent. And if you look at FA's other previous work touching on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it's clear they have a dog in the fight: they use pejoratives like "IOF" and "settler colonialism" and "apartheid state." And I've seen nothing that suggests that FA has any expertise in missiles, rockets, explosions, and so forth. And Forensic Architecture's team, as its name implies consists primarily of architects, designers, artists, and so on. Being associated with a university is not a magical incantation that makes one a reliable source or due-weight: these are not subject-matter experts for the claim being made. Neutrality^talk 19:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Bias is not related to reliability, and their twitter is fine for their own statements. The reliability comes from the fact that they are regularly cited by and work with other reliable sources. And they are cited for this specific analysis by reliable sources as well. And oh by the way, other reliable sources like Amnesty International likewise use phrases like apartheid wrt to Israel, so your basis of claiming that it is biased or pejorative is entirely personal opinion, but regardless not relevant. nableezy - 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Whoa there. While I happen to agree that the apartheid state appellation is becoming increasingly common, it is definitely controversial, and disputed. I happen to think it's not a bad way to describe the situation, but its rise in acceptance still hasn't made it an unbiased, factual term in this case. It's heartily contested. Andre🚐 19:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

My point is that the usage does not demonstrate unreliability. Is Amnesty International an unreliable source? Human Rights Watch? What about the metric shitton of academic sources using that language? nableezy - 20:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact remains: FA lacks subject-matter expertise in the area. And FA is not "regularly cited by ... other reliable sources" — certainly not in comparison to other sources, and certainly not on the topic of missiles and rockets. And, Nableezy, aren't you the very same editor who dismissed citations to (indeed, even in-text-attributed statements from) the The Washington Institute for Near East Policy? That organization is cited on the Arab-Israeli conflict an order of magnitude more frequently than this FA "activist artist" outfit... Neutrality^talk 20:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That is based on nothing but personal opinion. Ive listed several sources below citing this very tweet. No, WINEP is not cited an order of magnitude greater, that is likewise an unsupported assertion. Yes, FA isd regularly cited by other reliable sources. If you even read the Wikipedia article on them you would see your unsourced assertions proven wrong. Oh, and here's the New York Times directly citing this tweet. They seem to think it worthy of discussion. Maybe also dont pretend like thats all the NYT piece you linked says, because how it describes them is a roughly 30-member research group comprising architects, software developers, filmmakers, investigative journalists, artists, scientists and lawyers. Just a wee bit different than the "activist artist" bit you keep quoting, which is actually a quote about the founder Eyal Weizman and not the group. Maybe be a little more accurate in your representation of the source? nableezy - 20:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it also describes the work product of FA as "data-driven" which "serve as detailed investigations into human atrocities that history has tended to ignore"... the founder is also Israeli, so I think that speaks to the fact that he likely less biased then like Al Jazeera. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Dude: The headline says that FA is one of several collectives of "Artists Bringing Activism Into and Beyond Gallery Spaces," and the article literally describes them as believers in "art as a revolutionary practice" and as "ideological opponents" of pro-Israel activists. You appear to be saying that Weizman is an artist-activist, but his fellow collective members are not. That's not how the magazine views it. Again, as to actual expertise: (1) Who on the FA team is an expert in missiles and rockets? (2) When in the past has any reliable source relied upon FA's statements about missiles and rockets? Neutrality^talk 20:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No Im saying your repeated denigration of them as somehow not experts because they are "artist-activists" is at odds with their description in the very same source you cite. As far as when have they ever been cited about missiles and rockets? Their report on Israeli usage of white phosphorous, commissioned by Yesh Gvul, was cited by Human Rights Watch. Architect Magazine reported on their presenting findings related to that report to a UN panel in 2012. They reported with Amnesty International on Israeli attacks on Rafah in 2014. I can keep going here. nableezy - 21:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a tweet. When they actually post a report that is longer than a sentence I think it'd be fine to include it. It's a sentence. No other source that I can see that we're using is based solely from a sentence from a tweet by an organization. Giving that equal weight to other sources is undue.

Based on this logic we can include what the ISW said that "The Hamas-run Health Ministry contrastingly and falsely claimed that an Israeli airstrike hit the hospital and that hundreds of people died.", correct? Because that's essentially the same number of words as what Forensic Architecture posted, and at least the ISW said so on their website and not just twitter (in the context of a larger report) Chuckstablers (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the NYT Style Magazine like journalistic or is it rather opinion pieces? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine including it when we have more than a sentence. We're giving it undue weight when the source is literally just a sentence on twitter from FA. When they actually publish something that you can read and analyze, then we can consider treating it like all of the other reliable sources that we have. But yea; I'd agree for now it's a hard no. At least until they publish something longer than a sentence using the wrong name for the IDF. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Ive tagged the article due to the repeated removal of any source that dares question the Western narrative here. The idea that a name commonly used for the IDF in the Arab world renders a source unusable is as absurd as claiming that anybody calling Hamas terrorists is unusable. nableezy - 18:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as Forensic Architecture, I have looked on their website, and it does include any resources regarding this subject explosion. It seems like the content is limited to their Twitter for now. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it was a preliminary analysis. But Twitter is a self-publishing platform, the question is if Forensic Architecture is, and it so obviously is that I cannot imagine how an admin is deciding by fiat that it is not. nableezy - 18:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I do see a WaPO analysis piece which discusses the FA analysis.^[1] It notes that FA is no fan of Israel, so maybe we can include with proper context (in a neutral manner on our part). ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/10/22/gaza-al-ahli-hospital-tragedy-shows-israel-needs-a-new-narrative/42146532-70ca-11ee-936d-7a16ee667359_story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Just to be clear, that's a Bloomberg Opinion piece (WashPo is just the republisher of it). Neutrality^talk 19:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Tagging the article as biased due to the repeated removal of any source that dares question the Western narrative here. Please list the diffs removing cites. Were they reliable sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 20:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Its the source discussed here, Forensic Architecture, and the user who removed it said so above. The diff is Special:Diff/1181540562. nableezy - 20:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources discussing Forensic Architecture's findings:

