Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AdrianHObradors (talk | contribs) at 10:35, 24 October 2023 (→Munitions section expansion edit request: Done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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)[reply]

Can you please post a cite to a publication/press release rather than X? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After realizing that my Wikipedia account was banned, and that you assholes on Wikipedia hate original research, I decided to do my own reporting, and send it to the international organizations, using the Fourier transform and doppler shift analysis, which is located in that report. I will also mention that it is impossible that the missile came from Hamas, because it was a supersonic rocket, based on the supersonic screech tones, and the fact that the screech tones continue even after the initial blast wave hits. It's really too bad that you guys have banned my account, because of the massive amount of political shills on this "encyclopedia", because otherwise I wouldn't have been so utterly assmad and seething that I decided to do the work myself, and you might have kept up this charade for a bit longer.97.120.207.252 (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks, one of the best analysis I've seen so far — AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you for your WP:OR.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The missile is accelerating at 800 m/s^2 and is supersonic, notable is the supersonic screech lines and the doppler shift in those lines, so unless Hamas got their hands on something other than water pipes filled with sugar and fertilizers, it excludes them from being the ones who fired it. Moreover a ground to air missile does have a parabolic flight vector by virtue of the center of gravity and the center of momentum being behind the center of gravity, because of the drag induced by the fins. A failure of the sidewall normally results on in a loop-de-loop, and a failure of the nozzle results in a corkscrew trajectory, which would have also been apparent in a doppler analysis of the noise profile. Instead what we get is a clean acceleration into the target of a supersonic missile.97.120.207.252 (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are they listed as a reliable source? Drsmoo (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Would you feel that way about any source referring to Hamas as terrorists? nableezy - 00:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Your opinion. It also remains irrelevant, since Channel 4 is the actual source here. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you are arguing channel 4 is unreliable. I tend to agree. Cursed Peace (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not, no (sigh). Channel 4 is reliable. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are you seriously arguing that Occupation is a common translation of Defense? Cursed Peace (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 21:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Time to start saying it was a Palestinian rocket?

