Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

Edit request

Time of the attack should be added. First report I find is from Al Jazeera. (16:49 GMT) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-hamas-war-live-iran-warns-resistance-front-may-attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hummelman (talk • contribs) 21:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

While Hamas claims that the cause of the airstrike was Israel, Israel claims that the cause was a Hamas missile bound for the Tel Aviv region, but had accidentally hit the hospital. Please include both claims in the article and give each claim due weight. Source: https://www.srugim.co.il/853287-%D7%A8%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%A1-%D7%A4%D7%92%D7%A2%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A0%D7%A4 2A0D:6FC0:6B8:EB00:8CE7:C9CC:21D7:AF80 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) admitted that they bombed the hospital, and this is confirmed by weapons experts who stuied the explosion. Later when the videos and photos of the massacre spread all over the internet, the IDF changed its story.

Hananya Naftali (Israel’s Digital Spokesperson) DELETED his tweet admitting that Israel bombed the Gaza Baptist Hospital.

Hananya Naftali (Israel’s Digital Spokesperson) DELETED his tweet admitting that Israel bombed the Gaza Baptist Hospital.

Must have been a big rocket, I guess. Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Added claim; dubious, but notable nonetheless. AryKun (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Official IDF statement can now be referenced/cited as well:

https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1714371894521057737 Ksperber (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"The Guardian reported that "the scale of the blast appears to be outside" the capabilities of Hamas"

That is not "reporting," that is opining, and in any event, it is PIJ, not Hamas that is being identified as the source. Ksperber (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It's an opinion shared with the BBC's John Donnison & CNN's Clarissa Ward. By the way, Israel changed its tune from blaming Hamas to blaming PIJ--Brian Dell (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. The issue I raise is only with the language in the Wikipedia article describing The Guardian reporter's expression of their own opinion as "reporting." Moreover, at this point the clearly emerging consensus is that the opinion expressed is incorrect. The extent of the fire caused by the rocket impact is explained by it being freshly loaded with rocket fuel having malfunctioned on or shortly after launch and the absence of structural damage to any surrounding buildings (including the hospital itself!) and of any impact crater are inconsistent with the powerful munitions used in Israeli airstrikes.

By and large this entry is handling the developing information well but IMO this reference to this unsubstantiated journalist's personal opinion should be removed. Ksperber (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: i24NEWS is an Israeli propaganda outlet controlled by Isreali state. They first lied about “40 beheaded babies” now this. I have concerns about the credibility of i24NEWS due to past reporting It cannot be used as a reliable source.223.123.90.61 (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I would still prefer to wait a bit. There's no rush. Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

1) The claim about "40 beheaded babies" was never actually made. It was a conflation of two comments made in close proximity to each other, one about "40 babies," one about "beheading." There is no actual source for your claim of anyone actually uttering this initial alleged "lie."

2) "i24NEWS is . . . owned by Isreali [sic] state" {citation needed} Ksperber (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"The Israel Defense Forces says that based on “intelligence information, a failed Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) rocket caused the deadly blast at the Gaza hospital.”

In a statement, the IDF says that “from an analysis of the IDF’s operational systems, an enemy rocket barrage was carried out towards Israel, which passed in the vicinity of the hospital, when it was hit.”

“According to intelligence information, from several sources we have, the PIJ organization is responsible for the failed [rocket] fire that hit the hospital,” the IDF adds.

(Source for above text transmitting IDF statements is Times of Israel) Ksperber (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Link to the article @Ksperber mentioned: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-assessment-shows-failed-islamic-jihad-rocket-launch-caused-gaza-hospital-blast/ sherpajack (talk ) 19:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if this link to an item on a NY Times live feed is static enough, but they've now relayed the same claim https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/17/world/gaza-news-israel-hamas-war/3458db20-bfe7-5352-8aad-520338f6d484?smid=url-share sherpajack (talk ) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Also The Guardian, including IDF spokesperson Jonathan Conricus telling CNN: "We did not hit that hospital."

www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/17/israel-hamas-war-live-gaza-city-update-news-today-joe-biden-visit-aid-plan-latest-updates?page=with:block-652ee4ff8f08269fdea761c0#block-652ee4ff8f08269fdea761c0 Ksperber (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The PA's UN ambassador blamed Israel for the strikes and noted that an employee of PM Benjamin Netanyahu's "digital team", Hananya Naftali, (https://www.jpost.com/author/hananya-naftali) initially posted a tweet claiming it as an Israeli attack, and later deleted that tweet https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2023/10/18/un-palestinian-ambassador-denounces-israel-for-gaza-hospital-attack https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/18/what-is-israels-narrative-on-the-gaza-hospital-explosion

This is noteworthy and should be included since several news outlets are reporting it as part of the narrative surrounding competing claims of responsibility SubirGrewal (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

IDF asked all hospitals to evacuate threatening to bomb them if they don't.

The BBC is no innocent, they have been airing false news saying that Hamas is building tunnels under hospitals and hospitals, to affect people all over the world to welcome such a catastrophe.

File:BBC is an accessory in the Baptist hospital massacre supporting IDF war crimes.jpg

File:BBC is an accessory in the Baptist hospital massacre supporting IDF war crimes

Arabic OSINT overview

I think this might be relevant to the analysis https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1714757664721285538.html

like i said in a previous post, the speed of the projectile, creates the frequency difference, not the size of the bomb, and this reporting seems to follow up, and claim that there was rocket shots into Israel, followed by iron dome, followed by air strikes, followed by flares to deter anti-air attacks against the planes.

97.120.207.252 (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Link you gave on that Aljazeera SS shows timestamp 15:59 and Instagram posts shows 6 hours ago. Meaning if the time in "advance software analysis" is at the time of viewing insta post then it should have been somewhere near 21:00 but it is 19:08 which is 2 hours difference. An expert won't give such obvious huge difference in timestamp of report and post. I conclude that source is unreliable and other evidence have emerged which are being examined and we may have more clarity then. I suggest no change `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨ 18:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Massacre

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

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

Claimed by...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International reactions

As with articles about most human tragedies, I started compiling a list of reactions, and added the official statement from the Jordanian Royal Court and statements from Palestinian officials (via Wafa, the mouthpiece of the Palestinian Authority), but AryKun saw it fitting to revert my changes citing "not rs" without any discussion whatsoever. I have no intention of edit warring; so will someone please restore the reactions cited from the official websites/news agencies, while I gather some more? Fjmustak (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This problem happens with every major international incident; we get massive lists of reactions sourced to primary sources and then spend unnecessary time cutting them down later. I think we should just mention the responses mentioned by other secondary sources like newspapers. The PLE statement wasn’t mentioned by any RS at all, so I just cut it; I think Jordan’s is mentioned in a modified form. AryKun (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Tbh, I would prefer not to have reactions just now, at the main page they eventually got farmed out to a separate page. If there are news articles covering multiple reactions, then some prose could be added about those, that would be better imo than the usual proforma list of td&h reactions. Selfstudier (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's a list compiled by AlJazeera (including one by an unnamed spokesman of Mahmoud Abbas). --Fjmustak (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that sort of thing is better, I think, then interested people can go to the ref for the details. Selfstudier (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a convention that only reactions by directly involved parties should end up in the article, or reactions that are meaningful beyond expressions of sympathy/anger/etc. AryKun about sourcing is very valid, as is Selfstudier's characterization of such collections as "the usual proforma list". Drmies (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2023 (2)

Time of explosion should be added. Since it is used by both sides to try to verify blame via time stamped video. First report I find is (16:49 GMT) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-hamas-war-live-iran-warns-resistance-front-may-attack Hummelman (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done by other editor ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

'Perpetrators'

Completely unreliable source supporting this claim that Hamas was responsible for the attack. Editors should at least remove such claim before further information. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The current source listed (BNO News) that claims Hamas is responsible is a biased source. Completely irresponsible editing by users. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed ☆SuperNinja2☆ 21:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Should it be noted that Hananya Naftali, Benjamin Netanyahu's media advisor, claimed credit on behalf of Israel for the attack before the public backlash occurred?173.70.121.247 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be added if there is a source for this. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/JoeKassabian/status/1714369907444351261

I saw the tweet in real-time, before he deleted it, but understandable an anonymous person saying "I done saw it" isn't useful. This account capped the tweet, but I get that this isn't good for a citation either. Seeing as it was published and then deleted on the same day I imagine it wasn't scraped by any archival websites, only other opportunity I can think of is if a news agency reported on his statement before it was removed.173.70.121.247 (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/yousuf_tw/status/1714370703565205787

Tossing this is in as well; Al Jazeera released a video of the airstrike, and people are attempting to geotag it. This account alleges that the positioning rules out a rocket misfire. May want to keep an eye on OSINT-aligned websites to see if they corroborate it in a citation-worthy fashion.173.70.121.247 (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

173.70.121.247, you are saying Hananya Naftali is Benjamin Netanyahu's media advisor, do you have any source that corroborate that he is Netanyahu's media advisor? He appears to just be an influencer. The only possible source I could find that says something similar is the following:

Naftali has been working for the former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as part of his digital team for the past 3 years.
— https://www.jpost.com/author/hananya-naftali

It is undated, says "former", and says "part of his digital team", which could mean anything. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

In case it's useful, here a Spanish fact-checking company confirms that Naftali's tweet was real and also adds the reason he gave for deleting it: https://maldita.es/malditobulo/20231018/comunicador-netanyahu-ataque-hospital-gaza-ejercito-israel/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoroe6 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot of misinformation about Naftali flying about, which doesn't seem appropriate. He's a social media influencer who worked with Netanyahu in the past[1] but clearly not a government spokesperson with novel information in this instance.

I removed a paragraph that repeated a tweet by a politician indirectly referencing a tweet from Naftali implying something about the government stance; that's a lot of indirection with BLP implications. His deleted post has been very widely cited in misinfo memes, including official statements by the ambassadors at the UN in their speech yesterday evening, which seems like the only reason to mention it. I started drafting something but it didn't seem worth including (its role in confusion/misinfo doesn't seem to have been notable enough to be addressed by reliable sources):

Shortly after initial AP reports attributing the attack to Israel, a tweet from Israeli social media influencer Hananya Naftali, who has worked with Netanyahu, echoed that the strike was carried out by Israel. This was deleted after more details emerged, but was misattributed for a time as a deleted statement by a government spokesperson.

– SJ + 14:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sj, thanks, I also believe it isn't worth adding, although I did see it today even appearing in the news segment of the Spanish TV channel LaSexta. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas as perpetrators

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

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

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

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

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

New video published

A new video has been published which proves that the explosion resulted by Jihad' failed launch:

• Tal Schneider, Security cameras of the Ben Ben Nursery in Netiv HaTara recorded the failed launch, Kan 11, October 17, 2023.

Pacifico (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

there has been at least 5 debunked videos 'proving' that it was really an Palestinian rocket that did this, what a fucking joke. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. Twitter. If a ToI reporter get it published by them. Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You can literally see the waft of smoke from the hospital in this video, prior to the launches. Did you mean the post the video that the IDF shared, which takes place 40 minutes after the Hospital strike happened? Or perhaps the one Netanyahu shared that was 20 minutes after? Or maybe the one being proliferated that happened in 2022?173.70.121.247 (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The explosion shown in this video does not show the explosion that this article is about. In order to qualify this statement, an in-depth discussion is necessary. Avior (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Footage from that particular cam has appeared in previous years, as reverse image searches reveal, except with Gaza not previously being in blackout. This time, however, the usual timestamp is missing from the top left. I'd like to see an explanation for that. Also, if the two sides are exchanging rockets or bombs, the explosion could be due to either side.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

First, the camera position of this video can be geolocated. It is: N31.56673° E34.537275° (Source Google Earth).

Second. Three stars of the constellation Scorpius can be identified: Theta Scorpii, μ Scorpii and ϵ Scorpii. Using these stars and the exact camera position, you can check the time of the capture: it is indeed at 15:59 UTC on October 17, 2023, the suspected time of the explosion.

Third. From the star positions and the objects in the foreground it can be concluded that the explosion shown is not visible in the direction corresponding to the direction to the hospital. The direction of the explosion shown can be given as azimuth 216°. On the other hand, the hospital is located in the direction of azimuth 226°. Avior (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The videos I have seen that claim that the attack was a JDAM, I believe were based on the velocity of the munition, rather than the size of the munition. The premise being that an airdropped bomb doesn't fight gravity, and can reach a higher velocity at landing. The velocity and the drag profile of the munition, generates the pitch frequency of the sound as it travels.

original https://files.catbox.moe/bfp01k.mp4 comparison of missiles. https://files.catbox.moe/szluak.mp4 97.120.207.252 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

If by JDAM "not fighting gravity" you mean it is in a free fall, then obviously it also applies to the disintegrated rocket that can be seen in the video footage. Deinocheirus (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

I saw reports on Twitter that suggested that we were taking one side or the other in this fast moving story. I doubted that but I came here to have a look. I just read the talk page, and the back and forth, and although emotions are clearly running high - as they naturally should in the face of such a horrific incident - I am really proud of the outcome at this moment and the hard work of several people who are putting the NPOV ideals of Wikipedia first, and personal opinions or desires to blame second. My own perspective is that we, the world at large I mean, don't know yet what happened. Some people will spend the rest of their lives believing one side or the other without evidence. Wikipedia, and good Wikipedians, will wait for evidence, for the arguments to play out, and we know that this dispute may last forever or may be settled one way or another in a few days time.

Thank you, Wikipedians. Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the initial revert Jimbo Wales! Didn't realize it was you! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Jimbo, you are essentially saying Wikipedians should sit in the coward's chair while Gaza gets steamrolled and act as if Israel's wildly ridiculous and unsupported claims hold any water? I'm sure it's easy to be smug once the dust has settled, but by being silent and entertaining these claims, we are indirectly supporting the dominant party and rhetoric. 208.180.58.74 (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeap. Wikipedia strives to be neutral. There are places on the internet for folks to take sides, but that place is not Wikipedia. Our job is to summarize reliable secondary sources such as newspapers and books, and that's it. If it takes reliable newspapers and books awhile to figure out the cause of the explosion, so be it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly something to be proud of. More of a grim responsibility. 208.180.58.74 (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I am really proud of the outcome at this moment and the hard work of several people who are putting the NPOV ideals of Wikipedia first - Jimmy Wales

Be right back, putting this on my resume.

But seriously, thank you Jimbo! The Kip 00:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll do that too LOL Abo Yemen✉ 18:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Well this is a career highlight. AryKun (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

For future reference - Hananya Naftali (deleted tweet)

Obviously, what we write in the article is what other people (ie, Reliable Sources) write.

Still I though I'd share the results on a claim I was checking: Palestine's Ambassador to the UN (the one quoted in the edit-request section above), in the same press conference referenced a Tweet - that was deleted - by what he claims is an ~ Israeli (digital) spokesperson (he's not that, at least not officially, as far as I can tell).

The tweet in question is said to claim that the strike was by the IDF. This appears to be the now visible Tweet on the topic. https://twitter.com/HananyaNaftali/status/1714346975326330957 . Notice the "community notes" below the tweet - obviously "receipts" for Tweets can be faked, but this one seems to be referenced from multiple directions, so (imho) seems unlikely.

As said above, this doesn't change anything for the article (as of now). Just thought it might be good to give a heads up, cause possibly someone somewhere might be reporting on this soon.

P.S. I'm anything but an expert, but the impression from the video (embedded in his current tweet) I get is certainly not an errant rocket (from a volley ?). But that's just btw, it wasn't my point here.

Sean Heron (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Self reply: As I wrote the above, I had only skim read the edit-request section. Since Al-Jazeera reported on Palestine's UN Ambassador referring to the deleted tweet, I reckon that statement / claim could also be included in the article. Sean Heron (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is a specific link to Al-Jazeera's mention of the deleted tweet, if helpful. Conerd (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That is highly relevant, I think. It doesn't mean it's correct, but regardless whose rocket it was, the tweet in itself seems relevant to include in Reactions. Jeppiz (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Any mention of this seems to have been deleted from the Wikipedia article. 133.106.41.137 (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

We need a reliable source linking the person to the Israeli government and confirming the legitimacy of the tweet first Chuckstablers (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Why explosion and not bombing?