This claim that it lacks weight, that it cannot be cited, is based purely on personal opinion about their bias. You cant simply say I dislike the fact that all these places are citing this source, a source by the way that has worked with Bellingcat (cited on this page) and Amnesty International among others. There has been zero evidence that it is not a reliable source, simply personal opinion that we cant use any source that uses a pejorative title for the IDF. Im sorry, but when did that become policy around here? Neutrality you wrote if secondary sources discuss this then we can discuss that. Secondary sources are citing FA's tweet directly. On what grounds do you argue it has no weight here? nableezy - 20:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I've already explained above: lack of any subject-matter expertise and failure to generate anything other than a tweet (no report or any claim besides a tweet). DCI-Palestine is an advocacy group, so that doesn't support your case. The other pieces you linked to include one or two sentences about the group's claim. (The NYT link, for example is a liveblog that has one sentence about FA and says that the group is a "often critical of Israeli policies."). I understand that you may desire FA's conclusions to be true, but the fact that something is mentioned in sources (especially in the early days after an event) doesn't make it due weight or encyclopedic at all. Neutrality^talk 20:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Please dont comment on what you think I desire, that is a. none of your business, and b. outside your competence. Next, if reliable sources cite another source and repeatedly give it weight then it has weight to be included here. You have zero basis for claiming they have a lack of subject-matter expertise. Im going to cite the NYT as well as several other sources discussing FA's findings. nableezy - 20:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It's been challenged, so to try to stick it in the article would be a blatant violation of WP:ONUS. I advise that you allow other editors to weigh in. Neutrality^talk 20:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been following the discussion, and it's between two editors I greatly respect and who have only the best interests of the project and the article at heart. I think Nableezy just fundamentally doesn't like the idea of excluding or limiting use of a source purely because it is controversial or potentially not accepted by the establishment as having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I don't know whether FA does. I just know that the findings are appearing in current media. Are there any high quality sources, like in a media studies journal, that might be brought to bear? Andre🚐 21:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No, a reputation for not fact checking would go to reliability. But nobody has presented that. But yes, I reject the idea that bias can render a reliable source unreliable. We dont pretend sources are unbiased to begin with, but we are supposed to include all significant views. Not just the ones we agree with. When several reliable sources consider FA's view to be significant enough to include in their coverage then that view is significant enough to include in our coverage. nableezy - 21:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not return the challenged tweet. I cited the New York Times, Bloomberg and al-Jazeera. All green at RSP. If somebody would like to argue those are not reliable they are welcome to try. nableezy - 21:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

FA isn't reliable no matter who mentions them. They are artists who believe in activism. They have no expertise in rocketry. Here is an in depth article about FA and their propensity for truth stretching - [2] Cursed Peace (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Eh, well, what is this, Art News? Doesn't seem very reliable. Andre🚐 21:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

~~Forensic Architecture is an art group, so they are covered by art news. Go figure. Cursed Peace (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)~~

I don't think news, data, and art are all mutually exclusive concepts. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not, but FA creates their reports via interactive art, so I'm confused why you think art news wouldn't be reliable here? What part of the article struck you as incorrect? Cursed Peace (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the opinion of one pundit to be the be all end all of reliability. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

~~I can link more, I didn't know you had a minimum. How many reviews of FA do you require? Cursed Peace (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)~~

I am just one user, but would encourage a post to the RSN to gather greater community consensus. And great question. Probably another couple of in depth expose critiquing their process from a third party source would be helpful. But it seems that they won a Peabody Award which again, goes to credibility. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

A Peabody gets a lot of mileage with me toward reliability, but awards don't automatically establish reliability. It's a really good indicator, though, of their high reputation, which is probably why NYT, Bloomberg, et al, are willing to cite them. They should certainly be attributed for their bias. Andre🚐 21:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I did, I included the Times description of critical of Israel. nableezy - 22:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure they are reliable for certain art things but I believe the referenced piece is opinion in nature. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources cite them I think that speaks to their reliability to some extent. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the cites:

Forensic Architecture, a London-based visual investigation group, disputed the Israeli account, saying that the munition had been fired from the direction of Israel NYT

Forensic Architecture, Earshot and the Ramallah based NGO Al Haq have shared new information with Channel 4 News they say casts doubt on some aspects of Israel’s account. Ch 4

analysis by UK-based Forensic Architecture and others cast doubt on the rocket’s origin. Bloomberg

Forensic Architecture, a research group based at the University of London, analysed photos of the impact crater at the scene, saying that “patterns of radial fragmentation on the southwest side of the impact crater, as well as a shallow channel leading into the crater from the northeast” indicate the projectile likely came from the northeast – “the direction of the Israeli-controlled side of the Gaza perimeter”. Chris Cobb-Smith, an investigator and explosives expert, also agreed the evidence indicated the projectile may have come from the opposite direction claimed by the Israeli military, according Forensic Architecture. This lined up with the conclusions of a so-called “Doppler Effect analysis” by the Earshot audio investigation group, which looked at sound waves related to distance, and found that the missile likely approached from the northeast, east, or southeast, but not from the west as Israel’s military has claimed. AJ

So are they all hoodwinked and this is a weird art group? These are all attributed. This shouldn't necessarily be given weight purely for being verifiable. Andre🚐 21:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, Chris Cobbsmith is called out for antisemitism in the article about FA I linked that predates the attacks. Yeah, if news sources are into this source, they've been hoodwinked. This group has been accused of faking results before. Cursed Peace (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

So has the IDF? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think inclusion of FA is fine with attribution. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a tweet. There's no report or article. That's it. They've tweeted "we concluded X". That's nice and all, but until they make an actual report or article like every other equivalent reliable source it shouldn't be going in there. That's the argument I think, not that we're excluding it SOLELY out of bias. It's fine if it's biased. It's not fine if it's literally just a tweet that some reliable sources picked up on.

If we're going to open ourselves up to including tweets in the analysis section, or things that are just one sentence, we are opening the door to include a whole SLEW of think tanks (that have bias) that make equivalent statements concluding Hamas is lying when they say Israel did it. Because the evidentiary standard is the same; there's nothing there but a statement. The fact some reliable sources talk about it is irrelevant. Some reliable sources probably also talk about the ISW, or other equivalent hawkish think tanks. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article about FA. Looks like they're detested by many factions, but their analyses have been cited successfully in court (per the article). They seem notable enough to cite in and of themselves. Further analyses of the hospital explosion could result in retorts against FA's conclusions. -- Veggies (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should be including sources that are literally just tweets a sentence long saying something to the effect of "we did an analysis and are stating "insert something here"". We open the door to including other things of an equivalent evidentiary standard. Should we be giving this the same weight as say an entire analysis, complete with videos, frame by frame analysis, independent experts, etc? by places like the Associated Press, CNN, or the WSJ? It's clearly undue weight to assign the same value to these sources.