At this stage, we seems to be moving more and more towards the position being it was a Palestinian rocket that misfired. I don't really count the Israeli claim (obvious bias) but both the US and France intelligence seem to have independently reached the conclusion that it was a failed rocket. Obviously we'll never have an admission of guilt from Islamic Jihad, nor the twittersphere of opinionated individuals (goes for both sides, I'm not pointing fingers at one side), but for at least 48 hours now, it seems that every RS expressing an opinion seems to say it was likely a Palestinian rocket. If we are serious about NPOV, we may need to start to reflect that in the article. (BTW: This is a thread to open a discussion about it, not to rush to any immediate change in the article). Jeppiz (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's already several threads about this and it's clear there's no consensus in the media on what caused the explosion, in fact new independent reports are coming out with evidence it could have been Israel still. Please remain patient and wait for the evidence to solidify before rushing to push the article in a direction we may not be able to defend with NPOV. I believe we also don't consider governments allied with Israel to be independent sources since they have a conflict of interest (heavy investments into Israel and allyship) Ashvio (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeppiz See here: https://www.channel4.com/news/human-rights-investigators-raise-new-questions-on-gaza-hospital-explosion Orgullomoore (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is premature. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed premature. We need to wait until there is a conclusive finding shared among RS, if there ever is one. This may need a formal discussion based upon the high stakes of this topic. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 22:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier and El Cid, you're probably right. Better we give it a bit more time. Jeppiz (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"we seems to be moving more and more towards the position being it was a Palestinian rocket"
No we are not moving in this direction at all, the emerging facts largely contradict israeli claims. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More independent research from AP came out today, doing a thorough analysis and concluding it was not Israel. All of the RS published now concludes it was a failed missile and not from israel. Apart from AJ, who else is saying anything to the contrary? 2605:B100:919:E985:8131:1983:4ADA:2A49 (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be a fallacy to say "only AJ" says anything to the contrary. Many non western media does not support the theory Palestine was the cause, but it may be hard for EN Wiki editors to have that context. There is an underrepresentation in my opinion of non western media in the RS list (which is possibly unavoidable since many of them are exclusively non-English), so we should not underemphasize that AJ represents a large chunk of media.
There are also RS in the west who do not report it as definitively caused by Palestine either. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/al-ahli-baptist-hospital-bombing-gaza_n_6532d595e4b00f9a71cc6e03 Ashvio (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that fewer and fewer sources still follow the invisible Israeli aircraft with tiny bomb theory, but this is going to need to go through an rfc. Cursed Peace (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly does not need to. Consensus should be quite clear. Andre🚐 05:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus among the sources is pretty clear. 2605:B100:919:E985:8131:1983:4ADA:2A49 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that reliable sources have largely reached a consensus. I think there's a balance issue in the article by not acknowledging this, along with not acknowledging the role of misinformation and the motivations behind invested parties in pushing narratives; this is also in the sources and yet no one is willing to acknowledge it in this article for some reason, not even a single sentence with a link to the separate article on disinformation in this war. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course either side will deny responsibility. I personally wouldn't trust the radical groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas the most, as they would use lies and deceit to further their game. As you said, since both the US and France intelligence have concluded that it was a failed rocket from the Palestinian groups, we should begin to list them as the (sole) perpetrators. Yucalyptus (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can personally think whatever you want, what really matters is the mounting evidence of independent investigation. Statements by State actors are not reliable as matters of fact. Especially if both of them are clearly politically involved in the situation. It would be completely wrong to change the status of dispute to some partial conclusion. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IDF has used 'lies and deceit' in the past too. Remember Shireen Abu Akleh? -2800:A4:32CF:2600:A46D:8F24:A220:E9C7 (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still very early, there are already many people immediately jumping to the conclusion that it was a misfired rocket. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They immediately jumped to the conclusion, falsely, that Israel fired it. Experts have now determined it was a rocket that was fired from inside Palestinian territory. Andre🚐 05:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is not conclusion, many experts say the contrary. Please, provide reliable sources. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources, AP and Der Spiegel, were in the article already and are provided here. Andre🚐 20:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is no longer premature; it is time to make this factual due to experts in RS. We can still attribute it, though. Andre🚐 05:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I agree. This latest AP piece shows that it's pretty much unanimous consensus at this point. Only Al Jazeera says they find "no grounds" to support the Palestinian rocket theory. Channel 4 pokes a few holes in the launch point, trajectory, and audio recording proffered by Israel, but they also poke holes in the Israeli payload theory. Everybody else is like: "Can't say for sure, but most likely explanation is that this was a misfired rocket."-- Orgullomoore (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Channel 4 claims regarding the trajectory appear not to account for the fact that the rocket was clearly observed to change its trajectory during its failure. This remains original research for now, but hopefully a reliable source can be found that addresses the trajectory before impact in the context of the change in trajectory observed in flight. StuartH (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing. If it was launched into the north/east, and then spun out, the fact that the projectile was coming from east of the mobile phone just before it hit the ground is not inconsistent with it having been fired from west of the hospital. But yes, that's just our own original research for now.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please, at this point there is a *clear* consensus in both the RS's and independent analyses. "What I have said to people, publicly, is: ‘Don’t assume it’s Israel. You have no proof that it’s Israel. Many people have made a clear case it’s not. At the very best, do not start propagating another blood libel." --Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby 192.138.178.105 (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think insinuating people who oppose your position are committing "blood libel" is going to help your case. There are still sources, though a minority in western media, suggesting Israel may have been responsible. Ashvio (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Hamas rocket situation has been called a modern-day blood libel by a few observers. Andre🚐 17:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it has, and observers have also called people who oppose Israel in the slightest terrorist supporters. Surely we can agree such discourse is unhelpful on Wikipedia. Ashvio (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We document and attribute meaningful minority POVs even if we disagree with them. Andre🚐 19:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this context the "blood libel" quote appears to be implied as an attack on other editors who disagree with them on media consensus,not a suggestion for the article. Ashvio (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the RS are saying that the Israeli airstrike explanation is less likely. I'm not advocating we place blood libel into any article text. Andre🚐 20:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what RS says, sure we can agree insinuating such insults on editors is disruptive..? Ashvio (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you accusing of such insinuation. I am simply responding to the IP's point that there is a clear consensus in RS that the Israeli airstrike explanation is not likely. Some have called this a blood libel, in sources. I am not endorsing that. I am not assigning that to any editors. Andre🚐 20:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose of including the quote "What I have said to people, publicly, is: ‘Don’t assume it’s Israel. You have no proof that it’s Israel. Many people have made a clear case it’s not. At the very best, do not start propagating another blood libel." in a discussion about whether there is proof Israel committed the attack, other than to attack editors who disagree? Clearly it's not being suggested to be added to the article. Ashvio (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very ambiguous. I suppose only the person who posted the comment could tell us. But we should assume it was said in good faith until that person says otherwise, no? This topic has brought a lot of emotional people out, ready to engage. Maybe let's focus on something more productive. Even if I disagree with some of the points you've made on this talk page, Ashvio, you have been focused. Let's not worry about a single ambiguous and potentially unproductive comment. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ooof--I can see how it sounded that way but I was in no way intending to make that insinuation, only to provide this remarkable comment--I actually believe his comments have a place in this article in one of the sections collating responses from various sources. I actually think the comment and the whole "blood libel" thing goes too far and even approaches Godwin's Law territory but that said, I don't agree at all that there is not a consensus at this point. Virtually every truly RS and evidence based independent analysis--even from sources not at all predisposed towards Israel's behavior or trustworthiness, etc--has found they have no choice but to conclude that in this case the evidence just isn't indeterminate and points pretty conclusively in one direction. 192.138.178.107 (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with this IP. Andre🚐 01:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I respectfully submit that the focus here should be less on whether I might have said something you didn't like and more on getting the story right. It is simply not accurate at this point to continue to maintain there is no consensus and the matter remains "contested." There is a *clear* consensus and we have reached the point where not saying so is inaccurate and starts to get into NPOV territory. Ksperber (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Statement of the obvious): it's not the role of an online encyclopaedia to make some kind of definitive judgement on a widely disputed issue, especially one so recent as to still be in the primary reporting stage. The article should simply note in appropriately encyclopaedic terms the various theories relevant to the dispute with due weight to the number, reliability and nature of sources.