The current name for the page makes it sound like this was something like an accident, like those explosions at fireworks factories that sometimes happen. Regardless of whose claims we believe (Gaza or Israel), both parties here claim this was the result of a rocket explosion, thus a bombing. I do recall such pages (plenty from Ukraine for example) being named bombing instead of explosion, so I don't see why the current name is what it is. It would also hopefully help calm people down because it'd be a more neutral name to begin with.

And let's face it, if we were talking about the usual suspects like Russia or Turkey, none of us would spend nearly as much time questioning the claims of attacks on civilians. I'm not saying any editor here acted in bad faith but let us consider the circumstances. This is a drama that Wikipedia does not need, and we need to look at this catastrophe for what it is. --Dynamo128 (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We are not the ones making claims, we only report on what reliable sources say. This far, there is only speculation so we cannot claim who did it. Jeppiz (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say we are making claims ourselves obviously, Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source, but we are interpreting them. And even just going to so many mainstream sites (Al Jazeera, The Guardian, BBC, just to name a few, and these are sources that are partly also cited in the article too) do not refer it as an "explosion" before referring to it as an airstrike or bombing. This isn't even a case of reliable sources being mendacious, which can sometimes happen, this is a case of, in my humble opinion, a misleading term being used in a misguided effort to achieve neutrality when in reality using bombing would've done a much better job at that. --Dynamo128 (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the article should be renamed to: Al-Ahli Arab Hospital bombing Spudst3r (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence it was a bombing and we can't come with our own conclusions. dov (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective ☆SuperNinja2☆ 23:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read the full policy. It gets into the nuance there that isn't just "you can post whatever biased sources you want" as you seem to be implying. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I read a few of the best-looking sources of this article. None of them seem to have any doubt that the incident in question was a bombing, even if they did not use that specific word or gave the idea that the bombing was done accidentally by the Hamas authorities. They all agree that it was a rocket that caused the explosion. The only controversial part of this story is the whodidit, not whether or not this incident was caused by a military rocket that hit the hospital. SparklyNights 01:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Article name updated. Spudst3r (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the move was justified. Bombing implies intentionality. The dispute is whether a militant group was trying to launch a rocket at Haifa and accidentally dropped it on the hospital. If that's what happened, I wouldn't call it a bombing. And if it's true that Israel dropped a bomb on it, I would call that an airstrike. What I would expect in an article containing the name bombing is an event involving a bomb planted at a location and then detonated. I think consensus should have been developed before Spudst3r boldly moved it.--Orgullomoore (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I would support keeping it as "explosion" until further investigation or proof is published—it seems there are only claims. —  Melofors  TC 05:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't get that impression from "bombing", that the word implies intentionality. I changed the article name as this is a fast-moving story and there was relative consensus here in the talk page. The leading explanations for what happened: a misfire, an iron-dome interception, a deliberate strike, all fit with the concept that the target was bombed. This reflects a large quantity of reporting on the subject also. But as I see there is disagreement now we can try to work for a new consensus. Spudst3r (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If I throw a bomb at my neighbor two doors down, but it falls on your house, did I bomb your house? Not really. I would have bombed my other neighbor's house, had I been successful, but your house got in the way. Was there an explosion at your house? Yes, there was.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r I think changing from bombing back to explosion is a really un-credible move. There is no disputing based on the footage that is actually fully confirmed that it was caused by a bombing, some form of missile. To name it anything else is just passive language for no reason. LoomCreek (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed ☆SuperNinja2☆ 10:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I reversed the move. If you want to rename it, develop a consensus first.--Orgullomoore (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I found the move bizarrely premature. "Bombing" makes it sound like a deliberate act. Maybe it was. Maybe it was a stray rocket and unintentional. -- Veggies (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Al Jazeera refers to it as bombing. Al Jazeera is a reliable source, so I think it is niw appropriate to call it so. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sources that don't:

  1. BBC - "Hospital blast"
  2. The Guardian - "Hospital blast"
  3. New York Times - "Hospital explosion"

  One source using "bombing", particularly one that we have bias concerns about, does not mean we use it. BilledMammal (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I concur that explosion is the absolutely neutral term. Bombing is usually used for airstrikes (insinuating IDF) or planted / suicide bombs. Rockets are usually referred to as strikes. 2604:3D08:A27F:3E00:498C:305C:46CC:26DA (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Purpose of Having this Page Up in the First Place

If people aren't even going to agree on who committed the act in the heat of the moment, is there really a reason to keep this page up? It should probably just be taken down until the heat of the moment has died down, lest people become woefully misinformed. 208.180.58.74 (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

While I agree the page was put up in something of a rush, it contains useful information and I don't think people are misinformed by it. Selfstudier (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@208.180.58.74 this is not how Wikipedia works Abo Yemen✉ 11:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

at least the wording should be more evasive, instead of "caused an unprecedented number of deaths" should be "allegedly caused an unprecedented number of deaths" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.104.196.124 (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of having this page up in the first place was to provide more content for the media/public relations war against Israel. Now that the assumption that an Israeli airstrike hit the hospital is in dispute, or will possibility be discredited, this page lost its original purpose.

Maybe we can leave the rival claims as "in dispute" until there is better evidence. Truth suffers when there is a rush to present anything. 108.222.9.189 (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Major points that the article needs to include per sources

• IDF didn’t publish evidence to support its claims, it claims to have intelligence information but none was published.
• Palestinian militant groups don’t have the capability to produce a rocket that makes such scale of blast or destruction (per the guardian)

• "there are incidents in the past where the israeli military has said things in the immediate aftermath of an incident that turned out to not be true"

Stephan rostie (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is definitely failing at holding the necessary skepticism towards Israel's and IDF's claims, the insistence in maintaining the claim the Hamas was the perpetrator of the attack was staggering. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

References

• Do you any source for the "no capability" claim, other than a single conclusory sentence in a single liveblog? This speculative assertion does not appear in any other source that I have seen – not Reuters nor AP nor AFP. Neutrality^talk 02:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, it appeared in the guardian. So until another source reject that and say otherwise, you have no right to reject reliable sources or block/omit it because of your own personal opinion. Stephan rostie (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So I take it that the answer to my question is "no," that you have no additional sources to point to. Again, we don't indiscriminately include information. Unless this is more widely reported, a single statement in a liveblog is not due weight. We are an encyclopedia, not a collection of everything that has ever been claimed or said. Neutrality^talk 02:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The opinion that Hamas lacked the rocket capability of this scale to trigger the kind of explosion witnessed is a point that has been made by at least the Guardian, CNN, and MSNBC. It may be speculation, it may even by wrong, but pointing that out is not undue. If it is indeed incorrect, if there is another credible explanation provided by RS for this current event then cite them and add them to the article. We can condense what is due and undue once that happens. Spudst3r (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r: @Stephan rostie: I agree. Point me to these sources and I will add them as they are stated. I see no reason not to; that is an important detail. I was unable to locate it in the link you provided, however. —  Melofors  TC 03:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

BBC's John Donnison, CNN's Clarissa Ward, and The Guardian all find the scale of the explosion incongruent with what the rockets fired by Palestinian militants are capable of. As such that much is worth including, even if it's a form of opinion as it could be phrased as "are of the opinion that". HOWEVER, these opinions pretty obviously presume that 200+ casualties is indeed the case. If the true number killed was a couple dozen, we should exclude based on them apparently operating off of a mistaken presumption.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

We had an MSNBC broadcast quote attributing this that got removed, it was added as: MSNBC reported that "this kind of death toll is not what you normally associate with Palestinian rockets ... they do not tend to kill hundreds of people in a single strike." Spudst3r (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's just speculation though. And demonstrably bad speculation at that. If there are two equivalently sized earth quakes, one in Hong Kong the other in the Sahara desert then you can conclude more injuries in Hong Kong is proof that the earth quake there was stronger, but you'd be wrong. All sources state that the population density in Gaza is one of the highest in the world and the hospital was particularly packed. The obvious explanation is higher density thus more casualties. You can say, "oh that's WP:OR" but the quote you linked is just purely speculation from the author not fact stated by MSNBC. Alcibiades979 (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Neutrality If you have sources that demonstrate Hamas has rockets of this size please add them to the article. Spudst3r (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/irans-rockets-palestinian-groups

The Wilson Center reports that Palestinian Islamic Jihad have the Badr 3 rocket via Iran, which they unveiled in 2019 and which has a warhead up to 882 pounds. Drsmoo (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Got a neutral source rather than a "US thinktank"? We have not seen the use of any of the large hardware depicted in that WC claim. 14.2.207.173 (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This article has become a real one-stop shop for all your WP:FALSEBALANCE needs, per the OP's points. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231004-rockets-drones-on-display-at-islamic-jihad-parade-in-gaza

”An Islamic Jihad official told AFP that around 4,500 members of Al-Quds Brigades, the armed wing of the Palestinian militant group, took part in Wednesday's parade.

The event showcased domestically produced rockets atop trucks draped in green camouflage fabric, missiles and three types of drones.

"The new Buraq missiles have a range of 85 kilometres (50 miles), and the improved Badr 3 missiles have an explosive warhead weighing 400 kilos (880 pounds)," said a spokesman for Al-Quds Brigades.” Drsmoo (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67144061 points out with photographic evidence the small size of the crater, including unnamed experts who seem to assess a fire caused by the rocket/unburned fuel as responsible for most deaths. The crater is in the damn parking lot for the love of god. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2023

The IDF Arabic page on facebook had posted 2 hours prior to the attack a message, « Due to the lack of medical equipment and the lack of medical staff, it was decided to bomb the baptist hospital in gaza and give them euthanasia. » A deleted tweet by Hananya Natfali, Israel’s digital spokesperson appointed by Benjamin Netenyahu had a statement that the attack was in fact Israeli because there were Hamas bases in the vicinity of the hospital. 45.246.216.210 (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@ARandomName123

The deleted tweet can be seen here. https://twitter.com/GUnderground_TV/status/1714375105944432715 Villeum (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

A random Twitter account with paid verification is not a reliable source. The Kip 03:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, tweets are not reliable sources, although it would seem pertinent that a now deleted facebook post where the IDF gloats about carrying out the attack should count as evidence towards the uncertainty and controversy of who perpetuated the attack. However I am unsure how this would ever be included as a source as all that remains as far as my knowledge are screen captures that were posted on twitter: https://twitter.com/omarsuleiman504/status/1714372463398670695 since they require secondary verification that the screen captures are not tampered with. Drocj (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you even have anything backing up the claim you made in the first post? The thing about "we decided to give them euthanasia"? Because there is NOTHING about that anywhere that I can find, and it seems like obvious hamas propaganda. Again; is it cartoonishly evil? if so? Probably propaganda. Especially if it's one side admitting to being basically a cartoon villian. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the IDF Arabic page post? Conerd (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Some deleted IDF posts are discussed here:

• "Israel’s spin about hospital massacre quickly comes apart" by Ali Abunimah

There must be other sources that discuss this? 133.106.41.137 (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Ahli hospital

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aric Toler

It's worth noting that Toler's assessment is more nuanced than what's mentioned in this article.

He did question the timestamp from the Israeli government's original X post, but his more recent posts on X recommend using an Al-Jazeera post that reports the barrage began at 7pm, far earlier than the initial post cited by both Toler and the Israeli government.

(Yes, I understand social media posts are not considered valid, but this is response to a section of the article that already sources Toler's X account.)

https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1714380810269196323?t=8sXrdjnICn9s0jfAE9iPgg&s=19

I took out the Aric business. It's original research and undue.--Orgullomoore (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This guy is cited as the source for the timing of the video by multiple RS; it is definitely not OR or UNDUE to mention him when we're essentially just citing his analysis via the RSes. AryKun (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Please learn how to reply in-line. I never made any claims about Toler claims being either undue or original research, only that his assessments are being cited selectively. Do we even know that Toler's response is why the Israeli government's initial post was taken down? If not, it should frankly be removed.73.168.37.85 (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm using the automatic Reply tool; it's super glitchy and I know it messes up the indentation half the time, but it's clear from context here that I'm replying to Orgullomoore. AryKun (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's fair.

To be honest, unless we can prove Toler's response specifically is what prompted the Israeli govt to remove their initial post - as is heavily suggested by the current wording - linking Toler to the post's disappearance seems like speculation/SYNTH. 73.168.37.85 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: More references for both sides

It appears that some OSINT groups and analysts have analyzed open-source data and claim that the attack was the result of rocket fired by Palestinian militant groups, see e.g. GeoConfirmed and Oliver Alexander. On the contrary, U.S. congresswomen Rashida Tlaib, a well-known pro-Palestinian activist, has sided with the Gazan ministry of health, declaring that the IDF is to blame, see this statement. I think that adding both claimants to the article could help the reader better understand the situation. JaywalkerPenguin (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, we already have claims by both sides and the reactions to them by RS in the article; adding every random OSINT analyst and congressperson's reaction will just lead to unmanageable bloat and unnecessary arguments about who to include. AryKun (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Unrelated quote?

I see that there is some quote attributed to Israel's PM that is unrelated to this incident. I believe it should be removed as it is unrelated to the incident.Exx8 (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

What quotes? Jeppiz (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple RSes mention that quote in connection to the bombing, as some people see it as showing genocidal intent. Netanyahu removed it soon after the bombing, likely due to this negative association. It's probably due. AryKun (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be kept but there has to be a paragraph explaining it. After all, it seems online discourse is that the tweet suggests a motivation for the attack. The fact that he then deleted then makes it all the more relevant. Hovsepig (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Then we must include quotations from Hamas and Jihad officials who urge that Gazans must serve as human shields and die as martyrs for the Palestinian cause. Perhaps we should also include quotations encouraging children to pick up arms?Exx8 (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Was it said on the die of the explosion? Hovsepig (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@AryKun The relationship between the PM's words and the explosion is speculative and tendentious, and the fact the some RSes mentioned it does not make the relationship any less speculative. Let's not forget that many RSes, especially Al Jazeera, jumped to conclusions without all the facts and uncritically cited the number of 500 casualties. It is clearly an attempt to paint one side as guilty of genocidal intentions. I would argue strongly that the quote has no place in the article. Stick to the facts. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact is that he deleted the tweet after the bombing, and many sources connected this to the type of language used. And those are the fact mentioned in the article. AryKun (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You're playing semantics now. The "fact" that he deleted a tweet afterwards is not the issue here; the issue here is that this tweet is being used as implicit evidence of guilt and culpability, and that makes the connection tendentious. It is something an overzealous prosecutor would use as circumstantial evidence. At the very least, it should be attributed to someone's opinion. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"This is a struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness, between humanity and the law of the jungle."