If they actually publish an analysis, or even an article stating their position, then I am 100% in favor of including it as long as it isn't also literally just "we did an analysis and we think this" except with two sentences this time instead of one. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That isn’t what undue weight means, what it means is giving weight to viewpoints per the weight given to them in sources. Several sources consider Forensic Architecture’s view worth writing about, they give that viewpoint weight. Which means we in turn should give it an equivalent amount of weight. A couple of sentences seems due to me based on the several sources cited. nableezy - 02:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't cite tweets. That precedent is pretty clear, and I think (based on the response you gave) that we both agree there. I think you're arguing that because other reliable sources noted the tweet, we should include something about it.

I don't see the logic there honestly. It's fine that other sources talked about it. We don't cite sources talking about sources. We cite the source. If the source can't be included on it's own merits, then having another source talk about it in no way makes it suddenly worthy of inclusion.

Would we say "NYT said that Forensic Analysis said that" or something to that effect? Because that just seems to be trying to get around the fact that the source does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Because it clearly doesn't; it's a tweet. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The idea that we're going to cite a tweet that uses a pejorative name about the IDF points to an issue with WP:UNDUE on the article and I think reinforces the necessity to explicitly state in wiki voice that this act was not committed by the IDF. @Nableezy stated that "IOF" is common in the Arab world, I can't speak to that, but what I can say is that if I went in to a meeting and heard someone shooting off pejoratives and inflammatory language, I'd tell that person not to waste my time; I don't use twitter but if a medium that I do read used unprofessional language and pejorative terms like that I'd never read it again. The idea that this is even a topic on talk is mind boggling. Obviously wiki doesn't write articles based on tweets not to mention those that are so unprofessional as to use pejorative language. Alcibiades979 (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

In what world do you think it is acceptable to remove three green RSP sources because you dislike the content? Besides the fact that it seems apparent from this section that most users find it acceptable to use attributed. nableezy - 08:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy See Neutrality comment here: "at least one of these sources uses a pejorative to describe the Israeli military. This has been challenged at talk, and I'm also challenging it. There's not only the source reliability questions, there's also undue weight questions. This must stay out, absent consensus WP:ONUS". Also here: "lack of any subject-matter expertise and failure to generate anything other than a tweet (no report or any claim besides a tweet). DCI-Palestine is an advocacy group, so that doesn't support your case. The other pieces you linked to include one or two sentences about the group's claim. (The NYT link, for example is a liveblog that has one sentence about FA and says that the group is a "often critical of Israeli policies."" Etc. etc.

There are numerous reliable sources already used in the article which are not contentious and which lack these issues. Why not just use them? Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The material removed by Neutrality was a cite to the tweet directly. What you removed was the New York Times, Bloomberg News and al-Jazeera. Neutrality's mistaken views on the expertise of the group has already been answered. Please explain why you removed al-Jazeera, the New York Times and Bloomberg reporting on this material from the article. And the majority view in this section appears to be it should be used attributed. There are numerous reliable sources ... Yes, and you just removed three. nableezy - 09:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd assume because they're citing a tweet. I'd also want to remove something citing just a tweet about anything and acting like it's a source in and of itself. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

As the original idea was to include them. Now we're kind of trying to bypass it by saying that OTHER sources are mentioning the tweets existence. Still doesn't change the fact that a tweets just a tweet.

(Just want to be clear; I can come across harsh sometimes I think, I want to be clear that there's no disrespect meant towards anyone, it really is just the way I am). Chuckstablers (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas doesn't identify as "terrorists" as much as the IDF doesn't identify with being "occupying." Many of the sources for the claim that it was a rocket misfire such as FDD are also *very partial* to supporting Israel, and it's easy to find their statements on the matter here. I support nableezy here. Ashvio (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979: Except that we can't state in wikivoice that there is 100% certainty that the IDF played absolutely no role in the explosion, because reliable sources haven't yet come to that conclusion.

Also, I'm not sure that "IOF" is necessarily pejorative, in so much as it may simply be considered a reality-based assessment of their relationship to the population over which they control. Under international law, the Israeli armed forces are part of an occupying power. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

a. We do indeed cite tweets. B. We aren’t citing a tweet here we are citing nyt Bloomberg and Al jazzera. C. I don’t really need to read about your personal opinions, this isn’t your blog. nableezy - 08:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: You just removed WP:RSP-sourced content with the explanation that it was challenged, but what was previously challenged, and removed here, were FA tweets. What exactly is your novel challenge to referencing the material to multiple WP:RSP? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Reverted, we don't just arbitrarily remove properly sourced material. Start an RFC and ask the question whether it should be included if that's a problem. Selfstudier (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That was clearly improper. The burden is on the proponents of challenged material - not the opponents - to establish consensus. Multiple concerns have been raised about this, so removal is far from "arbitrary." You may not strong-arm the material into an article. I have started an RfC below on the subject. Neutrality^talk 01:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

(I wrote this right after reverting but forgot to publish it.) Is this the Forensic Architecture tweet this thread is about: In reviewing our analysis, investigator & explosive weapons expert @CobbSmith agrees the fragmentation patterns may indicate the projectile came from the northeast—the direction of the Israeli-controlled side of the Gaza perimeter—and not from the west, as claimed by the IOF. pic.twitter.com/tld82ilse9? The tweet cites a weapons expert saying that the patterns may indicate the projectile came from the northeast. Then Foreign Architecture adds insinuation, i.e. "from the Israeli-controlled side" (they did it), and the pejorative for the Israeli armed forces used in Arab countries. That indicates bias. Also, our text said the NYT and Bloomberg cited a Forensic Architecture tweet disputing Israel's account. That's out of context. In the NYT article that's one short paragraph toward the end of a long article saying that Hamas has "yet to produce or describe any evidence linking Israel to the strike", and Bloomberg merely cites Channel 4 citing the tweet after citing the AP, the WH, Congress, and Israel. As for AlJazeera, I happen to agree with the editors who say that AlJazeera "is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict". Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC). I just realized that the Tweet I cited appears to be Forensic Architecture's follow-up to this "preliminary analysis". as claimed by the IOF — what is the source for the Israelis saying the projectile came from the west? I didn't find it in Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#Israel. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the editors who say that AlJazeera... The entry at RSP says "Some editors...." for a reason. Probably some of the same editors objecting to Amnesty. No surprise there. Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes that is the tweet. Bias is not related to reliability, and regardless that is not the source cited. Channel 4, Bloomberg, al-Jazeera and NYT all cover FA's analysis, that shows it has weight in reliable sources. So what are the grounds for making it have 0 weight here? nableezy - 14:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

"What are the grounds for making it have 0 weight here?"

The fact it's a tweet. It's irrelevant. There's nothing behind it. That reliable sources mention something irrelevant is fine, but it's still not relevant. We're giving it the same order of magnitude of significance as actual sources by including it.