As an equally obvious addition, this particular event is packed with commentators on both sides making bold pronouncements about "what really happened." It would be wise to be a little cautious about reporting from either perspective until there is more distance from the event itself. - Euryalus (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in any rush, but I think if you take the time to go through the sources, you will find it difficult to find anything reliable pointing to an Israeli airstrike. There is AJ, which, let's face it, hates Israel (and has no shortage of reasons to hate Israel--and Israel hates AJ too). Other than that, you have the "I don't know because I would need more information" and the knee-jerk "Israel did it" reactions from the Arab World + Iran et al., who are desperate to believe that. I do think there's wisdom in waiting, though. Maybe we should go when Canada goes and don't oppose waiting. It's been like 3.5 days since the explosion.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is indeed clear in the sources it was a Palestinian-originating rocket, not an Israeli airstrike. All experts such as a neutral Swedish weaponry expert to Der Spiegel. It's in the article. and not at all unclear anymore. Andre🚐 06:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently we have a whole paragraph full of RS and original research (unrelated to Israel's or Hamas's claims). Even more RS coming out every hour that supports the claim it was a misfire. Like this research by Intel France. There isn't a single contradicting RS that supports the airstrike claim. Article needs to be updated. dov (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. Andre🚐 16:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that didn't take long. Canada has arrived.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even better would be a moratorium on threads suggesting that the article be worded to say one side or the other is known to have caused this. We don't have enough information, it's an emerging topic, and it's an important topic to be impartial about. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we should report the findings of reliable sources and not make our own summaries. Producing our own analysis is original research. If the preponderance of sources say one thing, just report them and let readers draw their own conclusion. We shouldn’t summarize unless an RS itself does so. Drsmoo (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say wait until nearly all the major "factions" of the world (and their media) are either silent on the topic or agree. There's absolutely no need to rush to have this have some particular phrasing about facts. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A moratorium would not contribute to impartiality but would decrease agility and insulate the article's biases, misinformation, or outdated content from constructive improvements. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose moratorium. Andre🚐 16:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if you oppose a moratorium, why remove my thread? Ashvio (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's appropriate to wait and not rush to a conclusion, as @Selfstudier et al have suggested. What's the hurry? Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. I support the moratorium; at the appropriate time, and bearing in mind the extreme contentiousness of this area, an RFC would almost certainly be the best course of action. WillowCity (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RFC, as it's not necessary to resolve anything. We should be able to resolve this through normal discussion. All experts, the AP, and other reliable sources have established at this point that it was a Palestinian rocket, not an Israeli airstrike. WP:NODEADLINE, yes. But Wikipedia would not be leading by incorporating this reliably sourced consensus-of-experts info. Andre🚐 17:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Insist on that position, an RFC it will be. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly welcome to revert or start an RFC, but it's not necessary in my view, since we have reliable sources. [1] [2] Andre🚐 17:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a misrepresentation of the AP source in my view. AP specifically says, "A lack of forensic evidence and the difficulty of gathering that material on the ground in the middle of a war means there is no definitive proof the break-up of the rocket and the explosion at the hospital are linked." And Wired has commented on criticism of the rush to judgment by many OSINT analysts on social and news media: "In the days since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, people claiming to be OSINT practitioners have emerged on social media who are much more willing to make conclusive findings almost immediately than people who have a long history of conducting OSINT work." WillowCity (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, take a look at the text I inserted. Andre🚐 17:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel strongly that someone should revert pending discussion and consensus, unless we propose to include AJ and the Forensic Architecture investigation in the lead as well. It's also unclear whether the experts are "impartial" as currently stated, they include "a retired U.S. Army colonel", "a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst". Calling them impartial is editorializing, in my view, since not even AP uses this term. Let the readers draw their own conclusions on that point. As well, "more likely" (presumably, preponderance of evidence/balance of probabilities) seems insufficient to merit inclusion in the