Jump to content

Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion/Archive 9

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

Naftali

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

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

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

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


This sentence in the lead is wrong:

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

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

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

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

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

I would also delete this line in the infobox:

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

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

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

References

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

Unclear sentence in lead


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

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

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

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

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

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

Content/edit for review

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2024

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

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

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

Page lede should include both perspectives to ensure NPOV

To SPECIFICO, you deleted from the lede summary of RS content from the body of the page ensuring NPOV in the lede, arguing that it is somehow content that is not a summary of the body, which it plainly is.

Do not do that again before obtaining consensus here for wanting to violate NPOV in the lede.

It should be added that SPECIFICO is now extending edit-warring from another page where they are also trying to delete RS NPOV content in violation of Wiki rules.

Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Lede-body consistency is more of a technicality that can be fixed, but your lede additions were lacking in neutrality -
  • Channel 4 News investigations contested Israeli claims seems misleading, firstly since they're just reporting on investigations by Forensic Architecture and Earshot. Also while they report on evidence which casts doubt on certain Israeli claims, they don't back a particular theory; they also say Hamas and Islamic Jihad have so far offered little evidence to back their claims that Israel fired the missile ...
  • If the New Yorker quote is included, it should be clarified that it's another reference to FA report, not some additional investigation.
  • an aggressive disinformation campaign seems like FA's editorialization which I don't think belongs in the lede
  • multiple news outlets erroneously cited the IDF’s claim doesn't really match FA's language
  • noted isn't the appropriate language for FA's controversial claims; it's one of the loaded terms that MOS:SAID warns us about
  • The New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País cited Forensic Architecture seems like an effort to bolster the prominence of the report, when it's very normal for media sources to refer to one another, and we don't typically note such references (let alone in ledes)
xDanielx T/C\R 18:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The lede additions were literally taken from the body of the page from accepted RS content. It was summarizing that, so unless you or anyone else wants to change the body of the main page to no longer contain those which would require you to challenge those claims and RS sources, the lede should be returned as was.
Every word of the lede is exactly matched by the RS sources.
The Channel 4 investigations are not "just reporting on FA and Earshot", they are independent investigations that drew their own conclusions, as is noted in the body of the page where both investigations are referenced and sourced, here and here.
seems like FA's editorialization which I don't think belongs in the lede, fortunately what you think isn't relevant, Wiki rules are: FA is a RS, they concluded that, it's in the body of the page, it is highly relevant and must be included in the lede.
Otherwise when I say that the prior paragraph making claims about the rocket clearly being a misfire is "loaded" and "contentious" it would also have to be removed. Fortunately, again, Wiki doesn't work like that.
doesn't really match FA's language it is an exact summary of what FA concludes: "Multiple news outlets cited Israeli military spokesperson Daniel Hagari’s claim that it was a Palestinian rocket that struck al-Ahli hospital with ‘most of this damage… done due to the propellant, not just the warhead’. Similar claims were made by Human Rights Watch, the Washington Post, the BBC, and AP. Our analysis, however, suggests that all seventeen visible rockets in the salvo the Israeli military claimed was responsible had finished burning their fuel mid-flight, meaning that by Hagari’s own logic they could not have caused the damage to al-Ahli."
In fact I was overly summarizing by not including the names of all those outlets FA concludes repeated what they say was a false account.
noted isn't the appropriate language for FA's controversial claims what you think is "controversial" is fortunately irrelevant: FA is a RS widely cited by other RS, "noted" is not only the exact right term, it should actually be "concluded".
seems like an effort to bolster the prominence all those outlets cited FA's analysis, they are all RS, and the language matches that exactly. What it "seems like" to you is again irrelevant, it meets RS standard and should be included in the lede.
All these points are contained in the body of the page, and if you would like to contest them and have them removed, good luck with that.
The lede will include it until those elements are successfully challenged and removed by consensus.
Make sure to make a separate talk topic for each the parts you want to remove, and again good luck. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Channel 4's reporting doesn't seem like an "investigation" to me - I see some basic background info, some summaries of other investigations, and a few sentences of verbal commentary from a newscaster. I suppose it's debatable though.