I get your argument though. Not necessarily disagreeing with it? I just really think we're opening the door and creating a precedent to let the cesspool that is twitter into the article. Simply because it's notable enough for being contrary to the consensus view? Chuckstablers (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed this (improperly restored) material. If the proponents of the material want to talk it to an RfC, that is their prerogative. But multiple editors have expressed concerns about this material — not only based on reliable-source grounds but also due-weight grounds. WP:ONUS says very clearly that the burden is on the proponents of challenged material to establish a consensus to put it back it. Neutrality^talk 01:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Based off my reading, consensus suggests that it should remain. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I see no such consensus. In any case: I've started an RfC below, where (hopefully) exclusion/inclusion decisions will be based on argument, rather than counting heads. Neutrality^talk 02:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

That seems like deliberately attempting to enforce its removal for 30 days and running around what looks like an obvious consensus for an attributed inclusion here. nableezy - 02:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith Chuckstablers (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@HeyElliott: I'm sure it was accidental, but this diff re-added the content in question. | Orgullomoore (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

That was an accident, I'm sorry. Lots of people editing the same page at the same time. Sorry again about that, thank you for fixing that! HeyElliott (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, while I haven't been watching this page terribly closely, I also agree that the material should remain. Loki (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New third party independent source claiming missile came from direction of Israel

There is an RFC open on this topic. Splitting the discussion is not productive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's only preliminary for now but let's keep an eye on this one. It's the first independent verification I've seen going either way.

https://x.com/ForensicArchi/status/1715422493274427414?s=20

As a side note because I know it will come up, independent does not mean unbiased. It just means no direct conflict of interest with either of the parties, so for example privately owned US media would could as independent even if they had a bias as well. Ashvio (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please post a cite to a publication/press release rather than X? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Here you are! It's fairly short as it's based largely around a video, but I anticipate we will see more of this soon, as one of the NGOs involved (Earshot, the ballistic acoustics analyst) counts WaPo among its clients. Edit: updated to reflect Earshot's actual relationship with Washington Post WillowCity (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it looks like this source is relatively reliable, they have been commissed by Bellingcat who has also been cited already. I'll try to incorp tonight unless another editor gets to it first. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I incorporated the bit about the audio recording analysis. I didn't do the part about the whirring sound analysis saying the direction of travel was from the east, or the crater angle showed the trajectory was from the northeast.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP, I sympathize with your position but calling others assholes and being aggressive is unlikely to achieve what you are trying to do here. If you're able to get your report published in a reputable source we will definitely consider it for the article. Ashvio (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears the sources make the claim that the missile/rocket originated from the northeast, but the evidence they present only suggests that the final trajectory was from the northeast - something that is also consistent with the rocket clearly changing its trajectory during its failure in flight. For now I imagine there are original research concerns with including such an analysis, but once reliable sources can be found which make the distinction clear this should be included. StuartH (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I see your point.

It's worth noting that emerging intelligence seems to be pointing to an Islamic Jihad Misfire. US and European have indicated that their intelligence points to this.

https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231020-gaza-hospital-blast-was-caused-by-misfired-rocket-says-european-military-source Homerethegreat (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The new WSJ video does a very good job of describing the trajectory. The rocket did in fact come from the east, after being launched from Gaza toward the northeast, and then spinning out and crashing into the hospital parking lot.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, one of the best analysis I've seen so far — AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what I was looking for, and as one of the better summaries it is a good candidate for inclusion to provide further context to the Channel 4 claims about the trajectory. StuartH (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a contradiction between Camera 1 and Camera 2 in this video. In the footage from Camera 2 you can see at least 10 rockets rising. In footage from Camera 1, only one rocket can be seen, which then veers off course. Avior (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your WP:OR.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Pay attention to the announcer. "At about 6:58, camera 2 near the Gaza border shows what experts say is a barrage of short-range rockets, likely capable of traveling between 12 and 25 miles, being launched from western Gaza northeast toward Israel. Then about 20 seconds later [1:35 Camera 1], we see what experts say is a long-range rocket launched from Gaza. The rocket was launched in a northeastern trajectory toward Israel. 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 the journal 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 the 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 site of the hospital. A nearby resident captures the moment of impace, facing northwest toward the hospital. (2:45) Fire engulfs the courtyard and burns for an extended period." Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If you look very closely, there is a star to the left of the rising rocket in the Camera 1 footage. This star is Theta Scorpii and has an azimuth of 205.5°. The hospital has an azimuth of 204.8° from the camera position, so it is slightly to the left of the star. After reversing, the rocket flies to the right and moves away from the star and the hospital. Avior (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You'll have to take that up with WSJ and their experts. I merely transcribed the part of the video that explains what the footage of cameras 1 and 2 shows. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the WSJ would care if I emailed them. I am only providing this information for those who are willing and able to verify this statement for themselves. All you need is Google Earth and Stellarium. For those of you, I'll give you the location of Camera 1: N32.015455 E34.738411 Avior (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for original research - if we are to include this OSINT analysis it would have to come with a reliable source, including one that confirms the co-ordinates of the camera (these appear to point to a roundabout) and reliably identifies the star (would be easy to see if the star moves as it should in the longer livestream). StuartH (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This information is for this talk page only and is not intended to be included in the article. Experts need to clarify whether the direction to the hospital matches the direction to the observed rocket or not. I tried to suggest how this can be done.

If you know of a good place where something like this can be discussed, I would be interested. Avior (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM this is not the place for discussion if it's not about improving the article. Maybe look around discord or twitter for communities that would be interested? Ashvio (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That is original research. It can't be included. Moreover, if we're going to do this, as someone with a background in physics, it's just a silly statement to think that you can precisely determine the angle of the camera based solely on the video to such accuracy that a difference in azimuth of under a degree would be meaningful in any trajectory analysis. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Any source that refers to the IDF as the IOF (a pejorative name) cannot be taken seriously as being impartial. Drsmoo (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to my comment on independence vs bias. It's an independent source even if they have a bias. Pretty much every source in this conflict will have a bias one way or another. Ashvio (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Are they listed as a reliable source? Drsmoo (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No, they are likely too new to have gone through that process, but Channel 4 published their analysis. I dont know if Channel 4 is on the RS list but it's been used reliably as a source in the past. Ashvio (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you feel that way about any source referring to Hamas as terrorists? nableezy - 00:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

~~That isn't an equivalent. Think about a source that refers to Hamas as Hummus or some such. Cursed Peace (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)~~

Hamas objects to being called terrorists, IDF objects to being called IO(ccupation)F. Both could arguably be better descriptors of what they actually represent, and both are pejorative. In any case, I think you'll need more than a pejorative to make the case that a source isn't reliable, it's circumstantial evidence at best. Ashvio (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