lead; we're shading into WP:EXCEPTIONAL with that one. WillowCity (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to remove the term impartial if that is a sticking point. Andre🚐 18:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sticking point but there are so many issues with this. Like one of the sources you link above, Variety, is (as noted on RSPSS) a trade publication; if the dispute was whether Cate Blanchett hired a new talent agent, that would be perfect, but for something like this? And the lead says that the experts "concluded", but the party doing the concluding is AP, which is one source. Big wp:undue and wp:npov issues with this. I really think we need broader consensus prior to inclusion (see also WP:ONUS). WillowCity (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just offered Variety because it discusses the BBC retraction. Did you read it? It's not used in the article, it's for you to read and understand. If you really want a different source for the BBC saga, I'll find one, but there was nothing at issue in that one. You're also just doing policy word salad now [random association Andre🚐 18:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)]. Yeah, ONUS and NPOV and DUE/UNDUE all support this. AP’s assessment is supported by a range of experts with specialties in open-source intelligence, geolocation and rocketry Andre🚐 18:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, and I read BBC's retraction itself, which did not assign blame one way or the other. The retraction of preliminary BBC reporting based on inconclusive evidence is not conclusive evidence as to the actual perpetrator of the attack. WillowCity (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mainly bringing the AP experts and Der Spiegel. That's what's mentioned in the lead. Andre🚐 18:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Word salad"? That's not very nice. I think the policies cited are relevant, and I don't think your revision complies with them, but that's for the community to decide, not you or I alone. WillowCity (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I'll strike that. Andre🚐 18:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged this thread on WP:RSN. We do not need an RFC yet. See WP:RFCBEFORE. Andre🚐 18:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So… you want it all reverted because Variety was used as a source then? That’s all you pointed out. 2605:B100:919:E985:8131:1983:4ADA:2A49 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You must have missed the entire second half of my comment, which (1) disputed the use of "concluded" based on the cited sources (2) pointed out that reliance on two sources is undue in the lead for such a controverted topic, and (3) emphasized the lack of consensus. WillowCity (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i’d disagree. It borders on absurd levels of ignoring consensus among sources. Al jazeera, the one known to be biased with israel/palestine conflict.
At this point we have multiple sources pointing to the fact that israel did not do this. AP, BBC, US intelligence agencies, french intelligence agencies all came to the same conclusion. 2605:B100:939:225B:5401:E9FC:4BC5:28F5 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is correct sort of. If AJ is the lone outlier and they are citing Hamas themselves, that should be attributed as an outlier, and the consensus of AP, BBC, intelligence from US and France, then that should be the primary weighted statement (which can be attributed too, of course, out of an abundance of caution and NPOV) Andre🚐 21:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Forensic Architecture source refers to the IDF as the “IOF”, a pejorative. Are they listed as a reliable source on Wiki, because that alone suggests unreliability. Drsmoo (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forensic Architecture is part of the University of London. Not sure if they are published enough to have an RS discussion but editors in the previous discussion seemed to believe it was reliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#New_third_party_independent_source_claiming_missile_came_from_direction_of_Israel Ashvio (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence was removed by someone else. The sentence is as follows: Weapons experts and intelligence analysts surveyed by the AP and Der Spiegel have analyzed and concluded the Palestinian rocket explanation was more likely than the airstrike explanation. Andre🚐 21:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in view of e.g. doubts cast on the authenticity of the Arabic phone conversation produced by the IDF. PatGallacher (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That phone call isn't why 99% of reliable sources have attributed it to the PIJ. Other than fringe conspiracy stuff, can you provide a source attributing the explosion to anyone other than the PIJ? Cursed Peace (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been several sources provided that do not attribute it to PIJ, so please stop badgering people with untrue claims. Thanks. nableezy - 23:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell you what, give me the best three. Nobody else is willing to share reliable sources that haven't been retracted. I keep hearing about them, and would love to see a reliable attribution to this being an airstrike. I will reply with /10/ links attributing the attack on the hospital to the PIJ. Does this sound like an acceptable method to you? Will 10 to 1 be a significant enough ratio to help establish the consensus of RSN? Cursed Peace (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Thousands of people displaced..." is not sourced.