Recording of the conversation between Hamas operatives, affirming that PIJ was behind the explosion

The IDF has released a recording of Hamas operatives, where one operative tells the other that the explosion was a result of a misfired rocket by the PIJ. Link: https://www.facebook.com/idfonline/videos/1542410406515943/ Thisissparta12345 (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither Facebook nor IDF are reliable sources to attribute blame. Jeppiz (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

And if the American intelligence services affirm it? Would that count as a reliable source? Thisissparta12345 (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Enough to include in the article as a claim, if reliably sourced. Not in itself enough to change the article to say in Wikivoice who did it. Jeppiz (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is already enough to include it in the article as a claim. Jogarz1921 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's try to find a reliable secondary source that refers to (or links to) the primary Facebook source. Wikishovel (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

this article in Haaretz mentions the recordings, but doesn't link to them. Wikishovel (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The IDF is not a reliable source; it is an army that is well-known for its psychological warfare, disinformation and propaganda campaigns. This is absolute junk. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Iskandar323. In itself, this is barely noticeable. If widely sourced, can be included in one sentence among the different claims, that's all. Jeppiz (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is not a reliable source; it is a genocidal antisemitic murder cult that is well-known for its psychological warfare, disinformation and propaganda campaigns. Anything from Hamas is absolute junk, right Iskandar323? Cullen328 (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Yes, obviously. But I'm not aware of anyone proposing using any primary Hamas sources at this time though? What's the point here? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The point is that the charge that Israel bombed this hospital comes from Hamas, and the the fundamental premise of this article from the beginning is based on Hamas propaganda. And when the IDF responds in detail to deny that charge, some folks point out that the IDF is a "psychological warfare, disinformation and propaganda" source, as if Hamas and the news outlets that instantly parroted Hamas aren't. Let's be rigorous about the neutral point of view, please. Cullen328 (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that argument doesn't make any sense. sure, Hamas isn't reliable but do you disagree that the IDF is any more reliable?

we can't trust either testimony until it has been widely and independently verified that Israel or PIJ did it. Hamas can be as unbiased as you want, but even from a NPOV, that doesn't mean Israel is trustworthy Genabab (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we are rigorous. We wait for confirmation before attributing blame, and don't take the claims of any involved party at face value. Jeppiz (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the earliest versions of this article, Jeppiz, which consisted of uncritical and credulous regurgitation of Hamas propaganda. Cullen328 (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If early versions of the article were a problem, that's something we should learn from and try to do better in the future. However it's clear that whatever mistakes were made there, we will not do better by allowing content sourced only to the IDF as a primary source. While I think Iskandar323's specific wording was unhelpful and caused unnecessary distraction, the fundamentally unreliability of such primary sources in a war seems to be the key point being made that is correct. If and when such claims are covered in quality reliable secondary sources then and only then can we start to consider inclusion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

But were primary Hamas sources used at any point? Other Palestinian sources do not, by default, simply regurgitate Hamas statements. Many are Fatah-aligned and opposed to Hamas. Obviously international reporting is more independent and preferable, but Palestinian reporting cannot be assumed to be inaccurate simply by virtue of being Palestinian and repeating Hamas statements. Unless challenged at WP:RSN, sources are just sources - short of proof, we cannot simply assume certain sources do not conduct any of their own independent fact-checking. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not sure exactly which sources were used at the very outset of this article, and I intend no comment on any specifics. My point here is a rather more general one. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be frank here: this recording says basically nothing, even if it's real. We don't know what importance the two speakers in the clip have within their organization, we don't know how much they actually saw, and they don't affirm that PIJ launched the rocket, only mention that "they" say it was.

Additionally, there's a lot of tells that make this an aggressively fake recording. The arabic grammar is awful, they regularly say "us" when referring to PIJ (perhaps to tie into the IDF talking point of Hamas = ISIS), neither man has a Gazan accent, they conveniently geotag themselves for Twitter, and the entire conversation reads more like a Learning Arabic 101 course exercise than an actual person-to-person conversation.

That having been said, it's usually not Wikipedia's job to make a decisive take on the situation, especially this early. It probably should be in the article, but my personal opinion is to wait until professionals unaffiliated with the US/IDF/Hamas/PA wake up, analyze the recording, and likely find it wanting.173.70.121.247 (talk) 09:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Middle East Eye has done a good explainer on the disinformation. I'm not sure if there's a written article form - that would be useful. There's a podcast version too - not sure if it's admissable. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2023 (2)

Under explosion and reaponsibility, it should be mentioned that Israeli government Digital spokesperson announced at the beginning that they targeted the hospital vicinity to kill terrorists" over a tweet before deleting it once the size of the catastrophe was clear. Image of the tweet attached.

• 
  Hananya Naftali Tweet on X

188.120.128.242 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please provide the link to the original tweet rather than a screenshot. Wikishovel (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Already included, read the article first. Jeppiz (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Information about this seems to have been since deleted from the Wikipedia article? 133.106.41.137 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

A single source used to support Israeli claim in lede

Currently the lede has shifted from neutral to leaning towards the Israeli claim. This is based on one single source, in The Telegraph (a newspaper with a somewhat dubious record of accuracy). I would recommend removing that part, unless more widely confirmed. Jeppiz (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

And the Economist; both The Telegraph and the Economist are green at RSP. BilledMammal (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz Agreed. The Telegraph's source is a Twitter account run by volunteers. The phrase "independent analysts" gives it far more weight than is warranted at this point. Alpyne (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources give that analysis weight then we need to do the same. BilledMammal (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not really a single source, even at this early stage:

• Al Jazeera and other live footage showing the rocket trajectory over Gaza and its sudden collapse over Gaza
• geolocation of the above (consistent with many previous Hamas rocket failures)
• IDF radar data showing estimated launch site at Gaza coast
• IDF UAV videos showing the explosion remains at the hospital parking with no crater that would be left by Israeli bunker busters

Only two of these sources are Israeli, but what is most important is that they are all consistent with each other. I agree it's probably too early to add definite conclusions in the article yet, because most of the above are still being discussed over social media (e.g. geolocation) and not yet clearly summarised by WP:RS. Cloud200 (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing is definitely good enough for the body, but I agree this doesn't belong in the lead yet because it's preliminary. DFlhb (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

President Biden affirms the Israeli claim that PIJ was behind the explosion

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw5p48L9j98 Thisissparta12345 (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a live video; you'll need to provide a different source or a timestamp. BilledMammal (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Look at the last few minutes of the live video, they quote President Biden saying "Looks like hospital blast caused by other team". Thisissparta12345 (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It will be properly sourced soon, we wait for that. Jeppiz (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The ticker is saying "Biden: Looks like hospital blast caused by other team". However, I would prefer to wait for a print source before adding that to the article. BilledMammal (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's a printed source: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-18/ty-article-live/israeli-army-blames-islamic-jihad-for-hitting-gaza-hospital-in-deadly-strike/0000018b-40a6-d881-abab-edae5c5d0000 Thisissparta12345 (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

And a source by CBS: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/israel-hamas-war-biden-visit-gaza-hospital-attack/ Thisissparta12345 (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So are we going to add it? Thisissparta12345 (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Also Washington Post, WSJ, New York Times. However, if we add it we should also state that Biden hasn't clarified what evidence he was referring to. We also shouldn't make it seem more certain than it is, he's clear that this is preliminary, not conclusive. DFlhb (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

We could at least mention that he said so. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course; we should - DFlhb (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

OSINT suggesting Israel airstrike

According to an analysis by team formed by Mario Nawfal :

Based on the evidence, this could not have been the Islamic Jihad, as claimed by the Israeli Defense Force, based on our analysis of the information we have so far.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:

This is an analysis is preliminary, and is done by a Marine Corps Veteran Explosives & Ordinance Expert, and reviewed by many others.

It needs to be mentioned in the article similar to how Geolocator analysis on X (twitter) was mentioned too. Stephan rostie (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source reporting on it? BilledMammal (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, the conclusions in that tweet don't seem to be in any way connected to the observations in the beginning, and the observations don't seem to be in any way supported by evidence. The only conclusive sentence in this analysis is "we CANNOT come to final conclusions just yet". Cloud200 (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems like some random bloke on twitter. The benefit of the OSINT quoted in the RSs like The Guardian or The Economist or the BBC is that the RSs lend credibility to the experts they're interviewing. Without that credibility this is just some bloke on twitter stating his opinion. 2A02:908:13B2:91C0:E96C:980D:5F4:22F (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

BBC Verify initial report

BBC Verify initial report

Relevant Quote:

"While there is no overall consensus, one said the fact that hospital buildings have not collapsed, some cars are undamaged and there is no visible deep crater suggests that this was not consistent with an Israeli air strike." 2A06:C701:4442:4F00:BA30:1EBD:A340:2588 (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Don´t bring every media article to the talk page. That short article merely says BBC is looking into it, nothing more. Bringing it to this loaded talk page seems borderline disruptive (presumably done in good faith, but not helpful). Jeppiz (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added it to the article; it's a better source than many we are currently using. BilledMammal (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

N12

According to News 12 Networks, News 12 cameras placed in Netivot proved that the explosion at al-Mamadi Hospital in the heart of Gaza City was caused by a failed launch of a rocket by the Islamic Jihad.

According to the documentation, you can see the launch site of the Islamic Jihad, from which several rockets were fired at Israeli cities and villeges at 18:59 ( israel's local time). One of the rockets can be seen falling on the hospital in the Gaza Strip - resulting in an explosion. https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/6361323ddea5a810/Article-ed733c15b124b81026.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802 here the journalist at arabic https://twitter.com/N12News/status/1714585332228702459 and english: https://twitter.com/N12News/status/1714582806007865366 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:120:3B69:3FBC:8EF6 (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove all new threads based on Twitter (X) from talk page

Lots of users, both IPs and registered users, keep starting numerous threads here based on a single tweet saying what they themselves want to believe. Could I suggest we hereby agree to just remove such new threads at sight? We will not make any changes to the article based merely on tweets in any case, and the impression starts to be that some users are abusing the talk page to push rumours. As per WP:DENY, WP:V and WP:NOTAFORUM, I suggest all new thread starts based on a tweet be removed. Jeppiz (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; any comment with the only source(s) being tweet(s) should be removed as not helpful. BilledMammal (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:TPO applies -- WP:TALKOFFTOPIC indicates removing any comments which are about the subject itself and not about improving the article, so anyone should just do this.—Alalch E. 10:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The tweet in question is a high ranking israeli official - a personal contact of Netanyahu - publicly bragging that the IDF committed the attack. A direct assumption of blame from Israel. A totally damning piece of evidence unless you need to believe otherwise. 2600:1008:B17E:3DC3:25D1:42D0:2339:B7A0 (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

IP, there is no "tweet in question". My suggestions refers to all different users bringing lots of different tweets just saying what they want to believe. It refers to all discussions referenced to a tweet, not discussions in reliable sources about a tweet. Jeppiz (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It just seems strange that Hananya Naftali, who is extremely close with Netanyahu, claimed Israeli responsibility for the massacre, but this isnt even mentioned in the article. 2600:1008:B17E:3DC3:25D1:42D0:2339:B7A0 (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

First of all were not sure what hospital he was referring to

He might have referred to ANY hospital the Israel forces bombed

Second of all he isn't a part of the IDF Brek1234567 (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes! Too much of "muh favorite obscure, unknown blogger who's totes an expert on all things war-related tweeted that..." -- Veggies (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian

@User:Hmbr, why did you remove The Guardian statement? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a good removal; these initial reactions are now WP:UNDUE and have been supplanted by sources that have done more in-depth analysis. BilledMammal (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

When you say "undue", you should represent both points and this is one point of view and it should be represented. The Guardian is a reputable reliable source and its pov should be represented for the article not to be UNDUE. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Read WP:UNDUE. It means something specific in Wikipedia. What you are talking about is WP:FALSEBALANCE. DeCausa (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly as DeCausa said. Also agree with BilledMammal and the point is relevant more generally as well. There were a lot of initial reactions yesterday, published in many reliable sources, that have since been supplanted. In many cases, the original stories remain available, but using them to push points the sources themselves no longer hold is not proper use of WP:RS. Jeppiz (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see, sorry for the confusion. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Good observation @BilledMammal. In addition the shift in terminology from 'attack' to 'explosion' across most news outlets, except Al Jazeera, is notable. For a more balanced representation, it would be prudent to replace the Al Jazeera source with one that aligns with the prevailing terminology. Marokwitz (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ: I see you re-added this, but without an edit summary explaining why; can you explain? BilledMammal (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal, DeCausa: I agree with you. Yet it seems that this has sneaked in the article again. It's bizarre to include: (1) this is a live blog; (2) it has been superseded by more recent reporting based on the open-source, publicly available info (many news outlets got it wrong when they hastily reported in the early hours/days, as CNN's media report has written); and even The Guardian itself is not longer making this claim. I'm logging off soon, so I can't monitor this, but hopefully this gets fixed promptly. Neutrality^talk 20:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

What, The Guardian wrong??! *gasp* -- Veggies (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

500 dead?

The 500+ death toll seems rather dubious - the damage doesn't look enough, see it here. I found a Sky news article vaguely saying the IDF "suggested this number was inflated" but is there maybe a better source for the dispute that I could add? Evercat (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I've just updated the Palestinian health ministry's latest estimates to 471 in the infobox, with a RS. Wikishovel (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Death count is still uncertain as the event is fairly recent, but seeing footage following the airstrike the number of deaths seems to be very high The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Even some Israeli-leaning sources believe it's possible hundreds died. See this NPR article.

"Dr. Naim was in the hospital's operating room the moment the explosion occurred, he told NPR. Upon hearing the blast, he rushed outside to find horrific injuries to the people in the courtyard, including amputated limbs and vascular injuries, he said. "Some of them died in our hands," he said."

and

"Marc Garlasco, a former targeting officer for the U.S. military who now works for PAX, a Netherlands-based non-profit. .... Death estimates vary widely, but are believed to be in the hundreds. Garlasco, who has investigated war crimes all over the world, says such a high death toll would be toward the "extreme high end of anything I've ever seen." But he found it plausible, he said, given that so many Palestinian civilians have left their homes to seek refuge in a small number of supposedly safe locations." Ashvio (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to add something like "disputed by IDF" if I can find a good source (Sky News will do I guess). Evercat (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I now found The Times of Israel quoting Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari as saying "They went as far as to inflate the number of casualties" - would anyone object to me using this to say that IDF disputes the figures? Evercat (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh we actually have the dispute mentioned in the opening section, so all that's really needed is to add something like "disputed by IDF" to the infobox. Would that be OK? Evercat (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• I added a sentence in the article (based on this existing citation [2]) that first public mentions of the hospital explosion were at 7:20pm local time. That appears to be UTC +3 time. I see a tweet from SkyNews at 8:35pm UTC +3 saying "At least 500 people killed in hospital bombing in Gaza, Palestinian officials claim."[3] Maybe there are earlier reports, I haven't pinpointed the minute the claim was first made, but this 500 deaths claim was made incredibly quickly. There would be no way to accurately assess the number of dead within 1-2 hours. Whatever the event cause is, is a tragedy. But Hamas also knows what the incredible power of making that death count toll so quickly would be. Obviously, our article should continue to cite the claim, as well as reliable sources as to its veracity as they develop.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2023 (3)

In the first paragraph sentence "which would make it one of the deadliest attacks on a hospital in decades", the word "attacks" should not be used as the exact cause of the explosion is yet to be determined. This is NPOV. Seffardim (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you suggest a reword? Evercat (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually the whole sentence should be deleted. The source does not say that the explosion is the deadliest in a hospital in decades, it says nothing about how the casualties compare with other hospital destructions. Please delete it. Seffardim (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If it was caused by a PIJ rocket which landed at an unintended location, it's still an attack. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It may confuse the readers, "attack" would mean that Israel fired the rocket and deliberately targeted the hospital. Seffardim (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It will become more clear how to phrase this as secondary sources cover the subject further. There also does not seem to be consensus for the change at the moment. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Who did it?

As more and more information comes in, there is more evedience supporting Israeli claims:

1. Videos showing the explosion occuring during amid rockets launch towards Israel (for example, this video captured by Israeli channel 12 news: [4])

2. The aftermath of the strike doesn't fit the aftermath of Israeli ariel srtike (IDF spokesperson, BBC Verify as stated in the article)

3. OSINT experts claims it is likely that the explosion was caused by a misfired rocket (Telegraph as stated in the article)

4. President Biden says American intelligence showes that Israel is not behind the explosion (CNN [5])

Right now there is no major evidence suppoting Hamas claims. Therefore, I suggest to put first in the article the Israeli claims and just than the Pelastinian ones. Yonathan33 (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I dunno - the order of the claims (i.e. who said what, when) is important for understanding the media debacle this has been. Evercat (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not in the article's body but at least in the infobox. Yonathan33 (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So obvious that Islamic Jihad did it by accident. The audio of the Hamas operatives who learned about it is enough proof for me. The fact that it landed in a parking lot (and certainly did not kill 500 civilians), and left no crater is just further evidence. Israeli strikes are precise and destructive, which this was not.