One is an adjective, one is the name of the group. wp:cir here. Nouns and adjectives are not the same thing, and if the source is unable to say IDF, they aren't reliable. Cursed Peace (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion. It also remains irrelevant, since Channel 4 is the actual source here. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

~~So you are arguing channel 4 is unreliable. I tend to agree. Cursed Peace (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)~~

Obviously not, no (sigh). Channel 4 is reliable. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You just said they referenced a made up military group named the IOF. That doesn't sound reliable to me. Reliable sources don't invent armies. The source also doesn't attribute the bombing to Israel. There is no contention, all RS agree it was a friendly fire incident. Conspiracy theories about Israeli involvement are fringe. Cursed Peace (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Please go ahead and take Channel 4 to WP:RSN if you think you have a genuinely good argument to make about the problems with its reliability. However, I would suggest to you that simply reporting on the findings of an NGO that happens to refuse to validate the IDF's claims to be a defense, rather than occupation force has little to no bearing on the reliability of Channel 4 in reporting on those findings. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Channel 4 didn't conclude it was an Israeli airstrike, only that they don't know. We are back to the start. No reliable sources say Israel was involved. They all say "It was a misfired rocket" and one article says "someone mostly agrees it was a rocket", which you are trying to wave around as some sort of evidence against an overwhelming consensus in reliable sources. Please, get some sources if you want to argue sources exist. No need to keep your sources secret. Cursed Peace (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Calling IDF IOF is no different from when some media outlets called ISIS ISIL. It's not that big of a deal, you need direct evidence proving it has been an unreliable source historically to prove that point. Ashvio (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

~~Are you seriously arguing that Occupation is a common translation of Defense? Cursed Peace (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)~~

No, I'm saying that IS never called themselves ISIL, that name was wholly an invention of western sources who thought it was a better and more accurate descriptor. Since the UN and many other RS consider Israel to be an occupying force in a number of regions, it's not unreasonable for some to apply the same logic for IDF, that their focus is mainly on occupying rather than defensive capabilities. I don't discount sources for having used ISIL and don't discount any source for IOF either. Like I've said earlier, disproving a reliability of a source requires proof of them being unreliable. Using an acronym that rubs you the wrong way doesn't prove that, at best it proves they have a slant (which we know already, they are a human rights organization and very few of those support Israel) Ashvio (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

What occupation? Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and left it to the Palestinians to govern. Troops didn't enter Gaza until after the October 7th terrorist attack. Not to mention that occupation could be a defensive measure to ensure terrorists don't attack your state/country. Dionyseus (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 21:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

As nableezy has said, I'm uninterested in continuing this conversation. If you want to challenge the reliability of the source, please use the WP:RS/Noticeboard Ashvio (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Moussa Faki Mahamat

Under "On culpability", the article refers to "the Chairperson of the African Union Commission" without mentioning his name, Moussa Faki Mahamat. Could this be edited to include his name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.171.165 (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Done -- AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think there should be a comma so it says "Moussa Faki, Chairperson of the African Union Commission, denounced...". 98.110.171.165 (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Pakistani response source

Right now, we are using a primary source, https://mofa.gov.pk/pakistan-strongly-condemns-israeli-attack-on-a-hospital-in-gaza/, for the response of Pakistan. This is a primary, while there are a lot of secondary sources now available. Should we replace that source with https://www.arabnews.pk/node/2395591/pakistan or one of the many secondary sources now available? Cyclone of Corrections (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Addition of India's Reaction

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please make the following addition to the "Reactions" section:

Saket Sharma (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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) 15:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

you need to add a the template {{Edit extended-protected}} for your requests to be seen. Irtapil (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Done Liu1126 (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Add link to article in the See Also section

Add Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel to the See Also section. Deerove (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It has been removed previously, together with links to several articles about Israeil airstrikes, deemed non-neutral and irrelevant at this stage, when the culprit is not established beyond any reasonable doubt. Deinocheirus (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Prior strikes on the hospital

It would be informative to have a section about previous times the hospital has been hit. Definitely including 14 October 2023, but possibly also in previous years (i think there might have been one in 2018). The most detailed reports I can find for 14 October 2023 are all from Anglican Church websites (below). When it happened it was briefly mentioned in other sources such as MSF (doctors without borders) updates and some fairly reputable news sources, but i am having trouble finding those now amongst the more recent news, the couple i found used the same quotes from the Anglican websites anyway. Irtapil (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Irtapil (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Irtapil, I remember that being there before but it was removed, I don't remember the exact reason. But perhaps that belongs more in the ~~church's~~ hospital's page than in here. It is a personal opinion, but I feel like adding that the church was hit before here is a bit WP:SYNTH. Also it would be ideal to have secondary sources stating it in their own voice. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC); edited 11:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It was there soon after my comment, it might have been there already when I wrote that and i just didn't see it because the subheadings were a bit vague in earlier versions, they're clearer now. What do you mean by secondary sources? It's mentioned very briefly by the BBC and possibly others, but the very brief mentions mostly traced back to the Anglican Church, so they seemed a bit redundant? Are they worth including as evidence that respected news orgs considered the Anglican Church reliable narrators? Irtapil (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed it after this discussion on the Talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Are replies supposed to be disabled in the archive? Was the banned user in that thread banned due to something related to this, or coincidental? Irtapil (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. That archived discussion is about including a tally of all the times munitions hit any health facility in Gaza. I agree we should leave out things that happened to other health facilities, that is beyond the scope of this page, and to include it fairly would expand into a massive tangent? But events involving the same hospital are relevant to the context of this page, to make it clear that there were two distinct events, which may have different culprits. The October 14 event is included in some longer media articles about the October 17 explosion. Those media reports seemed redundant when I first found them (they repeated the same information in less detail), but user:AdrianHObradors implied they were useful support, so I will dig them up again and add them to the references if nobody has already. Irtapil (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood AdrianHObradors. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I misunderstood them? can one of you clarify? Irtapil (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Old name "Baptist Hospital"

The history section or intro should include it being run by the Baptist Church from the 1950s until the 1980s, because it is referred to as the Baptist Hospital (Arabic: المستشفى المعمداني) in numerous Arabic language news reports. There are several similar incidents from the same small space and time, it seems important to avoid confusion. Irtapil (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I have edit access on this page, but I wanted a second opinion, preferably from someone with Arabic language proficiency. The other name is mentioned in the Arabic version of this page Arabic: ar:مجزرة مستشفى المعمداني and there seems to be some suitable citations for the changes in management, but I didn't want to just copy it over using machine translation. I know a tiny bit of Arabic, but not enough to be confident on a controversial topic. Irtapil (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