Thousands of people displaced by the evacuation of northern Gaza sought shelter at al-Ahli Arab Hospital to avoid Israeli airstrikes. The hospital sheltered around 6,000 displaced persons, with around 1,000 in the hospital courtyard. - from the article

Two very clear issues here. Firstly, This is the source being given for the "thousands of people displaced by the evacuation of northern Gaza sought shelter at al-Ahli Arab hospital". This source does not say that thousands of people displaced sought shelter at the hospital. That is nowhere in the source, it needs to be changed from "thousands" to "many" to accurately reflect the source being cited. This is what the source actually says.

"About half of Gaza’s population of more than two million Palestinians have fled their homes since the Israeli bombardment began, according to the United Nations. Many have sought shelter in the corridors and courtyards of hospitals, believing that they would be less vulnerable there."

Second; the "sheltered around 6,000 displaced persons with around 1,000 in the hospital courtyard" is a statement in wiki voice. It's a statement, that so far as I can find is also not in the cited source.

TL;DR; we have two statements that are, at best, mistaken about what is in the actual source that is being used to include them. If these statements can't be sourced they don't belong in the article. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, Wikipedia:Please don't shout. Second, there are several sources that say that initially the 6,000 were camping out at the hospital, then left. I don't have time to look for it at the moment, but I'm sure someone can help you. | Orgullomoore (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask that you comment when you have something to add, as currently you've just said effectively "they exist". That adds nothing other than text. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:Google is your friend [3] | Orgullomoore (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If/when you have something meaningful to contribute to my challenge to the sources (see WP:Verifiability for the policy regarding this) then please provide it at that point. The onus does not fall on me to find a new source for the content that was challenged. That would be on you if you want it included. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This is an essay.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."
would be my response to the shouting thing. Respectfully, unless you have a policy violation, don't edit other users posts without their consent. This is actually a talk page guideline. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Only source I can find supporting this is this https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67140250. If @Orgullomoore or anyone else has any other sources that would support the text as it currently reads, I'm all ears.
"He told the BBC that about 6,000 displaced people had been sheltering in the hospital courtyard at the end of last week.
The hospital was first hit by an Israeli air strike that caused damage and injured four people on Saturday, he said. After that, 5,000 people left the courtyard - leaving around 1,000 remaining there, many of them invalids or elderly who needed transportation."
Here is how the text reads currently: "Thousands of people displaced by the evacuation of northern Gaza sought shelter at al-Ahli Arab Hospital to avoid Israeli airstrikes. The hospital sheltered around 6,000 displaced persons, with around 1,000 in the hospital courtyard."
Issues: This implies that there were 6,000 displaced persons sheltering at the hospital at the time of the blast. That's not what the source I've provided cited by the BBC said; he said that there were 6,000 displaced persons there a week ago, and at the time there were only 1,000 people in the hospital courtyard as 5,000 left after the israeli airstrike a week before the blast. This matters because this section is going in chronological order, and as of October 10th according to the source there would've only been 1,000 people in the courtyard.
Solution: Remove the two sources cited for the text as it is now, replace it with something like this: "According to the dean of St. Georges College in Jerusalem, there were 1,000 persons displaced by Israeli airstrikes sheltering in the courtyard" - then cite the BBC. Then at least we're citing a source that supports what we have in the article. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I'm finding as well. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The updated NYT article (not the old archived version) also supports this reading; it says there were 5,000 people sheltering there a week before, wtih 1,000 sheltering people left in the courtyard at the time of the blast. Chuckstablers (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NYTimes just recanted its earlier coverage. So it's probably best to avoid using the NYTimes as a source on this piece. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I'd agree that if it was recanted it shouldn't be used as a source. I see an appropriate change has been made to the article at this point fixing the issues I've highlighted.
I'll leave this discussion up for a day, and if nobody has anything else to add I'll archive this shortly. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to read the note from the editors in whole:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/pageoneplus/editors-note-gaza-hospital-coverage.html
I don't think they are fully rescinding everything that was written, but are making clear that during initial reports they had relied too heavily on unverifiable sources. Perhaps there will be some retractions/corrections in some of the impacted articles? 133.106.156.110 (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source challenge for "thousands of people displaced..."

Please make the following change to the article, as the source cited for the statement says "Many have sought shelter in the corridors and courtyards of hospitals, believing that they would be less vulnerable there", not "thousands of people".

−
Thousands of people displaced by the evacuation of northern Gaza sought shelter at al-Ahli Arab Hospital to avoid Israeli airstrikes.
+
Many people displaced by the evacuation of northern Gaza sought shelter at al-Ahli Arab Hospital to avoid Israeli airstrikes.

Chuckstablers (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cited New York Times source says this in the very first paragraph of the article:
Sameh al-Jaroosha was sitting on the edge of the grassy courtyard of the Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City on Tuesday night, talking to a new acquaintance who was among the thousands of Palestinian residents of the city seeking refuge there in hopes that it would be safer than staying at home.
@Chuckstablers: Please refer to the most recent archived version for verification. What you have linked to above is an old archive from Oct. 18, and the article from the New York Times has apparently been updated. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the citation in the Wikipedia article itself needs to be updated with a link to the most recent archived copy, to avoid confusion such as this. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Chuckstablers (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done As in updated archive URL to most recent. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Many" is a better word than "thousands" or "a thousand". The New York Times just publicly recanted its previous coverage as being overly reliant on Hamas and factually incorrect. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times has released an updated story:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/22/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-hospital-evidence.html
An archived version is available here. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 October 2023 (2)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No support for this, WP:SNOW closing. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion → Ahli Arab Hospital explosion – Al- in the title is redundant when starting at the beginning of the sentence; and per hospital's own signage spelling. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the "al-" part is a part of the hospital name and it doesn't make any sense to remove it. it is like removing the "make" part of your username "Makeandtoss" Abo Yemen✉ 06:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "المستشفى الأهلي - الخليل". web.archive.org. 2023-02-04. Retrieved 2023-10-19.
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.