Also, Hamas accused Israel of bombing the hospital and killing 500 civilians fifteen minutes after the explosion occurred. It is IMPOSSIBLE to count 500 dead bodies, verify this claim, and report it in fifteen minutes. Humoring any evidence given by Hamas in this case is irresponsible and the media organizations who are perpetuating this obvious propagandistic lie are shameless. Do not stoop to their level, and use nuance and media literacy for this. Al Jazeera is unreliable. Sorry. They're a propaganda machine. I'd ban them as a resource if I had the power to do so here. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Good thing we aren't relying on your opinion as the supreme arbiter of the reliability of all sources. AryKun (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

BBC Verify said there was no consensus and they couldn't verify. The IDF audio is already being ripped to shreds on social for its badly faked accent, as well as other consistencies. There are still layers upon layers of disinformation surrounding this attack, and Biden speaking up for the Israeli narrative is not exactly revelatory. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Says an obvious pro-palestinian user. You better provide a source for the "badly faked accent". Who says so? Doubting the accuracy of provided IDF proofs seems somehow legitable. But doubting either the Biden regime or the Pentagon requires at least two things: the first, a lot of intelligence and the second is stupidity. I truly ask myself what's the right option in your case. Lilijuros (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's almost as if the pentagon and presidential office of the united states is capable of presenting misleading information for the sake of an agenda? Stop holding them to golden standard, this is a rapidly developing story. Channel 4 analysts have presented a report doubting the authenticity of the audio due to the syntax, verbal language, and accent used. [6] ballads^one 22:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Channel 4 does not name any of the analysts, and in general refers to the recording passingly and dismisses it too quickly. After all the evidence suggesting that it could not be normal Israeli munition, the channel then asks us to believe that it just somehow detonated in mid-air, not providing any examples of such strikes by Israel in the past. If people want to ignore hard evidence, they will always be able to come with a plausible excuse to do so, and it seems that Channel 4 wanted to ignore the evidence and instead indulge in baseless fantasies. Deinocheirus (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The Channel 4 piece refers to "two independent Arab journalists" who questioned "the language, accent, dialect, syntax, and tone." As an Arabic speaker, I have to agree with part of 173.70.121.247's description: The arabic grammar is awful . . . neither man has a Gazan accent . . . and the entire conversation reads more like a Learning Arabic 101 course exercise than an actual person-to-person conversation. Of course, we cannot cite 173.70.121.247, Iskandar323, myself, or the Twitter buzz about the accents. It's also pretty shaky ground to cite "two independent Arab journalists." I guess what I'm saying is you should take the recording with a very large grain of salt.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This whole tragedy will be a mess until an actual investigation occurs, which will probably never happen. Ugh. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that IDF has whole units of undercover agents working in the thick of Arab population for years without getting caught, I find the idea that Israel couldn't find a couple of them to record an allegedly fake short conversation implausible. Deinocheirus (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I found it hard to believe too. Orgullomoore (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, assessments are coming around to the idea of a mid-air detonation. There has been a focus on the lack of a crater, but, as had already been widely observed, the attack sounded like a JDAM, and JDAM's have an airburst mode. As a result, a JDAM airburst attack is the developing conclusion - i.e. it may have quacked like a JDAM, looked like a JDAM, also also airburst like a JDAM. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

As a new editor to the article and not very knowledgeable of the situation, I wanted to ask if the accusations from both sides had the same weight by sources. If that's the case, I wanted to ask what users thought about adding in the Perpetrator field "Disputed". If not, the current version could remain, possibly with footnotes (similar to what happened in the Bucha massacre infobox). I have noted that there is a "Accused" parameter that I wasn't aware of, and I also think that's an optimal solution. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera shouldn’t be used as a source going forward. Its reporting on this was very inaccurate and effectively Hamas propaganda. 2601:100:827F:6F0:3D73:BA3C:DBB6:C94E (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I just stated that above. Their journalist integrity has been destroyed, here. They cannot be used. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSPSOURCES already says Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. That is consistent with how they reported on this event. My advice is to make clear we are citing Al Jazeera when we must, and use a better source when we can. I don't think we can ignore them altogether because they are one of the few media organizations with boots on the ground. For example, they caught the explosion on camera during a live broadcast--as far as I know, no one else did.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with AJ. Green at RSP and presumed reliable. That some editors don't approve is neither here nor there. Selfstudier (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is not any more biased than Haaretz or any other Israeli oriented source. Please use a mixture of reliable sources from different view points rather than blacklisting one for having a bias in tone. Al Jazeera is well known for fact based reporting even if it is biased. Ashvio (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence says "...caused an unprecedented number of deaths–more than any other single event in Gaza since", and the next sentence contradicts this: "The number of fatalities is still uncertain". As I understand this situation there hasn't been confirmation of even 1 death yet, let alone "more than any other single event in Gaza", so the first sentence in this article should be struck. 93.172.228.243 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Should be "caused an unknown number of deaths–if any." Seffardim (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

and why? Abo Yemen✉ 15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of details about US attribution, addition of details about "Alleged proof posted online by the Israeli government"

@Melofors: In this edit, with the edit summary "adding important detail to lede", you:

1. Added the statement Alleged proof posted online by the Israeli government was later deleted, after its timestamps were revealed to be incorrect
2. Removed the statement Pentagon intelligence supports the Israeli version
3. Removed the statement US president, Joe Biden revealed that Pentagon sources confirm Israeli claims
4. Removed the statement In a tweet Médecins Sans Frontières, which had doctors at the hospital, attributed the attack to Israel
5. Removed the statement US president, Joe Biden has affirmed that according to US intelligence, the strike probably resulted from an Islamic Jihad misfire, not an Israeli strike
6. Removed the statement Furthermore, Biden cited Pentagon sources in his support of the Israeli stance

For #1, the source says The Israeli government’s X/Twitter account later edited a tweet to remove what appeared to be video evidence of the strike after The New York Times noted the clip was recorded 40 minutes after the time of the Gaza hospital explosion. Further, I think the general inclusion of that sentence - let alone the prominence you have given it by placing it in the lede - is WP:UNDUE, given the body of evidence that is emerging.

For the rest, I think it may be appropriate to remove the #3 and #4 - we don't need to say twice in the lede that US intelligence support Israel's findings, and MSF is not a good source for this as they have no expertise in this area. However, the rest should have remained. BilledMammal (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I believe this was due to an edit conflict; I only intentioned for #1. Will fix. —  Melofors  TC 14:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Melofors: Thank you, but I think what you added for #1 goes both beyond what the source says (the source says nothing about "alleged proof" etc), and is WP:UNDUE for the lede. Can you explain why you disagree? BilledMammal (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I gave it a reword and added a source. I believe this detail is due weight as of now, as no expert evidence has been published as of yet. It is an important detail now, but of course is subject for removal as events unfold. —  Melofors  TC 15:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe this detail is due weight as of now, as no expert evidence has been published as of yet Sorry, can you explain? That doesn't quite follow?BilledMammal (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: This detail is given attention because, as no independent verification of the origin has been published, all "clues" are important, regardless of which side it is from—and this is clearly reflected by its inclusion in numerous reliable sources covering the event. This is not undue weight, it is a single sentence in a three-paragraph lede, reflecting what is expanded upon later in the article. —  Melofors  TC 15:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you repair it? Marokwitz (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz: All seem to have been sufficiently repaired. I apologize for the inconvenience. Please alert if anything else needs repair—edit conflicts seem to be occurring often. —  Melofors  TC 15:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

👍 Marokwitz (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Neither account of the origin has been verified by any independent source"

I think this is now out of date, with the US verifying Israel's account - I note that the source came out before the US did so. BilledMammal (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is now apparent that this horrific catastrophe was caused by friendly fire. Palestinians kill Palestinians.Exx8 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: The US government does not serve as an independent source, which should be an entity that is impartial and not directly involved in the conflict. I am not sure what you are referring to by I note that the source came out before the US did so. —  Melofors  TC 15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I’m not entirely sure if the US can be considered an independent source - what we mean is waiting for independent media sources to verify either account. The Kip 15:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Melofors and The Kip, what's the basis for this assumption? The US is independent, not a participant in the conflict, and they have no issue blaming allies if the intelligence supports it. See for example US intel officials saying Ukraine was likely responsible for an attack despite Ukrainian denial. DFlhb (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is an ally of Israel, it has taken a consistently pro-Israel position. The idea the country that pledges unwavering support for Israel would somehow be an independent source is silly. nableezy - 15:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the U.S. not an ally of Ukraine? DFlhb (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Not to the point of pledging undying support for them. And regardless, we include the US assessment, we just include it as the US assessment. Not as an arbiter of fact. nableezy - 16:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There are no "arbiters of facts" in the real world. Everything we know comes from somebody and we have to judge it based on evidence, not messenger. The fact is: only large bureaucracies like government and international agencies are reasonably capable of investigating ultra-complex issues like these. It's the same principle as plane crashes. Government and civil agencies investigate and release their findings with evidence. If an El Al flight crashed in the US and the FAA and FBI released detailed reports that included chemical analyses of bomb-residue on wreckage and concluded "This was foul play due to an in-flight explosive" would you roll your eyes and say "They would say that, they pledged their UNDYING support!" It's a bit silly. -- Veggies (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The US has staked out a maximalist support of Israel position on this conflict. To act like they are independent judges is what is a bit silly. I am treating their position as one that has considerable weight, per the sources discussing it, but as simply their position. What we always do is say who says what with due weight to each of those whos. nableezy - 17:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact is: only large bureaucracies like government and international agencies are reasonably capable of investigating ultra-complex issues like these. I don't think that's necessarily true, see Shireen Abu Akleh for example (also a good example of why we should only treat the US assessment as just an assessment and Israeli assertions as not necessarily reliable). Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we're disagreeing. Actually, that case rather deflates the above contention that the US and Israel are inextricably in ideological lockstep. However, one person being shot is not quite as complex as what happened to the hospital, which would necessitate an intricate knowledge of ballistics, SIGINT, airspace intelligence, radar intelligence, etc. to unravel. Also, Haaretz did a fairly good investigation themselves, which is a credit to the news organization, who some might think would toe the initial Israeli story. In any case, yes, the source needs to be attributed, however, no reasonable person could believe that Al-Jazeera conducted a conclusive investigation before they pronounced that Israel was guilty. -- Veggies (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, that case rather deflates the above contention that the US and Israel are inextricably in ideological lockstep I don't think that it does, the US procrastinated, blockaded and is still resisting calls for what they themselves said was necessary in the first place.

Agree with the AJ comment but only because it was their reporter and they were understandably upset IsGov is trying to shut them down in Israel, no surprise there. Anyway, this is drifting off topic. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

NYT:What We Know About the Explosion at the Hospital in Gaza

"Neither side’s claims about who was responsible had been independently verified. The death toll could not be independently confirmed, though video footage verified by The New York Times showed scores of bodies strewn across the hospital’s courtyard, suggesting the number of victims was high."

which is where we are at. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you; that source seems to be from after the US statement so there is no longer an issue with keeping the sentence. BilledMammal (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2023

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: WP:SNOW close. This is the third attempt in the last 24 hours to get the page moved to this title, despite consensus firmly being against it in the first RM. Drop the subject. (non-admin closure) The Kip 15:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion → Al-Ahli Arab Hospital massacre – according to these sources: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/doctors-without-borders-calls-attack-on-al-ahli-baptist-hospital-in-gaza-massacre/3023824 , https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-biden-rafah-e062825a375d9eb62e95509cab95b80c , https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-hospital-blast-deadliest-war-rcna120849 , and others Abo Yemen✉ 15:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe Jihad wanted to blow up the hospital. It was aimed at Israel. Massacre is an intentional crime.Exx8 (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes except that Israel are supposed to be the ones behind it Abo Yemen✉ 15:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel in the last day has been publishing many proofs that the shooting came from the strip. Are there any proofs that it was an Israeli airstrike? Exx8 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

SNOW Close (and salt) - This is the third time in less than 24 hours that someone has proposed this. And time is not making this prospect any more appealing with compelling evidence that it wasn't a deliberate targeting. -- Veggies (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

SNOW CLOSE and warn Abo Yemen about WP:ARBPIA rules. Opening yet another move discussion is just disruptive at this point. Jeppiz (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry what does "Snow close" mean? Exx8 (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Exx8: The proposal is so unlikely to pass that keeping it open would waste time. WP:SNOW:

"If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process."

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

all previous discussions were closed immediately and no rename tags were put in the main article Abo Yemen✉ 15:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Impossibly exaggerated casualty numbers

Now that many different reliable sources have published pictures of the hospital parking lot.. can the ludicrous death toll as indicated by Hamas please be removed from the article? There is literally only a baseball sized 'pothole' crater visible, along with a handful of burned out cars.

Clearly the 300-500 death toll is challenging the very laws of physics.

Frankly, this article is becoming an embarrassment to the Wikimedia Foundation. 2A02:A456:1FDA:1:30B4:37FF:3ACF:EC59 (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

2A02:A456:1FDA:1:30B4:37FF:3ACF:EC59, we don't do original research WP:OR. The article right now clearly states that the indicated toll is Gaza Health Ministry's claim. It also indicates in the lead the following: IDF spokesman Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari criticized media outlets for quickly disseminating what he termed as "unverified claims" by Hamas regarding the death toll: Hagari claimed that it was implausible for Hamas to accurately determine the casualty figures so swiftly after the incident. If you find any other more updated sources do share them — AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

We aren't doing original research!

We are challenging the claim of the death toll. Hamas jumped the gun and made a claim of 500 deaths less than fifteen minutes after the attack. This is ludicrous. THe media organziations that made articles on this reiterated their claim. Hamas is a first party source, and is thus not acceptable by Wikipedia standards. The event was a journalist mess, and many articles have changed the headline from "500 dead" to "hundreds dead," which is still ludicrous.

There is nothing that has been published about this so far that would actually be reliable because it it is too soon for anything reliable. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's doing original research if we make claims/accusations that aren't backed by reputable sources, such as the claimed death toll being "ludicrous."

As long as we stick a "(claimed by Hamas)" tag on the casualties, rather than report them as an objective number, we're doing exactly what we're supposed to. Wikipedia lists the facts of the situation, we don't sell the narrative pushed by either side without independent confirmation. If that makes the article an "embarassment," perhaps this isn't the right website for you. The Kip 16:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Obviously. There is so much wrong with this article. Can we wait until we have verified details and the full picture?

Everything here is propaganda! Literally!

The rocket landed in a parking lot. It caused a small fire and a few burned cars. This death toll is outrageous, absurd, and completely delusional 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is clearly stated in the article that the death toll is from the Gaza Health Ministry. Additionally, if you can provide sources saying the death toll was much lower, I'd be happy to add them. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

THere are no resources that claim there was a lower death toll! Nobody knows what the death toll is! It is too soon to jump to conclusions.

YOu can't just repeat the Gaza Health Ministry's claim and then clarify that's what they said, because then it appears that's fact. There is too much dispute between all the articles that have been cited here to make any claim for death tolls. This is not fair. This is extremely irresponsible! 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's literally what we do. Wikipedia takes material, like news articles, and summarizes it. It's not our responsibility to determine what's true or not. The reader is free to make their own assumptions on the reliability of the Gaza Health Ministry claim. We rely on verifiability, not truth (or whatever you believe is true). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. These claims are not verified. That's the literal problem here. There is no verifiability here. Look I'll be satisfied if the death toll is removed from the infobox. It has no place there. The headlines of the media organizations that originally made the 500 deaths claims for the most part have back down and removed the number from the headline. Most are just rolling with "hunderds" right now. THere is no verifiability in the death toll number. Please remove it. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

They are verified as being from the Gaza Health Ministry, so we report the total as "claimed by Gaza health ministry." Whether they're actually true or not is not up to us. The Kip 16:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

But the Gaza Health Ministry is first party. It is not acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines. They have not been verified by a third part source. It does not meet verifiability! 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

But their claim has been repeated by multiple third party sources. However, since it hasn't been verified, we attribute it to the Gaza health ministry. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

And these third parties have retracted! They have removed the number from the headlines! 69.249.102.223 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? The Kip 17:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Right now there is no number in the headline, and the "Key points" section mentions "an explosion at a Gaza City hospital on Tuesday night that health authorities said killed at least 300 people" rather than "over 500". Deinocheirus (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So is the IDF, and yet you're asserting their own claims as fact in your initial comment.

Attribution is not equivalent to endorsement, which again, is why we stick "claimed by [x]" on the death toll, perpetrator, etc, versus conducting OR and asserting it ourselves. The Kip 17:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the IDF. The IDF has made no claims about the death toll. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The rocket landed in a parking lot. It caused a small fire and a few burned cars.