FA never refers to other reports "erroneous", and it inherently cannot be erroneous to simply cite a spokesperson's claim.
FA's statement about an aggressive disinformation campaign is hardly an objective "conclusion", and verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, especially in the lede.
To suggest that statements like the Israeli military launched an aggressive disinformation campaign are uncontroversial seems extremely farfetched, and I don't see why we would ignore the advice of MOS:SAID here. It also seems undue for the lede anyway, since it's a vague statement which reflects the opinion of one source.
Do you think we should list, in the lede, all the prominent tertiary coverage of AP, CNN, etc. investigations? Presumably not; tertiary coverage is rarely mentioned especially in a lede. Why should the FA report in particular be afforded special treatment?
To your point about consensus, the WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include disputed content. — xDanielx T/C\R 20:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the concerns about FA although there may be an older consensus that it should stay in which may need to be litigated by a further formal consensus. However personally I do agree FA doesn't belong in the lead, it is part of the story but should be treated as a primary source report and contextualized by secondary sources, and attributed for any of its conclusions. Andre🚐 20:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
It is not a primary source, that makes zero sense. It is not "part of the story", it is an independent, and reliable, source covering the story. And it has been given a ton of weight in other reliable sources. And you know full well it is not just "there may be an older consensus that it should stay", you were there when that consensus was established. nableezy - 20:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is the consensus that I meant, thanks for finding it. That was from almost a year ago so I didn't remember. However I'm making a slightly different argument about treating it as a primary source. Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, such as a work of art or a scientific paper documenting original thought. There are plenty of secondary sources that cover it. Andre🚐 20:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
They are none of the involved parties here, they are definitionally secondary to what they are covering. They are no closer to the event than the New York Times is. You cant just claim that any investigation that doesnt line up with the ones you agree with are suddenly "close to the event" and a primary source. nableezy - 20:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, even the New York Times' breaking news reporting would be considered a primary source. Andre🚐 20:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
We already went over this recently on another page, but to reiterate here too, the FA February investigation on an event that took place in October is clearly WP:SECONDARY:
A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[f] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[g] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary, or scholarly review.
This is not even controversial, the FA investigation is plainly not a primary source. Not even the earlier FA investigations are primary sources, as they are plainly secondary analyses based on primary sources. Adding the New Yorker reference to the FA text adds a strong secondary RS to it, so that's why I suggest including that.
In any case, since there is consensus established regarding it already, the onus is on those who want to challenge and remove it to gain consensus for it. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
This isn’t breaking news, this is an independent report by a well regarded and regularly cited reliable source. nableezy - 20:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Not much to add here apart from what nableezy and Raskolnikov.Rev have already said but since it seems this is a continuation of another discussion that I also took part in I'll add my two cents. FA is not a primary source, that has already been established. Trimming the lead to only exclude one viewpoint is a flagrant NPOV violation, especially considering that the proposed addition mentioned things already included in the body. I do agree with SPECIFICO re: the paragraph being too long. Seems like a shortened version is now up, so there shouldn't be any problem with it anymore. When content is new, the onus for consensus is on those seeking inclusion, but if it's been there for a while, onus is on those seeking to remove it. So, if anyone has a problem with the content being summarized in the lead, feel free to open a proper discussion to deal with each case and decide if it should stay or not. - Ïvana (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Re Do you think we should list, in the lede, all the prominent tertiary coverage of AP, CNN, etc. investigations? We do mention their findings. Per NPOV we also need to mention the findings that dispute theirs as well. nableezy - 20:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
These are not their "findings," they are reporting that Forensic Archaeology has made its own findings. Scharb (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
What exactly are you replying to here? nableezy - 21:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
You. Scharb (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok, if you say so, but your reply doesnt seem to be a reply to anything I said here. nableezy - 21:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
FA's analysis was already in the lead, and NPOV demands that all significant views be included. We already have a consensus for the inclusion of FA in an RFC earlier. nableezy - 19:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with keeping the lede per your latest edit, as it ensures NPOV and accurately reflects RS as included in the body of the page. Maybe add the New Yorker source as well after the FA reference, as it is RS and references the same investigation noting the same point as in the text you added. Also there's a minor grammatical error, "the Human Rights Watch" should just be "Human Rights Watch." Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Also fine with a succinct mention of FA's report like this in the lede. Fixed the typo you mentioned. — xDanielx T/C\R 02:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Is the FA analysis a significant rebuttal of the other studies - including the various foreign military intelligence assessments? Or is it a marginal possibility such as will always be present in the fog of war and imperfect information? SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes. nableezy - 03:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the lede is fine, it doesn't give undue weight to the FA report.