Origin/trajectory and rocket vs. airstrike

Why are there two sections? They both deal with what and who caused the explosion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

There are links to multiple Israeli airstrikes under see also. Seeing as how this article isn't related to an airstrike, should those be removed? Cursed Peace (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The explosion may very well have resulted from an Israeli attack (airstrike or otherwise, e.g. artillery shelling). It's too soon to say definitively (as noted repeatedly in the article itself), we just don't know yet. If your position is that the status quo risks advancing a POV based on as-yet unconfirmed assumptions, I have to assume you would also support removing "Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel" from the "see also" section. WillowCity (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have been multiple investigations, and none show that as a possibility. Check out the sources in the article, which overwhelmingly say it was the PIJ. If you have any sources... Please add them. Until then, we should follow reliable sources and not conspiracy theories. Cursed Peace (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This may seem like an Chicken or the egg dispute, but I see that initially the See also section consisted solely of the list of Israeli airstrikes. So not to point any fingers, but it violated NPOV principle from the very beginning and should have been removed long time ago. Still not late to do this now. Deinocheirus (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not opposed to the removal, provided other potential NPOV violations are also removed. I'd encourage everyone to familiarize themselves with MOS:ALSO: "Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. ..."
The linked articles fall within the "same defining category" of civilian mass-casualty incidents in Gaza during the ongoing war. They are thus "tangentially relevant" and, in my view, suitable for inclusion. WillowCity (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have plenty of links to "in some sort of way related" articles. The see also section here should exclude articles not about this event. The disinformation article is clearly related. The PIJ killing civilians isn't related to any air strikes. Cursed Peace (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before it is decided whether an airstrike or failed rocket launch is the cause of the explosion, none of the included articles should be considered related, tangentially or otherwise. Deinocheirus (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European intelligence source reported no more than 50 fatalities

https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33YR32Z Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: It's already mentioned in the lead. A single analyst probably isn't enough to get it mentioned in the infobox. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic Architecture reliability

We have a source (Twitter.com) [5] discussing a seemingly fictional army, the IOF. Is this reliable enough for Wikipedia? Cursed Peace (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. Neutralitytalk 18:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Neutralitytalk 19:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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... Neutralitytalk 20:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? Neutralitytalk 20:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is the NYT Style Magazine like journalistic or is it rather opinion pieces? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 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). Neutralitytalk 19:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

  • 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. Neutralitytalk 20:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Neutralitytalk 20:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - [6] Cursed Peace (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, well, what is this, Art News? Doesn't seem very reliable. Andre🚐 21:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forensic Architecture is an art group, so they are covered by art news. Go figure. Cursed Peace (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think news, data, and art are all mutually exclusive concepts. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I did, I included the Times description of critical of Israel. nableezy - 22:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
If reliable sources cite them I think that speaks to their reliability to some extent. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So has the IDF? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think inclusion of FA is fine with attribution. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Lead issues

The lead section of the article has numerous issue in its current form, each requiring being explored individually. The lead, for example, states twice that the death toll is unknown. It also combines personal analysis with other official reports. If personal perspectives on the number of individuals killed in this catastrophe are to be included, why aren't personal opinions on the cause of the explosion referred to? Various individuals have provided evidence that this incident was the work of Israel, according to them. Double standard should be avoided here in this challenging page. For instance let's a take a look at "deleted social media posts" [7]. In summary, for the toll we have the accounts from the involved parties plus that of the US and "some" individuals, but for the cause of the explosion we have the accounts of " Israel, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada" which is tried to be balanced solely by PIJ's account. --Mhhossein talk 19:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you are asking for here? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Initial misleading news coverage

The New York Times published a editor note that basically apologized for their misleading initial coverage (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/pageoneplus/editors-note-gaza-hospital-coverage.html). Of course, they weren't alone in initially taking claims from Hamas with more credulity than warranted, and it was this misleading news coverage that arguably led to significant real world consequences of the large riots and Biden's Jordan visit cancelled.


Should there be an independent section on misleading claims from news sites initially? Right now, this article seemed to be blaming social media but not the actual media, when the latter probably deserves more blame imo. Reinbot (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

@Nableezy added the NPOV tag in this edit [8], but did not create a NPOV section to discuss it. I don't believe it deserves being there, but please do add your arguments here. Next time if it isn't too much trouble, do also create a NPOV section before tagging, it makes it a lot easier to address the problems. Thanks — AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they tried to start a section relating to their tag, they just improperly formatted it under the "Forensic Architecture reliability" header. XeCyranium (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed that section. nableezy - 00:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nableezy, moved the template to the section it refers to in the article, hope that's alright — AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah thats fine, thats the tag I should have used to begin with. Sorry. nableezy - 10:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy Since this is where the NPOV tag now links to, and since it got a little heated and messy up there, can we have an orderly discussion down here? The concern is that Forensic Architecture is not reflected in the lead? | Orgullomoore (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no the concern was that it was being removed entirely. I’ve readded it though so I can remove the tag. nableezy - 02:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good! OK, so that was easy. | Orgullomoore (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spell check