This is solely sourced to the IDF. You're complaining about us posting Hamas' claims, clearly denoting it as a claim rather than fact, while at the same time seemingly asserting the IDF's claims as fact.

If you disagree with how we update articles, especially when the content is disputed, perhaps this isn't the site for you. The Kip 17:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is actually what is said in WSJ, quoitng an expert: Damage at Hospital Compound Inconsistent With Airstrike, Expert Says. Deinocheirus (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

And here is BBC: In a nearby car park lie the smouldering wrecks of more than a dozen cars... The surrounding buildings are also damaged, apparently pockmarked by shrapnel. But no large impact crater is visible. --Deinocheirus (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's also CNN - the article gives no body count because it is focusing on the fact that other media outlets have dueling claims.

At the top is a verified image of the impact site. It didn't even hit the hospital. It landed in a parking lot - it's super clear in this image. I'm dobtful it caused 471 deaths, but that's not why I'm requesting for that part to be removed.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/18/media/gaza-hospital-bombing-dueling-claims/index.html 69.249.102.223 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No. I am saying that there is no agreed consensus on the death toll as the sources keep saying something different. I am not basing this on any IDF claim. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No it didn't, according to the NYT, who say that The death toll could not be independently confirmed, though video footage verified by The New York Times showed scores of bodies strewn across the hospital’s courtyard, suggesting the number of victims was high. Loki (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Gazans have been camping in and around hospitals. If it was a giant campsite packed with people before the explosion, there's your people and also your prolonged fire = tents. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The people in the parking lot could've been packed like at a rock concert and it still couldn't have caused anywhere near the number of casualties reported. Also, tents in a parking lot filled with cars seems highly impractical, and pictures taken less than 48 hours before the explosion showed no such tents. 2A02:A456:1FDA:1:35B2:7256:B527:1848 (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Responding to original comment, see https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67144061 "Canon Richard Sewell, the dean of St George's College in Jerusalem, told the BBC that about 1,000 displaced people were sheltering in the courtyard when it was hit, and about 600 patients and staff were inside the building." 2A00:1370:8184:2FFB:9430:EE3D:72A5:A89B (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for Deletion

Due to the nature of this event, it is too soon to make an article about it. Everything in this article is based on allegation, and there is no definitive answer here. THis is an encyclopedia, not a news aggregate. There cannot be an encyclopedic understanding of the event when we don't even know the details of it.

Shame on everyone here for jumping the gun and echoing the misinformation reported online about this. Give a few days before making an article about it. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:AFDHOWTO and WP:DELAY and WP:RAPID for some materials relevant to your comment.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that even if there wasn't actually an explosion and no victims at all, the reactions this event have caused are enough for it to merit a Wikipedia article. There have been protests all over the world incited by this event, and comments from heads of state worldwide — AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Well the article needs to be cleansed. All the dubious, non-verified information that have not been confirmed needs to be removed until there is a consensus. such as the death toll.

I can't provide any articles, because there are none that would work, right now. This is enough for this to be a problematic article. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph about the conversation

for the paragraph: “ The IDF released a recording purporting to be an intercepted phone conversation between two Hamas operatives discussing a failed rocket attack by Islamic Jihad that landed on a Gaza hospital...”

I think it should move to the “responsibility” paragraph. By having it in the introduction, it creates a bias. And it seems that Arabic speakers online are finding holes in the recording. Of course we can’t cite un-published tweets (even if by Arabic-speaking journalists), but I think we should be safe and move this paragraph because it will likely be edited a lot over the coming days, with people going back and forth on if this is disinformation. Journalist: https://x.com/muhammadshehad2/status/1714608757081018686?s=46&t=5Pr4TVPNdylAEC9-O1__Rg Hovsepig (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That is fine by me. Evercat (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

RS pentagon confirmation

1 2 Also IDF released recordings of Hamas members regarding the misfire. Wether or not IDF or the pentagon are credible evidence, I think it's still should be included.3. Does seem like important information that should be mentioned. dov (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@דוב: Intercepted phone conversations are already mentioned in the article, if that's what you mean. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Revised death toll (per The Times of Israel)

The Times of Israel has stated that the Gazan Health Ministry has decreased the initial death toll, from over 500, to between 200 and 300: [7]. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This article provides more context, discussing the death toll dispute and a claim of 250 by Mohammed Abu Selmia, general director of the al-Shifa Hospital. —  Melofors  TC 17:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The death toll of anything over 100 is just propoganda. Looking at the pictures, the damage is minimal and no major buildings are down. PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 17:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree and wish we had a good source to point that out. Evercat (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

NYT:What We Know About the Explosion at the Hospital in Gaza

"Neither side’s claims about who was responsible had been independently verified. The death toll could not be independently confirmed, though video footage verified by The New York Times showed scores of bodies strewn across the hospital’s courtyard, suggesting the number of victims was high." Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Did this really kill 500? Just think about that for 2 seconds. This amount of damage is trivial. I can't wait for Western media to realize how misled they were by Palestinian propoganda in the next 24 hours. PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 18:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, and against what I previously said, it's reported that there may have been "1000" people sheltering in the "courtyard" (which seems to mean the car park) at the time. If true, hundreds of dead isn't impossible. Evercat (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's implausible that there were 1,000 people sitting in the car-park and courtyard. E.g. [

https://x.com/Nrg8000/status/17145523274311352]. To fit that number in sitting-down would mean packing people in so tight that it wouldn't be possible to walk through them, and would make getting in and out of the hospital impossible. No hospital expecting a busy night would allow people to completely block its entrance, for obvious reasons. Fig (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)42

Unless they were currently in a region with 2.3 million civilians with no other safe spaces to shelter in. You know, in case you'd like to realize this isn't just a hospital "expecting a busy night". AryKun (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a crappy Hamas rocket that misfired, killing a couple dozen and setting some cars on fire. All the media on both sides got it wrong. PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 18:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Unverified, on both counts. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I obviously don't know the actual death count, but looking at the videos and pictures of almost no bodies and no interior destruction, it's hard to see how more than 50 could've died. And the other 2 claims are true. It's been proven it's Hamas and videos show the main damage is to the cars in parking lot PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 18:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I keep saying the death toll needs to be removed. Every source is saying something different. There is nothing set in stone, here.

It's too early to list an official death toll, regardless of what the Irish Times reported the Gaza Health Ministry said yesterday.

It is absurd to keep it there. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Just for my interest, what would an "official death toll" be, exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

A death count from UNRWA or some other 3rd party source that is independent. And maybe Palestinian Health Ministry if they actually count the bodies and not just make up numbers. PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 18:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. As it stands, there is no consensus. Various sources are making different claims. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

As the claims are unverified, I think the best thing to do is to make that point clear, as is stated in newly-published reliable sources. —  Melofors  TC 19:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"... all current evidence points towards a failed rocket fired by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad"

I don't think this clause in the lede is an accurate summation of the article. None of us know what the evidence does or does not point to at this time - it's more accurate to say the US and some independent observers have supported the israeli contention.

Frankly, I think israel releasing "video of the attack" that was later revealed to be fabricated suggests israel's responsibility, and I think US intellegence doesn't exactly have a sterling record of reliability on these sorts of things, but maybe that's just me. Jhodders (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's speculation. On your end. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

While I normally dislike such kind of speculation on biased parties I think that given the early stage in the investigation and current lack of on-the-ground investigators, such a conclusory remark is not appropriate as of yet and I have thus removed it. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a real video of the attack and it comes from Al Jazeera. Here is the video, the BBC reported it. https://twitter.com/VerminusM/status/1714391008971042920 PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 18:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please link to the actual reporting, not a tweet? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera never posted an article. The video is from their video feed. https://x.com/yousuf_tw/status/1714367757968384106?s=20

Here is another angle showing the same thing

https://x.com/manniefabian/status/1714377828131553446?s=20 PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 18:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So you don't have a reliable source publishing the video and verifying the veracity of what is depicted. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel themsleves posted the video. I see no reason why it wouldn't be legit PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 18:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I would be concerned if a party to the conflict posts a video supporting their narrative - however the Wall Street Journal reports that they have verified the first video. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian also presents this video as verified. Deinocheirus (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Israrl Hayom also verified this video (considered RS by wikipedia list). dov (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Also I think that the announcement of the pentagon is pretty reliable. dov (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2023 (4)

Suggest deleting this line: "Evan Hill, an OSINT investigator for the Washington Post, agreed that the initial evidence indicates a rocket misfire.[29]."

Footnote links to article in the Telegraph citing tweet by Hill that says a video shows a rocket intercept followed by an explosion at the hospital, not that a rocket misfire was responsible or that the intercept was responsible for the explosion. Hedgerowhedgehog (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

@Neutrality: This edit. Who says we can't use The EurAsian Times? Where's the WP:RSN discussion condemning it? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? The experts are real people - you can look them up. The 2018 source you noted was added subsequently to the rest of the material you removed along with it. I don't see why you couldn't have just partially removed that part. And you also removed an Al Jazeera (WP:RSP) piece that actually provides a proper explainer of the different narratives whizzing around. What gives with that? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Well, what evidence do you have that the "EurAsian Times" is a high-quality source? The burden to establish both reliability and due weight is on the proponent of the source. Neutrality^talk 18:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is better to use citations that are confirmed to be reliable by the Wikipedia community rather than those which have not had any discussion - I share some of your other comments/concerns though. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Cite experts directly, if they are experts. (There is one brief comment by one editor at RSP suggesting ET is not reliable but hard to know without a proper discussion). Idk why AJ would be removed, that is green at RSP. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RSPSOURCES, which says Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict.- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No surprise there, Israel supporters can't abide AJ (and say the same about Amnesty and anyone else that criticizes), why Israel is trying to close them down. It is still green however, presumed reliable. It is always open to editors to bring sources with a different POV if they don't like what Aj says. Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Lots of partisan sources are already used in the article. I don't see why Al Jazeera is any different from Times of Israel in that regard. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 18:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer not to rely on EurAsian Times (never heard of it until today–its Wikipedia article was deleted based on WP:N concerns and another editor called it "an extremely questionable source that seems to lift news or work from other sources without any attempt to vet them") for controversial claims like this.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• On AJ: Putting the low source quality aside, it's also undue weight. The AJ piece is effectively implying (without exactly promoting) a conspiracy based on a tweet by "digital aide" in the Israeli government in the immediate aftermath of the explosion. There's no evidence this Hananya Naftali was involved in military planning or had any knowledge of the actual events. He's not a minister or a military officer or an intelligence official. He's not an expert in munitions. Even if we accepted AJ's account at face value, it hardly is due weight. Neutrality^talk 18:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I saw that deleted tweet thing, it was hilarious. They were writing about the guy as if were some sort of cabinet minister sitting in the War Room. So I wiki him, no page, think how odd. I google him, turns out he's a social media influencer, hahah. As if he would know anything about IDF bombing runs. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I happen to agree with @Neutrality; Naftali's tweet has admittedly been circulating widely, but only because of a misidentification of him as a government spokesperson (see for instance this tweet formerly cited in the article, currently with 2.8 million views). It's unclear if he's even still a staffer in the Prime Minister's Office. – Ploni^💬  21:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  al Jazeera wrote today that he is a "digital aide" of the PM - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/18/what-is-israels-narrative-on-the-gaza-hospital-explosion LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Given they immediately stated without evidence Israel did it, and that they belong to a state which gave hamas 1.8 billion in funding, we really can't go off of their statements here. They already have been proven to have reported things that are out of line with every other major reliable source, essentially taking the word of hamas instead of verifying. They have a bias in the arab israeli conflict. Until we find a credible source that doesn't have clear reasons to doubt their journalistic standards in this case, it shouldn't be added.

  Evidence was provided that he might not currently work for the government. Likely he saw the strike, and posted something justifying it as he's a propagandist. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Al Jazeera is listed as a credible source. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ploni: issues have been raised in this thread about this 2018 source. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I suppose an image is impossible to get?

This, from the guardian is the best image I've seen of the aftermath - no destroyed buildings, several damaged cars, blast radius looks fairly small. I suppose it's impossible to get some such image on the page under fair use? Evercat (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a great video here: https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1714571559954731398?s=20

That's a great photo though. It'll be hard to get a photo we can actually use though with copyright. PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 19:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This, a bit closer though, is from from Reuters. Possible alternative. —  Melofors  TC 19:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Washington Institute for Near East Policy" labeled as independent?

Should "Washington Institute for Near East Policy" have annotation listing it a pro-Israeli think-tank? The other sources seem to be more distant from the conflict, although still potentially bias like all sources, such as the telegraph. Al-jazeera annotation too? Scott Tailor (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Not saying these sources should be removed, just asking if more dialogue is needed when mentioning them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Tailor (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Shouldnt even be included as a reliable source. nableezy - 19:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Access to claim of 50 deaths

This locked Wall Street Journal article is cited for the independent estimates of fifty deaths attributed to the explosion. Can anyone with access provide a quotation of the sentences making the statements in question? —  Melofors  TC 19:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"“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." Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Melofors: Here's the article on msn: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/u-s-experts-cast-doubt-on-claims-of-israeli-strike-on-hospital/ar-AA1iqDrW ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Nathan Ruser, an analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the scene shown in photos was “not consistent with an airstrike and are not consistent with claims that 500+ people were killed.”" Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Some one said something on Twitter is not going to balance the official statement of a state. It's totally against WP:NPOV. This independent claim, even if found to merit inclusion, should not be lent WP:UNDUE weight by adding it to the lead. I am removing it from the lead for the time being. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Mhhossein: When you say official statement of a state, are you talking about Hamas-run Ministry of Health, Palestine?--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you know any other official statements? Needless to mention, the current wording of the lead are properly attributed. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't. Are you making the claim that Hamas is credible at all, or more credible than Nathan Ruser and/or Blake Spendley?--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The Gaza Ministry of Health have actual access to dead corpses from the explosion. The skeptics are looking at pictures. VR _talk 23:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Skeptics" is a POV way to reframe independent experts, respectfully. Marc Garlasco, quoted by the Guardian, also said the Hamas death tall was likely too high. DFlhb (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: The quote including Nathan Ruser is not the quote in question. It's the one from Blake Spendley ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, if we're going to listen to X, it may as well be to Jonathan Cook, an actually notable journalist. He has plenty to say. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

For the record, Jonathan Cook is only notable for his extreme bias. As for "journalist", anyone who writes anything published somewhere is technically a "journalist". Cook is not connected to a reliable media. As far as WP:RS goes, "Jonathan Cook tweeting is as far from RS one can possibly get. Stop the blatant POV-pushing, Iskandar323. Jeppiz (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That is both nonsense and arguably a BLP violation, Cook has been published in a ton of reliable sources, the idea he is only notable for "extreme bias" is more POV-pushing than referencing him. nableezy - 20:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

However we assess Cook's neutrality (or lack thereof), it is irrelevant. He is not a munitions expert and not a video material expert. His conclusions are based solely on his position on the conflict as a whole, he just choses to believe one side and not the other. Well, could Israel strike the hospital, for instance, trying to hit Palestinian militants launching site? It is not impossible, IDF has in the past disregarded civilian lives if it allowed it to hit the other side's military, Qana massacre of 1996 being one clear example. But in the current case the available evidence, as presented by the major international outlets, does not support this theory. Deinocheirus (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute is also a think tank, not exactly a credible source. - LoomCreek (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323, @LoomCreek: Just an fyi, the person claiming 50 deaths isn't Nathan Ruser, it's Blake Spendley, from Center for Naval Analyses (Not that I think their claim is any more reliable, just wanted to clear this up.) This is already commented above, but the quote from the article is :

“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 at the Center for Naval Analyses, a think tank in Virginia. 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.