The phrase "The cause of the explosion is contested" in the previous paragraph has NPOV problems since it makes it seem like RS support both versions equally. Alaexis¿question? 20:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Not necessarily against tweaking it, but I don't think it's much of an issue since the proceeding sentences clarify that there's more weight behind the failed rocket explanation (or at least against the intentional Israeli strike explanation). — xDanielx T/C\R 20:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, agree with this, and am against tweaking it for that reason.
Also noticed the sources for that section were cut out in the previous revision, so I've re-added them. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
No. The New Yorker describes the Forensic Architecture analysis as follows:
"Four months later, Forensic Architecture published its full investigation, demonstrating that all seventeen Palestinian rockets had finished burning their propellant while in flight. The investigation was not meant to prove that Israel had destroyed Al-Ahli Arab Hospital. It is still unclear what caused the explosion. What the investigation did was show that the I.D.F. had fostered an environment of uncertainty by putting out misinformation about a misfired Palestinian rocket."
(The latter seems to be editorializing and non-chronological.) Scharb (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
@Ïvana: I’m not seeing a consensus here to include the old FA report as well as the new one, and the WP:ONUS is on you to get such a consensus as the status quo is to exclude the old report from the lede.
Personally, I see it as undue emphasis on FA’s reporting to include both, and generally suspect - the older report, which attributes blame to Israel, has been superseded by the newer report, which says it is unclear what happened. BilledMammal (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
agree with BilledMammal Andre🚐 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
There was wide agreement that the lead was fine prior to your edit. That consensus seems fairly clear. nableezy - 12:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
You're wrong. The report from February did not refute the October report's finding that the blast originated from munitions fired from Israel. Instead, it concluded that the cause of the blast remains inconclusive. So, first report establishes location, second determines cause was inconclusive. And the third one says the likely cause was not a rocket but a fragmentation bomb (not included on the lead, just an update). The munition is still considered to be originating from Israel, that was never retracted. - Ïvana (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't read it that way. Regardless, we've got WP:UNDUE emphasis on the claim that Israel was responsible; there are four sentences discussing that claim in the lede, compared to three discussing the claim that Palestinian militants were responsible, despite the latter claim being far more widely accepted.
Please self-revert until WP:ONUS is met. BilledMammal (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how you read it, that's what the reports say. You're welcome to check them out. The lead has been thoroughly discussed and the onus falls on you. But if the problem is one single extra line then we can easily combine the FA ones. It was originally one line but it was splitted for clarity. - Ïvana (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Really? Alaexis, "the last paragraph of the lead is fine, it doesn’t give undue weight". xDanielx "also fine with a succinct mention of FA's report like this in the lede". It was nearly unanimous until you attempted reimpose your position here. This at this point is stable with consensus and *you* need consensus to change it. nableezy - 13:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree with @Nableezy and @Ïvana. This has consensus, and if anyone wants to challenge it they have to gain consensus for that.
Also saw that a new FA investigation has further added to their case against the errant rocket/munition theory, and I support adding that to the lede too.
Something like this succinctly captures all three FA investigations: "In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel, and in subsequent visual investigations published on 15 February and 17 October 2024, with the latter including situated testimony from doctors, it cast further doubt on the errant rocket launch theory.[14][15][89]" Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
That looks good to me. - Ïvana (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Looks bad to me, gives undue weight, it's too lengthy for the lede, and misstates the facts. (See section below) --Scharb (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Uh @BilledMammal you can't just force your view in here, there has been wide agreement in this section that is at odds with your editing. Kindly establish a consensus to change what already has consensus. nableezy - 21:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
The sources you just added don't support your claim. The BBC says (On 14 November, Forensic Architecture removed a tweet and changed its analysis to say the projectile was probably a rocket although the group stood by its conclusion on the direction it had come from.)
If you insist, I'll revert to the status quo and open an RfC, but inserting content that is contradicted by the sources you cite is highly problematic. BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
FA did not change its analysis. The BBC update mistakenly summarizes FA's 14 November post, which was referring to a photo of a crater in Ukraine that they deleted, not the Al-Ahli site analysis, which is still up. This is accurately reflected in the long-standing version of the lede that you edited, and in fact in their latest investigation FA cites situated testimony referring to munition. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