Both analyses indicated that the object that cased the blast would have come from points "east of the hospital not west as the IDF claimed." [49] 68.172.55.221 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for bringing it up! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced info

Hi,

Nfitz removed sourced info in this edit: [9], stating that "The reference provided neither mentions Blake Spendley or 50 people. Sentence deleted. Restore if there's a reference"

Looking at the given ref [10], the information on Blake Spendley and 50 people is sourced:

"At the moment, the preponderance of evidence does point to it being a Hamas or PIJ rocket hitting the area,” said Blake Spendley, an open-source intelligence analyst. He said videos and photos he has reviewed showing the scene were more consistent with a death toll of about 50 rather than the 500 initially claimed by Hamas."

I'd re-add it myself, but my last revert was less than 24 hours ago. I'd appreciate it if someone else added it back.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops, User:David O. Johnson, I must have looked at the wrong reference. But reading the whole section - isn't the Blake Spindley "50" in that last sentence, a repeat of the second sentence of the first paragraph that says the same thing, with the same reference. The whole paragraph needs rewriting. Though I do wonder the WSJ is quoting an "expert" who literally just graduated from an undergraduate program. I'll take another stab at that section. Nfitz (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NYT: Hamas Fails to Make Case That Israel Struck Hospital

Published Oct. 22 / Updated Oct 23; written by Patrick Kingsley and Aaron Boxerman

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/22/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-hospital-evidence.html

Or see this archived version. Here are some relevant excerpts.

On the Hamas claims:
Six days after Hamas accused Israel of bombing a hospital in Gaza City and killing hundreds of people, the armed Palestinian group has yet to produce or describe any evidence linking Israel to the strike, says it cannot find the munition that hit the site and has declined to provide detail to support its count of the casualties.
On the Israeli claims:
Israel has also turned down requests by The Times to provide logs of all its military activity in the area at the time of the strike, and declined to specify the video on which it based its assessment of Palestinian responsibility.
In conclusion?
Without examining the munition that hit the parking lot, it may be impossible to draw a definitive conclusion about who fired it.

This piece also further discusses that the death toll is unverifiable, but offers no guidance on legitimate estimates. Lots to chew on here. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the extended quotes as a WP:COPYVIO, people can click the link themselves. And this is already cited in the article. nableezy - 00:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have updated with shorter quotes. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Munitions section expansion edit request

Please make the following change to the article for the following reasons.

1.) The change is based off of information in the source.

2.) The section currently just has the claim made by hamas based off of the NYT source, but leaves out the next paragraph where a munitions expert is interviewed and is quoted as saying that "“One would expect remnants to be recoverable in all but the most extreme circumstances, and the available imagery of the hospital site suggests something ought to be identifiable on the ground,”, with the NYT summarizing the experts view as "dismissing Hamas's claim that the munition had completely disintegrated upon impact". From how it's currently worded you'd be forgiven for thinking that NYT has no opinion on the veracity of Hamas's statement, which is not the case.

3.) This is especially relevant given that the NYT in the same source stated that "Without examining the munition that hit the parking lot, it may be impossible to draw a definitive conclusion about who fired it...But by the time reporters arrived at the site... any remnants of the munition appeared to have been removed, preventing independent analysis of its origin.".

−
On 22 October 2023, Hamas declined a request by the New York Times to view any remnants of the object that had struck the parking lot. A Hamas spokesman said that it had "dissolved like salt in the water" and that nothing was left.
+
On 22 October 2023, Hamas declined a request by the New York Times to view any remnants of the object that had struck the parking lot. A Hamas spokesman said that it had "dissolved like salt in the water" and that nothing was left. A munitions expert interviewed by the New York times contradicted Hamas's claim, indicating that recoverable debris should be present based on satellite imagery.

Chuckstablers (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good suggested addition, and adds clarity. 133.106.156.110 (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done -- AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion&oldid=1181645704"