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification ARandomName123. Though I still find it to be UNDUE for the lead. Mhhossein ^talk 20:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. A single sentence in a single news report from a random analyst does not belong in the lead. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Same I agree as well, there's not enough notability for the lead LoomCreek (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"A think tank", a.k.a. an organization of hired shills, and in this case a federally funded one - I wonder what possible stake a US federally funded "research" organisation could have in this fight. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2023 (2)

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)

• Comment This is obviously a good faith proposal with a sensible motivation. My counterpoint would be that virtually all media in English seem to use Al-Ahli, making it the WP:COMMONNAME. Jeppiz (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree on both points. Also, I don't have a strong position on the proposed move.--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as the other user said, WP:COMMONNAME applies as nearly all english media refers to it as al ahli. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Good faith proposal, but as stated above, COMMONNAME applies. The Kip 21:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose it's a good faith proposal, but for the sake of the general public we should stick to the common name. - LoomCreek (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I have renamed this discussion to reflect this being the second move discussion on 18 October. Previously, the move template in the article linked to [8]. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Though it's true "Ahli" might be one name, their own website interchangeably uses it with "Al-Ahli Hospital." Combined with COMMONNAME as others suggested, this should remain the title so people can find it. Ashvio (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the reasoning above. As a usage/style note, I think the definite article probably shouldn't be repeated in Wikivoice (i.e. avoid phrasing such as "the al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion") and the "al" remain lowercase. I believe this is in line with MOS:ARABIC, but feel free to correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick as this is not an area I am overly familiar with. – GnocchiFan (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Palestinian Analysis

Where the heck did this section go? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Going through the diffs, it was removed in this edit: [9]. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It should not be removed, esp given that one of the most notable viewpoints on this explosion is currently "we don't know". VR _talk 23:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Duplication in infobox

The infobox currently says claimed by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Gaza Health Ministry. The first two are fine, but "Gaza Health Ministry" is run by Hamas. Of course a Hamas minister says what Hamas is saying. In the same infobox, we only say "Israel" and not "Israel and IDF". This is either good-faith simple repetition (I hope) or an attempt to boost the claim artificially (I don't believe it is). In either case, it is better removed. Jeppiz (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It should just say "claimed by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad"–and a single reference to AP would be an improvement upon a double reference to AP and AJ. The AP covers it. -- Orgullomoore (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. The Gaza Health Ministry is an organ of the Hamas government, not a third institution as the infobox seems to suggest. Jogarz1921 (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The term "claim" should not be used in this manner. I have removed almost all instances of it from the article. In some cases an entirely different wording was appropriate, in others "alleged" is somewhat more factual and doesn't cast doubt on the assertion. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not true that the GHM and Hamas are identical. Hamas usually refers to the military operation of the organization, while the GHM is run separately. If there was an attack in Israel and Israeli national health service made claims, we should distinguish that as well. Military and civil is different, even for organizations run by terror organizations. Media organizations always refer to GHM as either that or "Palestinian health authorities" to distinguish civil health authorities from the terrorist activities run by the military government. Removing GHM feels like an attempt to discredit the claims by implying only the terrorist wings of the Gazan government are making claims. Ashvio (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Church report

Heads of churches in Jerusalem report that they received three warnings for the hospital in the last week. It seems relevant to cite because it's evidence that the hospital has been threatened before

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/255734/patriarchs-and-heads-of-the-churches-in-jerusalem-hold-press-conference-after-gaza-hospital-explosion Hovsepig (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. Please provide one supporting it. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

How would it not be reliable? The article quotes a Jerusalem bishop at a press conference:

<<The hospital, the bishop reported, received “three evacuation warnings” from the Israeli side, “on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday,” but yesterday, he said, “I am not aware of any.”>>

Wouldn't such a report act as a statement by the hospital then, especially because the hospital is a Christian hospital?

The same news seems to be circulating in other catholic-oriented newspapers.

https://www.ncregister.com/cna/patriarchs-and-heads-of-the-churches-in-jerusalem-hold-press-conference-after-gaza-hospital-explosion?amp

An archbishop is likewise cited:

<<Archbishop Naoum, who said he had not slept since the day before, said the hospital had been hit by two missiles a few days earlier, one which destroyed the fourth floor of a new diagnostic center and the another which hit the ultrasound and mammography unit.

No deaths were reported in that incident.

He said that along with the other 15 hospitals in Gaza, al-Ahli Hospital had received evacuation warnings from Israel as Israel gave a warning to Gazans to move from northern Gaza to the south. He said the hospital had received warnings to evacuate on the three days prior to the explosion but there were none on the day of the explosion.

>>

https://www.detroitcatholic.com/news/after-hospital-airstrike-anglican-prelate-calls-explosion-crime-against-humanity

I think the main reason to think these sources are unreliable is because they're from a religious newspaper. But the content is about reporting what religious figures said — so it makes sense that such newspapers would be reliable for such content. Hovsepig (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not unreliable either, and previous have generally assessed that there's basically no problem using it with attribution for statements by Catholic figures. And here it's a public statement. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel issues warnings to the civilians non-stop because it is not interested in them being caught in the midst of combat, so this is not exceptional by any means. The Arab side has never provided any compelling reason why IDF would target a hospital full of refugees when there are still plenty of military targets in Gaza. Deinocheirus (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the "exceptionality" is that this comes from the churches in the area, and the churches get reports from the hospital. Its not some random online guy talking, but actual religious figures in the area and who have a level of authority (otherwise why would they do a press release). It's not about interpreting the church press release but just reporting in Wikipedia "there was a church press release where they said xyz". Hovsepig (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

These aren't just press releases, but church news sites. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The UN already reported 50+ bombings of health facilities since 7 October? Why? Who knows? The IDF has never provided any credible evidence it is bombing military targets. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This is reliable and corroborated by members of the Ahli Hospital as well. We can include it citing both sources. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/gaza-s-health-ministry-holds-press-conference-in-rubble-of-al-ahli-baptist-hospital/3024183 Ashvio (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean there are two ways I suppose to interpret thee quotes, either A. They told them to evacuate the hospital, the same as they've told everyone to evacuate Gaza in preparation for the ground invasion which is expected in the coming week which is expected to be grueling and bloody. or B. They told them to evacuate the hospital because for some unknown reason they were desperate to bomb the parking lot. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

But that's an interpretation, and interpretations are debatable. But these testimonies from the bishops are not an interpretation but them saying "we received warnings for the hospital before". That's what I would think should be documented. Hovsepig (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Bellingcat as an independent/reliable source

Bellingcat is or was at some point funded by the US government's National Endowment for Democracy (you can read about it in their Wiki article but it is more or less a second CIA), the European Union, and the Israel lobby Alfred Landecker Foundation, whose position towards Israel is that calling it a "terrorist state" (which it is) or defaming its inhabitants is antisemitic, and that "The right of the State of Israel to exist is inviolable". Per Bellingcat's own financial accounts from 2019 to 2020, they have accepted money from Western intelligence contractors and employ a lot of former military and intelligence operatives. Also the Independent ref used in this article states that GeoConfirmed "works alongside the Centre for Information Resilience and Bellingcat". You can read more about CIR here. Al Jazeera was labeled as biased for much less than this. - Ïvana (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with attribution. Some editors consider Bellingcat a biased source.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware it is listed as a reliable source. That doesn't deny any of the facts I just mentioned. Consensus can change and context matters. - Ïvana (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, MintPress News is listed as deprecated. [10]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're not entitled to challenge its credibility, again, but the points you raised actually were discussed in the discussions linked in the GREL table, in particular here: [11].-- Orgullomoore (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Ïvana, you wrote that Bellingcat is more or less a second CIA, to which I respond with . We attribute Bellingcat's conclusions to that group, instead of stating those conclusions in Wikipedia's voice. In order to remove Belligcat as a reliable source, you will need to provide persuasive evidence that Bellingcat consistently publishes false, fabricated content, and refuses to correct its errors. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would use Bellingcat with attribution, unless they are reporting a fact that has not been disputed by anyone. But their views are certainly relevant to this article.VR _talk 03:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  They are not only relevant, but most importantly Bellingcat analyses are independently verifiable as they usually provide all evidence on which they made their conclusion. Cloud200 (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Bellingcat is a green RSP source that is as reliable for facts as any other major WP:NEWSORG. Loki (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not as reliable as any other. It's WP:RSP entry says that it "should preferably be used with attribution, and that "Some editors consider Bellingcat a biased source., i.e. use with caution. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Its a solid source and it should be used, but attribution is already given. nableezy - 16:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"American independent experts"

@HeinzMaster: You recently added added "American" in front of "independent" in a few places; however, this doesn’t appear to align with the sources (which just say "independent analysts" and similar) and may even be false, as one of the sources is British, not American. Can you provide sources supporting this rewording? BilledMammal (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Add reaction of Prime Minister Modi

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pm-modi-shocked-at-gaza-hospital-attack-says-those-involved-be-held-responsible/article67433469.ece Factpineapple (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

bellingcat

BilledMammal, Bellingcat included Garlasco saying the crater does not appear to be consistent with the 500, 1000 or 2000-pound bombs used in Joint Direct Attack Munitions, but they dont quite say what you put in the article themselves. I tried to figure out how to say Bellingcat quoted Garlasco for one part of what is in the Guardian piece but not the other but it kept getting too messy. But right now you have them saying something they dont actually themselves say. nableezy - 03:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point, will update. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Does it look ok now? BilledMammal (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Better IMO DFlhb (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Better but still off. You are attributing to Bellingcat what they attribute to Garlasco. nableezy - 03:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

My reading of the source doesn’t attribute it to Garlasco; they say As noted by Marc Garlasco, a Military Advisor at PAX for Peace’s Protection of Civilians team, the impact point does not appear to be consistent with the 500, 1000 or 2000-pound bombs used in Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs).

They appear to me to be agreeing with Garlasco, rather than merely quoting him. BilledMammal (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really sure how you can read that as not attributing it to Garlasco but can ask a noticeboard if you like. Idk which tbh, maybe 3O if nobody else here wants to weigh in. nableezy - 03:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I view it as a mix of quoting + (at least superficially) endorsing his conclusion, but still too ambiguous to attribute to Bellingcat directly.

I've tried to integrate the two; maybe a little clunky but I think the nuances are there. DFlhb (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hananya Naftali

As far as I can tell, the only remotely-reliable source reporting on this is Al Jazeera, and they have been problematic on this topic. Given that, I don’t believe we should be mentioning this person - whatever his position may or may not be - as to do so would be WP:UNDUE, given the sparsity of coverage and the lack of corroboration. BilledMammal (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Problematic on this topic? News about events in war move fast all the time. Are they problematic because you disagree with their initial reporting? Their later reporting? Or have you decided that one story is the correct set and any deviation is unreliability? nableezy - 03:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSP does note that "Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict." For what it's worth, while I haven't found them to be wildly biased/inaccurate in their reporting, the "problematic" comment comes from, well, instances of problematic reporting; for instance, they were for a solid amount of time the only major publication asserting it was an Israeli airstrike (which they later retracted, I believe) rather than disputed circumstances, as well as the only one labeling the explosion a "massacre," a comparatively loaded term relative to what we definitively knew at the time. Their liveblog from yesterday also still seems to presume the initial "500+ killed" claim as fact, when current estimates claimed by other RSes range from 200 to 400.

I certainly think AJ is able to be used on the article, but based on their occasional leanings I'd at least recommend doubly verifying any of their especially controversial claims/statements with another RS before publishing. The Kip 04:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This isnt their Arabic site. Reuters also called it an airstrike. nableezy - 11:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Where did Reuters do that? I found an article that said that Gaza authorities called it an airstrike, but I don't see Reuters itself calling it an airstrike. Moreover, even if they did, they certainly aren't calling it one now ([12]). -- Veggies (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Particularly their Arabic-language reporting doesn’t mean just their Arabic-language reporting. All of the above instances were on their English-language site, there were plenty worse examples on the Arabic-language site that I chose not to bring up because it’s not cited in the article and thereby irrelevant here. The Kip 14:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

They’ve continued to call it a "strike", despite a lack of evidence for that claim, among other issues. Regardless, one source is insufficient to support its inclusion. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are not the arbiter of what is acceptable evidence or not. And no, one reliable source is sufficient to include, besides that it isnt just them. But even if it were, you cite things to single sources all the time, so this new standard you are applying only to an Arab source is not acceptable. nableezy - 11:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Lack of corroboration is certainly not an issue, given that Hananya Naftali himself has shared an apology[13].VR _talk 03:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Lack of corroboration that he is anyone relevant is what I’m talking about. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Riyad Mansour also commented on it, see [14], but it got removed. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The guy is a social media influencer in his mid-20s, the idea that he'd be involved in any IDF targeting or intelligence conversations or have any first hand knowledge of any of this is farsical. Alcibiades979 (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That tweet may have been made by Naftali's wife. 5 days before the tweet, she posted that she was running his social media because he left for the war: https://twitter.com/HananyaNaftali/status/1712430491641463275 --165.140.184.94 (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as the dishonest claim that only al-Jazeera treats this as relevant, here is ABC (Australia). Here is the Telegraph. So no, it is not just al-Jazeera, and no, they are not making this up, and no it is not just those dishonest Arabs reporting about it. nableezy - 11:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

For what is worth, Naftali's profile in the Jerusalem Post indicates he's on Netanhayu's payroll: "Naftali has been working for the former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as part of his digital team for the past 3 years". So i don't know why his initial tweet was removed from the article, esp when it was covered by other RS. - Ïvana (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Ïvana, this is both an undated and outdated profile ("working for the former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu"), and "part of his digital team" is pretty vague. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

AdrianHObradors what about January of this year then? This is a video posted by Naftali himself where Netanhayu confirms that Naftali works for him. There's also this interview from December 2022. - Ïvana (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Ïvana, It would be ideal to actually know what this person's official title actually is, it is quite hard to actually find it. It seems we can confirm that he was working in some way for Netanhayu as of January (video is undated but I did see he got married then). Unsure on how to cover this info on the article though. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian militant claims

Claims by Palestinian militant groups, which is considered terrorist by some, should be included in the article as long as they are covered by secondary WP:reliable sources. I've added them here[15].VR _talk 03:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"claimed by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad"

The article itself makes it clear that "Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad" are not the only ones that attribute the responsability to Israel. Médecins Sans Frontières, for example, claim it was Israel's, and many other organizations in palestine and middle east. The attribution to Israel should be extended to these actors too. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera too has never gone along with the Israeli narrative, which is probably why Israel is trying to ban Al Jazeera. These "claimed" elements in brackets in the infobox are just a mess and should go. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera does the bidding of Qatar, which is notorious for its restrictions on media. The state of press freedom in virtually all Muslim majority countries is so abysmal that even a highly opinionated, Islamic, state owned Al-Jazeera is considered a reliable source of information by some. Note how they still push the 500 dead 'airstrike' number even in defiance of current developments. Scandalous and shameless, but typical of media in any Muslim majority country in the region, where perpetual outrage over religious sensitivities is paramount. 2A02:A456:1FDA:1:30B4:37FF:3ACF:EC59 (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

But it's still a reliable source, and they may be right for all we know. We should wait for the dust to settle before crying fake news. The IDF will probably admit to the whole thing in a few weeks, once the world has moved on. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 11:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The point is that they cannot be right about the death toll. It is physically impossible for 500 people to die from the type of explosion that happened there. Any and all footage of 'ground zero' shows that cars only meters away from the impact site are largely intact. You cannot even physically fit 200 let alone 500 people inside the lethal radius of the tiny projectile that landed there. It's like people suspend all reason and logic to facilitate their own version of the 'truth', even in defiance of physics and common sense. That is also what Al-Jazeera is doing. Less biased news organizations like Reuters at least adapt their narrative. IDF analysis appears to agree with Bellingcat and other independent investigative organizations. This difference matters. 2A02:A456:1FDA:1:30B4:37FF:3ACF:EC59 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The point is Wikipedia is not a place for conjecture, it is a place for statements backed by specific sources and claims. Something can be very obvious but if it's not sourced it is not allowed here. Just wait a few days and we will have more reliable information. Ashvio (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

If Al Jazeera is not reputable for the reasons you stated, then most Israeli newspapers arent either for the same reasons. The fact that Israel is trying to block an entire news site and your response is complaining about middle eastern dictatorships no one is even talking about here shows you are just here to try to pick fights rather than make a positive contribution to this space. Please save that for Twitter. Ashvio (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera is not reputable because they are unwilling to adapt their narrative in the face of new evidence. All provided evidence, even their own photos and video footage, strongly contradict their ludicrous claims. They are not doing journalism, they are pushing a false narrative. 2A02:A456:1FDA:1:30B4:37FF:3ACF:EC59 (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is all subjective opinion from your end. Every news outlet has some bias or another. Unless it's shown that they consistently and knowingly post false information without retracting, your concerns are not relevant since we can have sources from multiple viewpoints for each claim to maintain neutrality. What you're suggesting is that we only consider using sources that are entirely neutral or biased towards Israel. Ashvio (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This talk page has turned into a one-sided propaganda war between pro-Israel pov-pushers and regular sensible editors. Not surprising at all. The evidence increasingly suggests that the IDF did bomb the hospital, so now the pov-pushers are trying to mimimise the death toll instead. But the truth will come out eventually. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 12:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Not surprising these propagandists are coming in not knowing how this website works, clearly just looking to start trouble because the Wikipedia page won't be as biased as their favorite Israeli media is. I support Palestine but I'm not out here saying we should ban Israeli newspapers because they cover for IDF crimes. Ashvio (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The evidence increasingly suggests that the IDF did bomb the hospital, so now the pov-pushers are trying to mimimise the death toll instead.