مجزرة means massacre. The rest of what you pasted means Baptist Hospital. Not sure what the question is, though. | Orgullomoore (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Just for the names of the hospital, and some appropriate references to support them. It seems important to make that clear in the page. The hospital is given different names in different media reports, and it is particularly confusing given it's often called Baptist when currently run by another Christian sect. I don't know if Arabic wiki has a name for the place or just the event, I only checked the event. Irtapil (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll clarify it in the article shortly. The hospital is called the Ahli Arab Hospital (see this sign). Ahli means civil (as distinct, e.g., from military). It used to be run by the Southern Baptist Convention, and apparently the name stuck even after the Anglicans took it back over (see here) | Orgullomoore (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Here you go: diff. Feel free to improve. | Orgullomoore (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

thank you Irtapil (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You're very welcome. | Orgullomoore (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

{{who}} After "experts" in the lead

The {{who}} template keeps making its way into the lead after "experts." Why? Are we really expected to list out every expert that has agreed on this point? Most recent example: diff | Orgullomoore (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@BappleBusiness: Most recently it was added by you: diff. I'm going back through the diffs to ping other editors who have previously added it. | Orgullomoore (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"Experts" is a classic weasel word. I would say that clarifying what kind of experts is important. Are we talking independent Western journalists? Audio engineers? Military firms? The body is where we can go into specifics, but that doesn't mean that just saying "experts" is sufficient. Additionally, I do appreciate that the lead has been changed to say "most experts" to communicate that there is not a complete consensus, and that should remain. BappleBusiness^[talk] 00:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@BappleBusiness: It used to say "Subject-matter experts," but the "subject-matter" part was taken out by, I forget who, with an edit summary to the effect of "obviously we're talking about experts on the subject matter." To answer your question, we are talking about a broad range of people who were interviewed/quoted by journalists. They have expertise in open source intelligence, war crimes investigations, rocketry, missiles and munitions, military intelligence, weapons research, geolocation, and acoustics. They are Amerian, British, Indian, French, Swedish, and Australian. How would you de-weasel that without listing all of the foregoing? | Orgullomoore (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@BappleBusiness: Per MOS:WEASEL mentioning unnamed experts in the lead is fine when the attribution is provided in the article body, as it is in this article: The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: You added it in this edit after analysts on the death counts. I contend that it is not an improvement to identify the specific analysts who have questioned the death toll or agreed with the failed rocket theory in the lead. That is done in the body. Your input is welcome. | Orgullomoore (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

North Korea has concluded it was Israel with the help of the USA

https://www.reuters.com/world/north-korea-says-israel-bombed-gaza-hospital-calls-us-accomplice-2023-10-26/ This is probably worth mentioning. Cyclone of Corrections (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Got it: diff | Orgullomoore (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, though you have a small typo in the diff "accused Israel of Israel" Cyclone of Corrections (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It's fixed in the subsequent diff. | Orgullomoore (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

"inconclusive" in Lead

@Aaron Liu: Let's work on this a little bit [4]? I think we both have the same idea in mind, but I want to make sure we are clear and concise. The issue I see with the last edit ("Many news outlets have stated that the origin is inconclusive due to the lack of press access to Gaza and unavailability of the remnants of the projectile that caused the explosion") is that what is inconclusive is the determination/analysis of the origin/cause. In other words, a conclusion regarding the origin cannot be arrived at. On the other hand, I completely appreciate your desire to trim. What do you think we could say? What I had was: "Many experts and news outlets have stated that a definitive conclusion is not possible due to the lack of independent press access to Gaza and the unavailability of the remnants of the projectile that caused the explosion." I think it's fine to take out experts, as you did. What if we just said: "Many news outlets have stated that the cause cannot be conclusively determined due to the lack of press access to Gaza and unavailability of the remnants of the projectile"? Context will provide "explosion" (it's in the first sentence of the paragraph and the title of the article). | Orgullomoore (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds fine. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks! | Orgullomoore (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand the intention to highlight that these two factors make conclusive analyses more difficult. But in its present wording the statement is very problematic (Many news outlets have stated that the cause cannot be conclusively determined due to the lack of press access to Gaza and unavailability of the remnants of the projectile).

Which citations was this WP:WEASEL ("Many news outlets") summary based on specifically? It is not obvious at all to me from the article body in the current version. Please note that statements in the lede are not exempt from WP:V (see WP:LEADCITE).
Did these mysterious unnamed outlets state definitely that a conclusion will never be possible, also in the future? Otherwise this apodictic cannot statement would be a major MOS:DATED fail. (A Hamas whistleblower could come to the fore with conclusive evidence tomorrow, etc.)
Lastly, since the statement is currently the only part of the lede that summarizes conclusions by independent reliable sources, it also obscures the fact that many independent analyses (say the Washington Posts "Gaza hospital blast evidence shows it was caused by rocket, not airstrike" article that Andreas just recommended below) have by now concluded that the failed Palestinian rocket launch is the considerably more likely version. This is a NPOV problem.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Or we could just ignore consensus-building efforts and just keep switching it back and forth [5]. Sigh. | Orgullomoore (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Scrolling down from the “Analyses” section, we have the BBC, AP, CNN, NYT, WaPo…
Hmm, I’m not sure how to date it though. determined at this time?
Drsmoo has added content from the NY magazine which states that it’s more likely into the lede, so we should probably be fine. I oppose Iskander’s NYT addition though. I’ve pinged them above.

Aaron Liu (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is "airstrike" included in the infobox, when it has no credibility at this point?

There's certainly some remaining mystery about the explosion (partly because Hamas wants to keep up some mystery, it seems), but at this point, the possibility of an Israeli airstrike is 100% excluded among analysts who have any credibility (see Washington Post, BBC, etc). By putting "airstrike" in the infobox, Wikipedia is giving credibility to something which doesn't have any credibility, which might be considered the definition of pushing propaganda... AnonMoos (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right. I removed the field outright, similar to what we did with the Accused/Perpetrator field. | Orgullomoore (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks... AnonMoos (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

church reports

A while ago, the patriarchs in jerusalem released a statement about the explosion. This was discussed in a previous talk page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion/Archive_3#Church_report I think it would be wise to cite the reports Hovsepig (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

PIJ has no known history of denying attacks?