The status quo is already there, and insisting on following a mistake in an otherwise reliable source (FA didn’t delete the tweet about this) is curious. nableezy - 12:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
By my count, in this discussion page as of this post:
The status quo has been contested by 1. BilledMammal, 2. xDanielx, 3. Miberg 4. Andre 5. Alaexis and 6. scharb.
The status quo has been supported by 1. nableezy, 2. Raskolnikov.Rev, and 3. Ïvana
The contesting group has pointed to numerous problems with the current description, including WP:Peacocking and undue weight and the text simply does not match the source or pertinent secondary sources.
Please do not Wikilawyer when consensus that doesn't exist. --Scharb (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Uh, xDanielx: Also fine with a succinct mention of FA's report like this in the lede., Alaexis: The last paragraph of the lede is fine, it doesn't give undue weight to the FA report. No idea who Miberg is. But may want to accurately reflect what other editors have said. nableezy - 22:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
My apologies, "MiBerG" and Alaexis said "The phrase 'The cause of the explosion is contested' in the previous paragraph has NPOV problems since it makes it seem like RS support both versions equally." Scharb (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
That isnt an extended confirmed editor, they cannot participate in the consensus making process. There is clear consensus for the inclusion of FA in the lead. Full stop. nableezy - 23:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't aware the BBC report was inaccurate - but if you were why did you add it? And if you weren't, why did you add content that was contradicted by it?
However, even setting aside the BBC report, the content added doesn't align with the sources. The content says the munition came from Israel; the Tweet says it came from the North-East, and that it what the provided sources say; for example, El Pais says "According to its analysis and three-dimensional projection, what hit the Al Ahli center came from the northeastern area".
In general, though, I still think it is WP:UNDUE for the lede. This is a tweet, by a highly partisan organization (the tweet uses "IOF", not "IDF"), that received a few brief mentions at the time. It warrants a mention in the body, but there is no justification to include it in the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The justification to include it in the lead is that it is a view that reliable sources have treated as significant and NPOV requires all significant views be included, including in the summary of the article. nableezy - 02:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
NPOV requires that all significant views be included in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. We've violated that in general, giving excessive emphasis to the minority view that PIJ was not responsible, but we've also violated it specifically, as we're giving excessive emphasis to a tweet that was given only a passing mention in coverage at the time. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
It wasn’t passing coverage. And there is wide agreement among a range of users that the brief mention of FA's disputing the Israeli narrative in the lead is acceptable. nableezy - 03:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
There are 59 words covering the majority of reliable sources which agree the PIJ was probably responsible. There are 73 words covering the minority position that Israel was probably responsible; that isn't brief or aligned with NPOV.
Regardless, this isn't going to be resolved by us arguing, so do you want to open the RfC or should I? BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The part of the lede that supports the failed rocket launch POV currently has 94 words. The other POV has 73 words.
Perhaps it can be balanced out by adding countries that blamed Israel for it to the list as well, but I don't see that worth making an RfC for myself. If you do propose one I would support that position. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
See WP:FALSEBALANCE
NPOV doesn't mean we give equal weight to the two viewpoints; it means we give weight in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. As the viewpoint that PIJ is probably responsible is the one held by the vast majority of sources, our coverage should give that viewpoint significantly more coverage.
(Also, when you added the word count from the previous paragraph, you forgot to add the word count from it that aligns with the Palestinian POV, bring the total for that POV up to 85.) BilledMammal (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
You're right, it's 94 to 85, so the other side still is more prominently presented.
We simply disagree about whether FA is a high quality RS. You evidently believe it is a biased fringe source that should not be given any weight at all, or at least very marginal weight, whereas I and many others, based on RS, believe that FA and its three separate expert investigations are high quality RS, and particularly valuable in this case as the other sources only did preliminary analyses shortly after the blast, while FA followed up with multiple detailed investigations, including one recently. Incidentally, this is why the word count is now closer to balance, as the recent investigation was also briefly added to the lede. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The original BBC report did accurately state FA's analysis that it came from the direction of Israel, as "northeast" refers to the direction from Israel. The New York Times also noted this: "Forensic Architecture, a London-based visual investigation group, disputed the Israeli account, saying that the munition had been fired from the direction of Israel." Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
"From the direction of Israel" is not the same as "From Israel", and "From the Northeast" is even less similar. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The original report still accurately states that, it is only its later added update that is wrong. And other cited RS like the NYT and FA itself say it was from the direction of Israel.
I do agree that "from Israel" is problematic and does not match the language of the sources, so will fix that. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit request - Forensic Architecture