Sources are quite bluntly not saying this (with most still of the line that it’s disputed; virtually none have verified either side’s claim, besides the fringes of media who outright want one side’s account to be true). If the above attitude is how you’re approaching this article, with all due respect you seem just as subject to propaganda as those trying to push the Israeli line. The Kip 14:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe Trillettollet is suggesting we edit the article to suggest there is more evidence one way or another, just expressing a personal belief which perhaps is a distraction at this point. We should keep personal beliefs discussion to a minimum unless it's relevant for a specific point related to the article (eg, I used my belief as an example of how not to let personal beliefs bias your decision making for sources on Wikipedia). Ashvio (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

After first several hours when there was a lot of "fog of war", the evidence actually increasingly suggests that it wasn't IDF, and this evidence is discussed extensively at this page: video footage, lack of typical impact picture, etc. What evidence (other than "it sure sounded like JDAM") has been provided by the other side? Deinocheirus (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. The exact opposite is happening. Even the sound of a nearby incoming rocket matches what we hear in the video.

Bellingcat also provides an excelling analysis, and will be releasing a more thorough report as they did for MH17. 2A02:A456:1FDA:1:30B4:37FF:3ACF:EC59 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide links to these claims? Were they made right after the explosion or after more evidence became available? Alaexis_¿question? 09:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Still disputed?

many sources by now that are considered RS verified that the alleged airstrike is misinformation, and the explosion was caused by a misfire from Islamic jihad. The only opposing claims which have zero ground are from Hamas and Islamic jihad, which with all due respect are way less credible than the pentagon, US and various other RS. dov (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide those sources? The only sources I have seen that have made explicit statements are the US and Israel. While I agree the evidence is trending that way, it isn't there yet as far as I can tell. BilledMammal (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ve seen some RS analysis say that it seems that way, but virtually none have definitively concluded it to the point we as editors can establish blame. It’s not our place to jump the gun and make assertions that RSes haven’t, our current depth of coverage is fine.

And similarly, I’m not exactly sure if the US government is an independent source here. The Kip 14:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel has led about these things in the past, they bombed the gaza powerplant and falsely claimed it was hamas and also the murder of Shireen Abu Akleh that they lied about.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Those are not Israeli claims anymore. The pentagon: 1, FDD 2, Haaretz, Israel Hayom, includes video evidence. All of those are WP:RS, in the list and considered credible and reliable sources. There isn't a single contradicting source either. dov (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

[16] clear evidence that also confirm Israeli claims and provided evidence. At the same time contradicts anything that the other side has claimed over the past 2 days. --LeeMarx (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The US and other US defense related think tanks are not exactly independent sources, as they obviously support the IDF. The Haaretz and Israel Hayom articles do not make any independent verification of the blast, it only repeats what the IDF says. We should not remove this from disputed status until there is verified third party independent validation that can't be reasonably disputed by counterevidence. Mainstream media outlets or other impartial organizations that provide new evidence should be required to remove disputed status. Right now there isn't anything like this, and it's clear from a reading of coverage that it is considered disputed by the media as well. Ashvio (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree it is still to early to change the disputed claim, but need to point out that the US are certainly independent. There is nothing to suggest their views are dependent on Israel or that the US are in any way in a dependency relation to it. There are numerous examples of the US going against Israeli views. The US also have a free press, in no way obliged to write what the US administration decide. That said, I repeat it is too early yet to say who did it, and we should wait for more information. I also agree that as long as only the US administration says so, it is not enough to change that. Jeppiz (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It's absolutely not true the US is independent. The US's actions for the last 50 years are almost unique except a few European countries across the world for how staunchly it will defend Israel and fund their military. There isn't any coutnry in the world that comes close to how much direct support is given to Israel. Independence requires no vested interest in either party, and that certainly can't be said of the US as they invest billions of dollars yearly into the country and have long used it as a strategic outpost in the middle east to be able to influence a geopolitically important region. US independent press is fine, sure, but not any government agency or defense related think tank. Ashvio (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Ashvio, if you are going to talk about the US as if it is monolithic, as if there aren't independent news organizations and groups like the Democratic Socialists, you may find yourself prevented from editing such contentious topics. US government support for Israel does not make all think tanks beholden to the government position. Plus, such posts as you placed here easily violate WP:NOTFORUM. Drmies (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I am talking about the US government and related entities, not every institution in the country. This is clear from the fact I was originally referring to sources from the pentagon not being independent sources for validation. conservative defense think tanks that are closely tied to the defense establishment and funded by defense contractors are clearly not independent from the US government either, and are not usually considered the best sources in Wikipedia. I've said nothing incorrect or inflammatory here, all I've said is that we need third party independent verification before posting any claim as fact for the public. Until then we should keep the page the way most media outlets are reporting it, as a mix of claims from various sources that conflict and have no clear outcome. The specific think tank sourced here, Foundation for Defense of Democracies is considered to be part of the Israel lobby, certainly not an independent source. Ashvio (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This is moot as the sources, despite the US government findings, are still saying they cannot verify either story. Governments are reliable for the views of the government, but the sources that are reporting on this continue to say they dont know. That may well change in the coming days, but it has not yet. For example, the WaPo story from this morning: President Biden, who visited Israel on Wednesday, said the strike appeared to come from an “errant rocket fired by a terrorist group in Gaza,” echoing the Israel Defense Forces’ stance. Palestinian authorities blamed the strike on Israel and said it killed 471 people — a death toll the IDF has disputed. The Washington Post could not immediately verify either side’s claim. The NYT article updated this morning, The competing claims have not been independently verified. The New York Times is working to assess the various accounts through an analysis of photos, video footage and other evidence, as well as on-the-ground interviews. Right now, we have he said, she said, and they also said, but the people we would usually rely on for stating something definitive are still saying we dont know which he she or they is right. If that changes then it changes, and we can follow those sources then, but as of right now there are competing claims and third party secondary sources are still saying we dont know. I dont agree that all US organizations are beholden to Israel, I dont even think that about the US, but the US government has not even pretended to play the role of uninvolved third party in this conflict, so no I dont think their findings are the final word here and neither apparently do US news organizations. nableezy - 13:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

So Nableezy´s summary above is spot on. When reliable sources report that a notable politician (Biden or others) say they believe the Israeli claim, or the Palestinian claim, it means we can report that that individual has said they believe so. That is notable for reactions, but it is not enough for us to claim the matter is settled. If multiple reliable media conclude, in their own voice, that one or the other is guilty, then we are moving towards being able to report it. As of this moment, that is not the situation. Jeppiz (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Good summary of the approach we should take. DeCausa (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, no one here is claiming every US organization is beholden to israel. That is clearly not true at all. But yes, we can't run with US or any government claims as a form of independent verification especially when the media does not consider it as such. Ashvio (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

And if were all violating NOTFORUM here, Ill add that right now my best guess is that it was most likely a failed rocket launch, but my best guess, and everybody else's here, arent usable sources for our articles. But it would be better if we stopped with all the comments not discussing the sources and what they say. I assume none of you give a half a crap about what Nableezy on the internets thinks, and so he shouldnt trouble you with what goes inside his head. Everybody else should return the favor. nableezy - 13:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera published two videos today where they dismantle the israeli claims: [17][18], the Israeli claims clearly do not ad up. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, I'm watching the first video, and immediate red flag is the Hananya Naftali claim. Read the discussion above about him. He isn't much more than an influencer with no more knowledge than any of us about any of IDF operations. And the rest of the video doesn't add any other single thing, other than "some people with no official knowledge made misleading tweets". assigning blame without the facts to back it up ends the video with, without addressing any of the facts that IDF shared in their official statement. I don't have the time or energy, but I think Al Jazeera is dangerously close from having to be analyzed at WP:RSN
I'm watching the second video. Seems even more wild to me. It is claiming the rocket that malfunctioned was an interzeption from Israel's Iron Dome. has the same after glow shows the rocket being completely broken apart. But I don't want to get into WP:OR territory myself. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Second video is now private, did they retract those claims? Ashvio (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Moved NYTimes "Changing Claims" reference from lede to Reactions section, changed text

Here's the original lede text by @Melofors:: "Coverage of the event changed quickly with misinformation from Palestinian sources and social media, spreading to mainstream media and inciting worldwide support and protests, before further investigations began to shift alignment in favor with Israel."

Here's the changed text in the Reactions section: "News coverage of the event changed quickly, with conflicting reports from Gazan, Israeli and American sources."

The NYTimes article did not mention "misinformation" by any party, nor did it seem to imply such (as far as I could tell).

Also, the NYTimes article concluded with "But many supporters of each side had already made up their minds in the ensuing hours. Much of the Arab world united in support of Palestinians, with thousands of protesters marching in cities across the Middle East on Tuesday night and Wednesday, blaming Israel for the deaths of civilians at the hospital." Which does not seem consistent (to me) with the final summary text from the lede edit concluding that alignment had shifted in favor with Israel. Pmokeefe (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Edit request: More sources and details to Palestinian_claims section

Please add more details and sources to this section to match the amount of details given by Israel. For example, the Gaza Health Ministry held a press conference with several relevant claims and details. [19]https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/gaza-s-health-ministry-holds-press-conference-in-rubble-of-al-ahli-baptist-hospital/3024183

Other relevant information not included "“Al Jazeera’s Safwat Kahlout, reporting from Gaza, said most of the victims of the attack on the hospital were women and children, citing the enclave’s health officials. He said the death toll was expected to rise as many bodies remained unidentified. “In Gaza, at least five hospitals received warnings from Israel to evacuate. According to international law, hospitals are meant to be safe and off-limits to attacks. In Gaza, this principle is not upheld,” Kahlout said. Ashraf al-Qidra, a Health Ministry spokesperson in Gaza, told Al Jazeera that al-Ahli Arab Hospital is a historic hospital associated with the Anglican Church. “It hosts many displaced families and patients. It became a shelter due to the Israeli assaults on Gaza,” al-Qidra said, adding that ambulance services were trying to extract bodies, including many of children." Ashvio (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"the scale of the blast appeared to be outside the militant groups' capabilities."

The wording of this quote does not match the wording in the article cited. Note also that this claim is unattributed / unsourced in the article, and is therefore editorial speculation rather than reporting. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• I corrected by adding "either"; your second point is exaggerated. The Guardian is a newspaper, unlike Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the prompt correction. On the second point, I didn't realise McKernan was the Guardian's Jerusalem correspondent, which gives her a certain authority, even if in this case events seem to be proving her wrong. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Two weeks ago, I think that most analysts would have said that the October 7 invasion of Israel was "outside the militant groups' capabilities." Cullen328 (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I read that and found it bizarrely unattributed to anything. Is this writer a combat/munitions expert? -- Veggies (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not use "claim" except in direct quotes

Please see MOS:WTW and MOS:CLAIM. This phrasing casts doubt on the assertion. There is almost always a simpler and more neutral way to phrase things. If nothing else, a claim can be called an allegation. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Add anadolu agency analysis

Analysis by Security Expert Assoc. Dr. Murat Aslan published by anadolu agency:

expert suggest premature denotation of munition for wider impact - Israel’s MK82 bomb under scrunityUsually. In attacks against mass targets, ammunition fuzes do not need to hit the ground, they explode in the air Stephan rostie (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Expertise not proven, Wikipedia not built on X. Drmies (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  There is also a regular Anadolu website: Absence of craters in Gaza hospital attack suggests use of ‘proximity fuse’: Ammunition specialist. This looks to me though a little bit like an old joke about a group of archaeologists finding copper wire in a 3,000-years-old ruins and claiming that it is a proof of the ancient dwellers of the city using wired telegraph. Then another group of archaeologists doesn't find any wire in another ancient city and claims it is a proof that this city was using wireless telegraph. Think about it: the Turkish experts just automatically start with the assumption that it was Israeli bomb, but need to explain why the scene looks different. They come with a brilliant idea: because it was a different bomb, not like the ones that Israel uses every day! Deinocheirus (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think your evaluation of the analysis is relevant. All we should consider for including this in the page is whether it's considered a reliable source and whether it's a notable source that is worth mentioning. Ashvio (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Anadolu is marked in yellow since 2019, with the reason being "Anadolu Agency is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Turkish government that engages in propaganda, owing to its state-run status". I personally am OK with quoting the article, if all attribution requirements are met (that this is a Turkish expert on a Turkish governmental website), but I can see below that some other editors may be against it due to reliability doubts. Deinocheirus (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Observed damage and fragmentation pattern is incongruent with an airburst of an MK82 type bomb. Nor does it explain the crater.

But I'm not surprised at the attempts of Turkish Hamas apologists to salvage their original false narrative. It's just that they clearly lack the expertise and competency to do so. 2A02:A456:1FDA:1:30B4:37FF:3ACF:EC59 (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, are you an expert on the fragmentation patterns of an MK82 bomb? And secondly I was under the impression that the IDF denies there being a crater on site and actually used this as proof that it wasn't one of their bombs. Now there's a crater and we need to explain it? 2603:3018:CD9:100:444:4796:E417:D9BD (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics." (WP:RSPSS#Anadolu_Agency) Please provide a reliable source for this information. Pmokeefe (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

We don´t build on Twitter, and we don´t use as Anadoly Agency as it is not a reliable source. Jeppiz (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It's in the Daily Sabah too. The Turks know, because they own some. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Daily Sabah is also classified as an unreliable source by Wikipedia WP:RSPSS#Daily_Sabah Pmokeefe (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

TRT World repeats it too - at the very least we can attest it as a viewpoint in Turkish government sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

We should add in these sources as the viewpoint of organizations affiliated with Turkey. Turkey's viewpoints are relevant for how this story will develop Ashvio (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

As suggested by previous replies: "Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest."WP:RSPSS#TRT_World Pmokeefe (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Pmokeefe, It's not a reliable source and as such I'm not sure what it adds to the article. If you want to provide the opinion of the Turkish government, why not just look for an official statement from them? Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

TRT should be OK with attribution. Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

If TRT says that the Turkish government claims so, that is an OK use of TRT. Not reliable for any claim any other claim related to the explosion/rocket/strike, as per WP:RSPSS#TRT_World . Jeppiz (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough." so you are saying that the Turkish Gov has conflict of interest in this case? Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: So TRT World quotes a scholar from Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research, a think tank that some have claimed is a mouthpiece for the government. If it's not, then presumably it's just a think tank we can quote; if it is, well then that's just the voice of the Turkish government, which we can quote, so surely, either way, quoting it is reasonably justified? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Spelling mistake and Image suggestion

There is mistake in spelling of toll here in casualties section third line . A suggestion on images to be used in wiki - - - why not use India Today's [20] image which is very extensive and provide graphical explanation too. Last request == More reaction have come from around the world. Reaction section looks more like Muslim countries reaction section. Can we not include more reaction. I can help with that if any editor is ready. Ankraj giri (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Typo corrected. Valereee (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The image is not freely licensed, I don't think? Re: reactions -- if you have any, list them with links to the source. If someone thinks they're important enough, they'll add, but we don't need to include every reaction. Valereee (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ankraj giri: Copyright aside, what image precisely are you suggesting? There are multiple ones. -- Veggies (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Image [21] Close look of blast site [This can be placed at start of article like map section in any country's article] and image [22] geolocating the site [It can be placed near(beside) India Today's OSINT sentence]. As for copyright issue, here in India news article are free to use for non-commercial purpose. I don't know Wiki's policy on copyright. Why i am saying to include images is because this will clear confusion of what was hit. Just think when you hear hospital explosion what comes to mind a building. but here in this case multiple media have now said it was not a building but courtyard [23] which is part of hospital. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨ 17:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Ankraj giri, any copyrighted image used on Wikipedia must be explicitly released under a free license allowing unrestricted reuse for any purpose, including commercial purposes. The only restriction allowed is that the image must be attributed. Cullen328 (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

French media reporting 10-50 deaths

Agence France-Presse is reporting that a "senior European intelligence official" says there were between 10 and 50 deaths. Toa Nidhiki05 15:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

A nameless official that doesn't want to be quoted on record? Compelling. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

All due respect, but best to avoid that kind of wording.