@Masssly: With respect to this edit [6], do you have a source for the statement that PIJ "does not have a known history of denying involvement in attacks"? | Orgullomoore (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. IMO, it should be reverted right away. It seems to imply that because PIJ typically takes credit for attacks, the fact that it doesn't take credit for an accident is noteworthy. This doesn't make any sense. It's at best a non-sequitur; at worst, it's misleading as it conflates attacks and accidents. Either way, it should be reverted as it doesn't add any value to readers. 73.15.26.85 (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I also see no reason to keep it; the wording is disingenuous. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a citation needed tag to it. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed it. Even assuming PIJ has no history of denying attacks it intentionally launches (and we have no support for that statement), that says nothing of its tendency to deny mass-casualty friendly fire incidents. | Orgullomoore (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

DW: Gaza hospital blast - What investigations show so far

A summary of findings: There is still little clarity about the deadly explosion at a Gaza hospital on October 17. But some open-source investigations have begun to shed light on events.

https://www.dw.com/en/gaza-hospital-blast-what-investigations-have-revealed-so-far/a-67237447

Article mentions Forensic Architecture, Earshot, Channel 4 investigation, and others. 133.106.47.67 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Good one, thanks! Andreas JN 466 00:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Up to date and informative, thanks for that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request

Grammatical error: "an US intelligence official" should be "a US intelligence official". Consonants and vowels are sounds, not letters 142.68.200.186 (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It's fixed. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Mention of New York Times in lead

a recent investigation by NYT shows that Israeli and U.S. intelligence officials incorrectly believe that a projectile captured on videos shortly before the Ahli Arab Hospital explosion was a Palestinian rocket, it was a projectile launched from Israel. I think it is worth mentioning this in article. Marshmallowjunkie (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

See above. Everybody is discussing this Aaron Liu (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that it doesn't change the conclusion at all, I don't see why it specifically matters? They specifically state that "But a detailed visual analysis by The New York Times concludes that the video clip — taken from an Al Jazeera television camera livestreaming on the night of Oct. 17 — shows something else. The missile seen in the video is most likely not what caused the explosion at the hospital. It actually detonated in the sky roughly two miles away, The Times found, and is an unrelated aspect of the fighting that unfolded over the Israeli-Gaza border that night."

That being said a reliable source said it, I'm not opposed to inluding it as long as we're appropriately quoting them when they say that it doesn't change the assessment of the US/Israeli explanation and that their explanation remains plausable. As that's what the source says. Chuckstablers (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

due weight-age is being to US intel officials here, along with this, that sole peace of evidence was circulated numerous times to make a claim that it was "Palestinian misfired rocket" NYT article (a reliable source) disproves that. Marshmallowjunkie (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It does not disprove that Palestine fired it, nor does it prove that Israel fired it. It only disproved that the widespread video's rocket caused the hospital explosion while other evidence exists. See [7]: the evidence is consistent with a broken rocket from the southwest though it could also be read as artillery from the northeast. Meanwhile, the rest of the blast suggests that it was a rocket. The video NYT disproved, referred to as the "nighttime video" in the CNN article, doesn't factor that much and was widely televised because it was one of the few video footage of the event. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

it disproves the claims of US and Israeli intel officials on what caused the blast. Also you haven't read the article, it directly says that rocket (that American and Israeli intel officials repeatedly claimed as a Palestinian misfired rocket), was fired from Israeli side and pins to a iron dome site. Marshmallowjunkie (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The claims of the US have a lot more evidence than the footage and I’ve read the article. All I can see is that it says Israel was running a bombing campaign from Iron Dome around the time which produced the missile shown in the video which exploded above the Israeli-Gaza border, at least two miles away from the hospital. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

it says this,

"Times analysis does cast doubt on one of the most-publicized pieces of evidence that Israeli officials have used to make their case and complicates the straightforward narrative they have put forth."

and the author of the article (Aric toler) points this out.

it does undercut one of the most-publicized pieces of evidence used by both American and Israeli officials

I think it bears sufficient merit to be included in the article based on these calims of disproving claims of US and Israel's intel officials of using that video for their conclusions. Marshmallowjunkie (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, defeating one of the most publicized pieces of evidence does NOT equal disproving. The video NYT disproved, referred to as the "nighttime video" in the CNN article, doesn't factor that much and was widely televised because it was one of the few video footage of the event. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It is already in the article. nableezy - 21:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Marshmallowjunkie (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This has been reverted on spurious grounds by two editors as undue for the lead in direct contravention of WP:LEAD, "including any prominent controversies" and a detailed investigation by an RS that "..does cast doubt on one of the most-publicized pieces of evidence that Israeli officials have used to make their case and complicates the straightforward narrative they have put forth." qualifies. This is yet another instance of attempted rubbishing of reliable sources as seen in the ongoing RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere in the lead mentions any evidence. If you only mention this piece of evidence in the lead and nothing else, it is undue. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The lead is presenting this as though experts have one view and they do not. That is a NPOV violation. nableezy - 12:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we could put something like “(media source names) say that the evidence is inconclusive” at the end of the lede? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is yet another RS "All this information is openly-available intelligence. It does not constitute conclusive proof that the explosion in a hospital in Gaza City was caused by a misfired rocket." Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure what your point is. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I am discussing the POV reverts. Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see how it addressed them. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we could put something like “(media source names) say that the evidence is inconclusive” at the end of the lede? You appear to be getting the message nonetheless. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 AFAIK the video was not the core evidence but a supporting one which was widely televised as it was a video. Articles like the CNN analysis above don’t mention the video much. I don’t think this should be in the lede. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The use of "centre" was possibly a little off-key ... "But the Times analysis does cast doubt on one of the most publicized pieces of evidence that Israeli officials have used to make their case and complicates the straightforward narrative they have put forth." - I've now clarified the material with tighter paraphrasing to the source. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO if it’s not that core then it shouldn’t be put in the lede. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean it is core in the sense of the main thing Israel has been re-posting and talking about for days, hence "most publicized" - and the revelation that this is complete nonsense is a stark one. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The video has not been mentioned in the lede ever and publicity does not change facts. The lede’s purpose is to present facts, not publicity. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Well the New York Magazine 'broad consensus' isn't fact either - that's just an opinion from a single US media brand, and it's now dated, so that shouldn't be sitting there either. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, but publicity is even further from fact than an opinion on which fact is true. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

A fact is by definition true. Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you get what I meant. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I did, still think one shouldn't select "facts", it's WP, we report what RS say, attributing and quoting as necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't happen often that the New York Times contradicts the United States' Director of National Intelligence on such a high-profile matter as this ... I feel a mention in the lead is due, especially given how prominent the discourse around this contested piece of video evidence has been. (By the way, the NYT article is still being updated.) What do other editors think? --Andreas JN 466 23:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jayen466: With respect to this diff, I'm not necessarily opposed to pointing out in the lead that there is a question about the relevance of the video that formed the basis of some of the analysis, but tacking it on after a semicolon at the end of the lead is unelegant writing; I hope you don't mind me saying

. Is there a way you could improve that perhaps? | Orgullomoore (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I've tried to phrase it less awkwardly, and hopefully make it clearer what exactly the analysis was saying. Loki (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, thank you. I'm sure it will go through some evolutions. Should be fun to watch it morph. | Orgullomoore (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar Yes, well done, thank you.