The sentence In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from the direction of Israel was WP:BOLDLY added to the lede on September 11 and disputed immediately, and has continued to be contentious since.

There is now an RFC on the question above, and while it is open the article should be reverted to the status quo. However, to avoid edit warring I am making an edit request to ask an uninvolved editor to do. BilledMammal (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not what happened. It was disputed initially, and then consensus was formed for its inclusion in Talk, as also noted by @Nableezy in response to you here.
Then that consensus was challenged over the past week, and now there's an ongoing RfC on the matter.
The onus is on you to challenge the prior established consensus with the RfC, and the page should remain per prior consensus as that is ongoing. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
There is no consensus in that informal discussion for its inclusion. Further, as an involved editor, you can’t assess that there is a consensus - if you believe there is, you may make a request at WP:RFCL, but they are likely to suggest waiting for the RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
It is evident from this Talk discussion that consensus was established, that it held for quite some time (nearly two months now), and that only over the past week was it contested. In any case as the RfC is ongoing it should redound to keeping the version that has been up for nearly two months now until the RfC is settled. Furthermore, you are also an involved editor and cannot assess this, so I'm hoping an uninvolved editor can do so. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
The timeline is as follows:
  1. 17:38, 11 September 2024 - you added the content and, in the same edit, removed others
  2. 12:42, 12 September 2024 - SPECIFICO reverted
  3. 13:08, 12 September 2024 - You reverted SPECIFICO, likely violating WP:1RR
  4. 13:33, 12 September 2024 - William M. Connolley reverted
  5. 20:09, 27 September 2024 - You reverted William M. Connolley, claiming consensus
  6. 02:36, 18 October 2024 - I reverted
  7. 03:20, 18 October 2024 - Ïvana reverted
While it was first added almost two months ago, it hasn’t been up for anywhere near that long, and has been consistently contested - the only reason it was in the article when I reverted is because you inserted it on three seperate occasions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
The timeline is actually as follows:
  1. 17:38, 11 September 2024 The content was added to ensure NPOV.
  2. It was challenged on 12 September.
  3. Per Wikipedia procedure, a Talk page was made on the same day by myself, a discussion ensued, there was no violation of 1RR.
  4. Consensus was formed in the talk over the next period, and the content was added back to the lede per Talk consensus on September 27.William M. Connolley incidentally never participated in this discussion and disappeared after that revert, so I'll leave it up to others to decide what exactly was going on here.
  5. This version remained stable, and then you ignored consensus and over two weeks later, on October 18, you removed it.
  6. You were reverted on the same day for removing consensus content.
  7. Five days ago, on October 25, Scharb, an editor who rushed through 500 edits to get extended protected immediately enters into this page to challenge it.
  8. You jump in to back up Scharb over the past few days, and then start a RfC to challenge the established consensus after failing to get it removed on spurious grounds wrongly claiming the information was false, and are now seeking to remove it pending the RfC.
So it's pretty clear that procedure was followed to establish consensus after the content was initially challenged, once that consensus was established in Talk it was added to the lede, and then, not satisfied with the result, you and Scharb began to challenge it yet again, and now want to have the consensus version removed as the RfC is ongoing.
I think this is a pretty clear case of WP:EDITWARRING to challenge established consensus. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien: See this comment by Valereee at WP:AE for context; this request is an experiment of their proposal for how the status quo should be restored while an RFC is proceeding in the topic area. BilledMammal (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Noted, but most edit request responders are going to give the same answer. EC edit requests are specifically for people who can't edit the article for technical reasons. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien, it's actually cannot or should not. Valereee (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien, can we get a response on this? The idea is being discussed at AE. Valereee (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Are you asking my opinion on this specific edit request as the "answerer", or on the concept more broadly? Because I have no opinion on the former (impartiality being a benefit of edit requests). For the latter, I have a few thoughts. First, there seem to be just enough people answering edit requests to maintain a precarious balance with the current volume, so it depends on how frequently these requests would come up. Second, there would probably need to be a standard procedure to denote it as something separate from a regular EC request (sort of like how we have separate COI requests). This is especially the case here since from an outside perspective it looks like asking to continue an edit war to circumvent 3RR. Third, the amount of sub-par editing that's coming out of the PIA area suggests to me that most requests will be to push a POV. The immense amount of WP:CPUSH in this topic area already wastes community time on various noticeboards, and I fear that it would extend the issue to edit requests as well. That's not to say there aren't strengths to the idea, but those are the main obstacles I'd be looking at. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Misstatement of Forensic Architecture findings.

In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from the direction of Israel, and in subsequent visual investigations published on 15 February 2024 and 17 October 2024, with the latter including situated testimony from doctors, it cast further doubt on the errant rocket launch theory. -disputed wiki text.

Our analysis shows that the explosion captured in the Al Jazeera footage, and referenced by Lerner, took place at an altitude of 5km, and 5.7km from the hospital, outside of Gaza. From an altitude of 5km, any fragments from this explosion would have reached the ground 31s later in freefall. The hospital blast occurred only 8s later, meaning that this missile cannot have been responsible. Independent investigations by the New York Times[1]and the Washington Post[2] corroborate our analysis (...) what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive |Forensic Architecture, February 2024

The current text does not match its source, Forensic Architecture's claims. The current text gives both a faulty summary of FA and gives it undue weight, but certain editors keep reverting it to preserve the false information. It doesn't match the sources and is at best outdated.

Right now the text reads: In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel, and in a subsequent visual investigation published on 15 February 2024 and 17 October 2024, with the latter including situated testimony from doctors, it cast further doubt on the errant rocket launch theory.

This is just plain falsifying sources. It does not match the source text, nor secondary sources:

2024.07.22 New Yorker, covering Forensic Architecture's new analysis: "Four months later, Forensic Architecture published its full investigation, demonstrating that all seventeen Palestinian rockets had finished burning their propellant while in flight. The investigation was not meant to prove that Israel had destroyed Al-Ahli Arab Hospital. It is still unclear what caused the explosion. What the investigation did was show that the I.D.F. had fostered an environment of uncertainty by putting out misinformation about a misfired Palestinian rocket."

The information is not new. It is corroborated by the NYT, FA says. Here is the matching text:

The Associated Press, CNN and The Wall Street Journal each analyzed one set of footage and concluded that a malfunctioning rocket from Gaza — presumably from Palestinian fighters — caused the explosion. Israeli and U.S. intelligence officials have made the same argument. But an examination by The New York Times’s Visual Investigations team exposed flaws in the footage analysis. Times reporters used additional cameras to conclude that the projectile actually came from Israel — and did not land near the hospital, which means it couldn’t have caused the explosion. At least two independent analysts, as well as The Washington Post, agree. CNN, similarly, has since published a new article withdrawing and updating its original finding.
––2023.11.02 NYT [7]

As we can see, multiple sources before FA concluded that projectile #3 in the video originated on the Israeli side of the border, but was not responsible for the blast. This matches what FA concluded, FA saying: The hospital blast occurred only 8s later, meaning that this missile cannot have been responsible. Independent investigations by the New York Times and the Washington Post corroborate our analysis.