Andreas JN 466 23:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The Post has come out with an article as well. They agree with the Times about the Israeli origin of the rocket shown in the video but also discuss further evidence, including Palestinian rockets fired in the relevant timeframe. Andreas JN 466 23:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Nice! Digesting... | Orgullomoore (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

That looks like a good source indeed, but your summary of it seems rather incomplete. The article's title tag is Gaza hospital blast evidence shows it was caused by rocket, not airstrike, and this appears to be its most important conclusion:

The analysis of that and other videos, in addition to expert review of imagery of the blast site, provides circumstantial evidence that could bolster the contention by Israel and the U.S. government that a stray rocket launched by a Palestinian armed group was responsible for the Oct. 17 explosion.

At the same time, no visual evidence has emerged showing a rocket hitting the hospital grounds, and the evidence reviewed by The Post does not rule out the possibility that an unseen projectile fired from somewhere else struck the hospital grounds.

In other words, the Washington Post says that its review of the evidence overall increases the credence of the US government's conclusion (even if uncertainties remain), contrary to the narrative implied by Andreas above. Selectively highlighting aspects of the WaPO article that point into the other direction doesn't seem compatible with WP:NPOV.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed this from the lede per WP:LEDE, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV.

The lede should focus on summarizing the current best knowledge about the article topic itself, not on the back and forth among reliable sources that led to it ("source A said X, but then source B said Y which called into question one piece of evidence used by source A..."). If we have to highlight particular failings of reliable sources in the lede at all, it would be more in line with NPOV to focus on those that had the highest real-life impact and coverage. (That would more likely include the New York Times itself by the way, which made a grave mistake - that, to its credit, it has since acknowledged - by initially giving too much weight and credence, over internal objections from several of its own newsroom journalists, to what what by now quite clearly appears to have been misinformation by the Palestinian authorities, with serious real-life consequences in many countries.)
Even if we were to accept the primary rationale Andreas offered above for including this statement in the lede (It doesn't happen often that the New York Times contradicts the United States' Director of National Intelligence on such a high-profile matter as this,) it wouldn't apply to the current version of the statement, since it doesn't mention the US government at all, but rather goes after unspecified WP:WEASEL "many analysts" in a rather WP:SYNTHy claim: The New York Times and The Washington Post have reported that a video relied upon by many analysts shows a projectile being intercepted by the Iron Dome miles from the location of the hospital, and that therefore it could not be related to the hospital explosion.
Lastly, the statement is also highly problematic because it is likely to cast doubt in the reader's mind on "many analysts" conclusions in general, without regard to how much those conclusions actually relied on interpretations of this particular video.
Come to think of it, it seems to me that the lede should give more, not less weight to independent analyses. Currently it only mentions government statements and then makes the rather apodictic and WP:SYNTHy assertion that Many news outlets have stated that the cause cannot be conclusively determined due to the lack of press access to Gaza and unavailability of the remnants of the projectile. This obscures that many independent RS (like the WaPo's "Gaza hospital blast evidence shows it was caused by rocket, not airstrike" article recommended by Andreas above) have by concluded that the failed Palestinian rocket launch is the considerably more likely version. (I see that there is already a separate talk page section about that sentence, so I will follow up there instead to keep things connected.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's appropriate to refer to the NYT and WaPo analyses in the lead. The current language, referencing NYMag, should certainly go. It's demonstrably UNDUE to refer to a single source (even one alleging some form of "broad consensus"; see MOS:LEADNO); and the article is four days old and predates the Times and WaPo analyses which cast significant doubt on the merit of this alleged consensus. @Iskandar323's version was far preferable. The argument that the prior wording is synth is also without merit; if we had to employ the exact wording of every source in order to cite that source, every page on this site would be a copyvio. It's also not inappropriate to "cast doubt" (to the extent that the prior wording actually does so) on analyses that are subsequently found to be dubious by other RS. WillowCity^(talk) 17:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Also: would it be appropriate to merge this thread with the discussion above? Not sure what the protocol is on something like that, but the two seem to cover the same or similar ground. WillowCity^(talk) 18:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think so. I only found this discussion today. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I've merged in the other discussion and I really don't think we should mention a specific piece of evidence in the lede. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel the New York Times analysis is important because of how widely viewed the relevant video was and how closely it is linked to people's perception of the event, even though both the Post and the Times now express the opinion that the rocket shown in that video was an Israeli missile that had nothing whatsoever to do with the blast in the hospital compound. There is a lesson in media literacy here. Andreas JN 466 20:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I also agree they should be in the lead. The only point I agree with HaeB about is that "many analysts" is weasel words. I've readded the line while attributing the analysis more directly to "the IDF and others". Loki (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that's sensible enough, although I would note that the "weasel words" policy is somewhat relaxed in relation to the lead: "[Weasel words] may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." The body does discuss analysis of "videos" by different sources at some length. Just food for thought. WillowCity^(talk) 00:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

POV categories (for the third time)

@Ali Ahwazi: Please stop adding categories that imply that it is known or uncontroversial whether the Ahli Arab Hospital explosion was caused by an attack on the hospital as opposed to a failed rocket launch targeting Israel (or some other third explanation). We discussed this here (23 Oct 2023) and here (25 Oct 2023) and you acknowledged the discussion here with the following words: "I appreciate your attention for the mentioned issue. Good luck." (26 Oct 2023) I do not understand why you made this edit here, adding the category "Attacks on buildings and structures in 2023". That category treats the cause of the explosion as fact, which is a violation of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, which says: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of neutral point of view (NPOV) when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." It is somewhat tedious and tiresome to constantly undo these additions which we have already discussed. The part that takes the most energy is creating a new section in the Talk page and linking to the previous discussions and diffs. So please just stop doing that so I can spend my time doing other things. Thanks in advance. I appreciate your attention for the mentioned issue. Good luck. | Orgullomoore (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/10/22/gaza-al-ahli-hospital-tragedy-shows-israel-needs-a-new-narrative/42146532-70ca-11ee-936d-7a16ee667359_story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]