This is one of many pressing issues about factuality in this article, which has a "C" for a reason. --Scharb (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything you have said is either mistaken or your own personal view of which RS is due or not. The latter isn't determinative of what should be included in the page, and your insistence on removing it is WP:EDITWARRING and violates WP:NPOV.
With regard to your claim about the FA analysis, the New Yorker is referring to the February 2024 FA visual investigation, not the October 20 one. The latter is accurately described per cited RS that say FA concluded that the munition came from the direction of Israel. The term "concluded" is literally used, and yet you removed it yet again. It should be restored as it matches cited RS language.
The February and October 2024 investigations were solely concerned with the IDF's claims about the cause of the blast, namely it being a misfired rocket, and the text on page accurately notes that it "cast further doubt on the errant rocket launch theory".
So whatever changes you are planning to make in 24 hours, which you have announced you will do without seeking consensus, are simply not reflected in the cited RS. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
"Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel" is the current wording in the article, and it is 100% false, and this was your wording. You are the one pushing a personal view that does not match the sources. --Scharb (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I think that instead of focusing 100% of your time on "disputing" what FA says as soon as you reach 500 edits, a better use of your time would be to reread the multiple discussions we've had that address most of your concerns. The onus is on you to find consensus for your changes, rather than giving everyone an ultimatum if we refuse to rehash the same old arguments we've covered months ago. - Ïvana (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not disputing what Forensic Architecture has written, I'm disputing an inaccurate description in a wikipedia article. Neither the October nor February FA analysis claims that "the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel," that is simply false and poor wording. You could disprove that with a quote from the article, which is proper wikipedia procedure, and you aren't. --Scharb (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
NYT: Forensic Architecture, a London-based visual investigation group, disputed the Israeli account, saying that the munition had been fired from the direction of Israel.
El País: Finally, the forensic analysis of the crater through graphic material has allowed one of the best projects of verification through open sources, the London-based Forensic Architecture — which has done brilliant work in the region, such as the reconstruction of the death of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in Jenin by Israeli fire — to trace the possible direction from which the projectile arrived at the parking lot of the Gaza hospital. According to its analysis and three-dimensional projection, what hit the Al Ahli center came from the northeastern area, not from the southwest, as the Israeli army explained through its statements in the first hours after the massacre.
BBC: The Forensic Architecture agency, a UK-based organisation which investigates human rights abuses, has carried out its own analysis of the crater, and suggests it is more consistent with the impact marks from an artillery shell which it concludes came from the direction of Israel. - Ïvana (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, that's more like what I was asking for, but please next time add links. The relevant quote from the primary source would also be appreciated.
But still, these don't match the current text. The information is presented very misleadingly and misrepresents the sources at best.
This is a topic where recency matters.
FA published two fact-finding pieces. (The October 2024 interview with the doctor is not relevant or lead-notable). In October 2023 FA conjectured the blast might have been from an artillery shell, not a missile, but this was disputed by RS including the very articles you have cited. The RS analyses, which contradicted early reports and exonerated Israel, were published in November. In February 2024, Forensic Architecture said what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive.Architecture
NYT 2023.10.22: |Hamas Fails to Make Case That Israel Struck Hospital
Cherrypicked quote.
NYT gently notes Forensic Architecture's bias against Israel and groups it with Al Jazeera, which is not RS on I/P.
El País: 2023.10.20 This is the first instance endorsing FA's credibility. It is outdated, though. Most of the conclusive analyses were done in November, and this story is from October. El País didn't follow the story as it developed, unlike most RS, and this was its only story on it. If there were discussions of País as a paper of record, I couldn't find them.
BBC : Cherrypicked quote.
(On 14 November, Forensic Architecture removed a tweet and changed its analysis to say the projectile was probably a rocket although the group stood by its conclusion on the direction it had come from.)
NR Jenzen-Jones, a director at Armament Research Services, says the crater is significantly smaller than one typically generated by a 155mm artillery projectile.
It is deceptive to cite these articles without mentioning these claims were directly contradicted within them and the group's biases and unreliability noted, and the content should match the most recent view of the facts. There is no reason for a non-household name like FA to dominate the "last word" of the lead based on an outdated, retracted claim, overshadowing the very significant analyses by other sources --Scharb (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  1. ^ Open-source analysts including Oliver Alexander and Aric Toler and his team at the New York Times have cast doubt on whether the explosion in the sky shown in the Al Jazeera clip is related to the blast at the hospital – Gaza Hospital Blast: What does new information tell us?
  2. ^ "The Post’s analysis found that a key video filmed and aired by Al Jazeera, which the Israeli and U.S. governments have cited as evidence that a rocket failed and landed on the hospital grounds, instead shows a projectile launching from a location miles away in Israel, near an apparent Iron Dome air-defense battery. Experts said that the widely circulated video probably showed an Iron Dome interceptor missile that collided with a rocket more than three miles from the hospital and most likely had nothing to do with the hospital explosion."Washington Post: Gaza hospital blast shows it was caused by rocket, not Israeli airstrike