There’s ways of getting a point across without being sarcastic and/or rude. The Kip 15:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"All due respect" contains its own fair share of ouch too surely? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

All I’m saying is to please avoid the passive-aggressiveness. Just because a source makes a controversial claim that you may or may not agree with does not mean you can be rude to whoever’s noting it here. Some of your behavior in other parts of the talk page has contributed to positive discussion either. The Kip 16:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to add it into the article with attribution, but unless AFP themselves endorses it as fact don’t add it as a definitive total. The Kip 15:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Now CNN is reporting that the assessment coming from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence puts the death toll between 100 and 300. This is not a "nameless official" anymore, but an official statement. --Deinocheirus (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

More sources that reported about the death toll named by a senior European intelligence official: https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2023/oct/19/what-we-know-about-gaza-hospital-strike-that-killed-hundreds-2625422.html

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/european-intelligence-source-tells-afp-a-maximum-of-50-killed-in-gaza-hospital/ Thisissparta12345 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

We can include it as another claim/source but not state any death toll as fact without independent verification Ashvio (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Number of people taking refuge at the hospital at the time of the attack

I edited the lead and changed to "around a thousand", going by the text in the main body, but I was just reading the following source where it says:

“At that point in time [of the blast], we know there were thousands of people there,” he said. “They received a warning, there were some bombing and airstrikes around the hospital and they fled in, and this has been happening all the time, back and forth, people coming in and out.”
— https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/18/al-ahli-arab-hospital-piecing-together-what-happened-as-israel-insists-militant-rocket-to-blame

Sadly I don't have the time right now to verify and edit any further, but it might need to be changed again. I do think "thousands" is a bit vague though, it would be great to have a narrower range. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Meta-analysis Section

I'm not a Wikipedian or an expert. I have simply been following the Israel-Hamas conflict and the misinformation campaigns and happen to also love Wikipedia as a source of learning.

I wondered if perhaps there could be another approach to helping this article be accurate. Rather than arguing on these talk pages about misinformation and reliable sources and the motivation of interested publications and parties, etc., is such a conversation not actually a part of the accurate account of this event that deserves to be included in an encyclopedic account?

There are source now, such as CNN and the BBC, which have created articles discussing the reasons this topic is difficult to parse. Rather than simply going back and forth about which side deserves to be included and to what extent, while keeping the front facing article as some artificial attempt at neutrality, why not just construct this article with a much greater focus on these arguments. They are in fact paramount to understanding its relevance. This event is important due to the misinformation campaigns and the degree of interest involved in presenting a narrative. Shouldn't that be included, especially since there are adequate sources for exactly that?

Thanks so much to all the dedicated editors. I hope this input is useful. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree that a meta-analysis would probably be valuable but I feel like it potentially falls into a WP:OR situation. OJDrucker (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Seconding this. The information war has fast become a major part of what made this incident notable, but attempting to write up something on it may come a little too close to OR unless more than a few RSes begin to discuss it themselves. The Kip 17:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Example of what I had in mind:

On 17 October 2023, an explosion took place in the parking lot in the courtyard of al-Ahli Arab Hospital, located in Gaza City, amid the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, resulting in an unverified number of fatalities and injured. The event became the subject of immediate public interest, with opposing information campaigns and speculation being shared widely online.

Potential source:

https://www.wired.com/story/al-ahli-baptist-hospital-explosion-disinformation-osint/

Anyway, I'll leave this to you guys. Just trying to be helpful. :) Inmymoonsuit (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

Please add to the third paragraph, just above "Background", after the line: "stating that the damage is more consistent with a fireball from a rocket than an Israeli bomb.[13][14]"

Le Monde quotes Colonel Michel Goya, a military historian, who thinks that a rocket fired from Gaza was shot down over the hospital by an Israeli interceptor missile.

Independently, Aljazeera's Sanad Agency comes to a similar conclusion: (…) Based on a detailed review of all videos, Sanad’s analysts conclude that the flash Israel attributed to a misfire was in fact consistent with Israel’s Iron Dome missile defence system intercepting a missile fired from the Gaza Strip and destroying it in mid-air. ]] Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion Aljazeera is losing it credibility and should not cited as reliable until other media confirms it too `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨ 18:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That is your opinion, it is however, green at RSP and therefore reliable. If there is any evidence that AJ has engaged in fabrication that would of course be different. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Why are we still using Aljazeera sources.

Does it really remain a reliable source in this ongoing conflict?? I remember whenever there is conflict (In Islamic countries) it used to be first channel to verify claims. But now despite having such presence in Gaza and proximity with which it covered Hospital explosion live. I don't want to sound one sided so I will say take up 15 articles- - - 5 from current conflict, 5 from Afghan conflict and 5 from any western media and see for yourself. Emotions are high in Israel-Palestine conflict and i don't know what to say but may somebody more experienced here can guide. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨ 18:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Take it to RSN, else it remains green and reliable. Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It can be green at RSP but still unreliable for this article - we are supposed to assess reliability in context and not rely solely on broad assessments that ignore the specifics of the situation. I agree with Ankraj giri; we should not be using Al Jazeera on this article. BilledMammal (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It's been pointed out that Al Jazeera still has an article up attributing blame to Israel; while more recent articles are better, the fact that they haven't corrected this article is evidence that they aren't reliable on this topic. BilledMammal (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ankraj giri Aljazeera is a known reliable source, and unlike other agencies actually still has reporters on ground in Gaza. It's ridiculous to say otherwise just because you don't like their conclusions. LoomCreek (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop posting this same question, we have discussed several times it's not up for us to decide whether a source is reliable, there are specific processes for this and Al Jazeera is considered a solid source. Ashvio (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean deciding one POV you like is the correct one. The idea that we should be entirely bereft of any Arab source, a source that continues to be widely cited by other reliable sources, much less a single Palestinian one, is astonishing to me. People are seriously saying we should only use American, European, and Israeli-based sources. nableezy - 18:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ll start off by saying that I don’t think Al Jazeera should be removed from the article as it stands; WP:RSP has them listed as a green (generally reliable) site, despite some concerns over partisanship in regards to Israel/Palestine, and their reporting is typically factual. The above user’s accusations are rather off-base from a policy standpoint, and they don’t really give any reasons as to why AJ is unreliable.

That said (and the following could equally be said for The Times of Israel/Haaretz, fwiw), I do think it’s worth either doubly verifying any more controversial claims they make or attributing said claims to AJ, rather than inserting them into the article as fact. While not spreading outright misinformation or generally breaking the guidelines of reputable media, their framing of events does seem to indicate some degree of bias, however small or large. They were for a solid amount of time the only major publication asserting the explosion was an Israeli airstrike (which they later retracted, iirc) rather than disputed circumstances, as well as the only one labeling the explosion a "massacre," a comparatively loaded term relative to what we definitively know and knew at the time. Their liveblog from yesterday also still seemed to presume the initial "500+ killed" claim as fact, when estimates claimed by other RSes began to range from roughly 200 to 400. In addition, the new Sanad Agency fact-checking video argues the explosion came from an Iron Dome interception, a claim that thus far I don’t think I’ve seen any other RSes consider or report on.

In short, continue to use them, but just - be careful. Treat them as you would any other source with a less than partial tie to the conflict (i.e. Haaretz, US-funded think-tanks, etc). The Kip 19:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I dont really see the issue with "massacre", even the lowest estimates of deaths are higher than a number of events we have no issue with the media, and ourselves, calling a massacre. nableezy - 19:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This might just be my interpretation, but massacre as a term typically relates to intent, not casualty count; we often call a mass shooting or airstrike that kills 15 a massacre, but rarely an accidental shipwreck or natural disaster that kills hundreds.

Considering what was known/not known at the time (and still) about who/what is truly responsible and why it happened, it’s not the best term to use. The Kip 19:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. "Massacre" implies intent. Nableezy is pushing a POV here without evidence. -- Veggies (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Please heed WP:ASPERSIONS. Compared to some of the genuine POV-pushing from editors above, Nableezy’s actually taken a fairly moderate tone throughout this page; while I disagree with their position, there’s quite a difference between “not seeing the issue with massacre” as a descriptor, and insisting it was a massacre. The Kip 20:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right. I'm striking that particular sentence. -- Veggies (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster entry on the term emphasizes the intentionality aspect. So calling something a massacre implies it was purposeful, "cruel or wanton" which is not true if it was a misfire (or even an Iron Dome interception). Deinocheirus (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The rocket was launched with the intent of killing as many civilians as possible, so the intent is there. They just wanted to kill different innocent people Cursed Peace (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It's actually maddening to see so many editors in here who are perfectly willing to accept Israeli sources at absolute face value- as if they have no reason whatsoever to be biased- but then act like anyone who has ever expressed a pro-Palestinian stance is automatically biased and should be completely excluded from the discourse. 2603:3018:CD9:100:444:4796:E417:D9BD (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm in partial agreement with 2603 and others. I'm fine with excluding Al Jazeera (and other partisan Arab/Palestinian ones) as a source provided we also exclude probably all Israeli media, and a bunch known highly biased Western media sources (e.g. the Telegraph came up earlier) too relying only on sources like Reuters, BBC, etc. If editors aren't willing to go to this extreme, then we should still use Al Jazeera and other such sources with care. Nil Einne (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Under American position it should say "the explosion was caused by a Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) rocket misfire" not "the explosion was caused by an Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) rocket misfire." Ryanisbetter (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Good catch, I’ll take care of it. The Kip 19:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023 (2)

Minor edit request!

Under the Analysis Section:

Change:

a rocket launched from Gaza was intercepted by an iron dome rocket and "completely destroyed" in mid-air 5 seconds prior to the hospital explosion.

to

a rocket launched from Gaza was intercepted by an Iron Dome interceptor and "completely destroyed" in mid-air 5 seconds prior to the hospital explosion.

Reason for request: Making it a proper noun, clarifying the type of rocket to be more specific, and including a link to the military system for additional context. OJDrucker (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Do we have sources ID-ing the rocket? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not definitively, and I'm not trying to make a judgment on the truth value of what AJ's claim, just that if the claim is being made on the page, it should be informative and correctly capitalized. OJDrucker (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit.— AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done--AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

from the opening paragraphs: "there is strong evidence that the explosion was caused by the failed launch of a Palestinian rocket laden with fuel" this wording seems distinctly odd to me, can someone explain specifically what it means for a rocket to be 'laden with fuel'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3018:CD9:100:444:4796:E417:D9BD (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• it means the rocket was full of fuel. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps that the fuel had not yet been fully expended. It is normal to say laden with fuel about aircraft. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"Al Jazeera stated that it was an Israeli airstrike."

@Stephan rostie: This edit does not appear to be supported by the source; can you quote that section that does support this? BilledMammal (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The second cited article's first paragraph: "Thousands of protesters took to the streets across the Middle East and North Africa on Tuesday to show their outrage in the aftermath of a deadly Israeli air attack on the Al-Ahli al-Arabi Hospital in Gaza." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I missed that second source. However, it does appear to be outdated - it's from the 17th, before the Israeli counter-claim was made and before evidence exonerating Israel began to emerge. It's problematic that Al Jazeera hasn't updated it and speaks to their unreliability on this topic, but we shouldn't be using it in our article. BilledMammal (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, also, it's highly misleading to only report this source's initial (Oct 17) breaking news reporting while deleting their later (Oct 18) climbdown ("was not able to independently verify the accounts"). Since we now have fuller coverage of their more thorough Oct 19 analysis later in the section, which is preferable per WP:RSAGE, I have removed this misleading sentence. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Conclusory lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong NPOV issues now

The article has deteriorated a lot today, unfortunately. It now contains several blatantly false claims. One false claim (at least not supported) is that Hananya Naftali, the Israeli influence, works as an aide for Netanyahu. While Twitter warriors have made a meal out of this, there is nothing to confirm it. The closest we get is a text that Naftali worked as a digital aide to "former PM" Netanyahu. There is no hint that he has ever worked as an aide to anyone in government. This is a private person who posted a tweet, yet one that has spread like wildfire over social media, and even been inaccurately repeated in some media, because it suits the purpose of those who want to insist "Israel did it". Another example of obvious POV, even outright dishonesty, is when users today insert media articles from two days ago saying it was an Israeli strike. We know virtually every RS media has walked back suxj claims since then, so to insert them now and ignoring what the same media has written since is at best poor editing, at worst POV-pushing. I get some people want to claim it was an Israeli strike (and I still don't know myself), but when the article contains obviously false claims, it becomes an NPOV issue. Jeppiz (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

While Hananya's tweet might be worth adding somewhere in the article, because it is true it had quite a big impact for someone that defines himself as "Media Personality", it definitely does not belong under "Israeli position", when it never was an official position from Israel. I'm removing it now, if someone wants to reword it and add it somewhere else (perhaps under Palestinian position, which is quite brief and I do believe they have used this tweet as "proof". Al Jazeera has also used it) please feel free — AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned earlier today that perhaps this article would benefit from the inclusion of a section or perspective that recognizes the misinformation campaigns. I noticed at that time that someone added a "see also" link to a wiki on disinformation in this war.

Can any of the back and forth, analysis, quotes from days ago and how they've changed, etc. in this article -- particularly in the analysis and blame-game sections -- not be relocated either to a specific section of this page that recognizes the misinformation campaigns, or to the disinformation wiki itself? Why not create a section on that wiki dedicated to the information warring and link to it with acknowledgement of the information campaigning?

Wouldn't that allow this article, or the aspects not related to the information campaigning at least, to be kept as lean as possible with the greatest focus being on current best sources? Inmymoonsuit (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we addressed that adding a section on the information war between parties in this, beyond the acknowledgement that there's multiple competing narratives, would be a violation of WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. If we were to include it, we should wait for multiple RSs' to analyze and come to conclusions about that dimension of it. We're not a news aggregator nor should we attempt to editorialize about informational warfare, which none of us are qualified to do (to my best knowledge, at least). OJDrucker (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207173798/fake-accounts-old-videos-and-rumors-fuel-chaos-around-gaza-hospital-explosion

https://www.wired.com/story/al-ahli-baptist-hospital-explosion-disinformation-osint/

https://www.reuters.com/world/disinformation-surge-threatens-fuel-israel-hamas-conflict-2023-10-18/ "AMSTERDAM/LONDON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - As the Israel-Hamas war rages, regulators and analysts say a wave of online disinformation risks further inflaming passions and escalating the conflict in an electronic fog of war.

An explosion at a Gaza hospital that killed hundreds of Palestinians on Tuesday is the latest focus of the surge of activity as supporters of both sides in the battle between Israel and Hamas try to bolster their own side's narrative and cast doubts on the other's."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gaza-hospital-misinformation-israel-hamas_n_65301c34e4b00565b62290cc Inmymoonsuit (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you guys here are stuck inside the information war, and have been since this wiki was created, and so can't see the forest from outside... I say this as someone who supports and uses Wikipedia. Just my two cents. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources! If we include it, maybe under "reactions," or its own section at the bottom. Frankly I think it's a rich enough subject to warrant it's own article, rather than be included on every controversial event in the conflict.

Regardless, I think that while the intent is good, addressing the fact that there are multiple narratives and information warfare will not necessarily improve the propensity of other editors to be 'fair'. Most people who are ideologically inclined one way or the other are more likely to automatically give credence to things that support them (even if it's misinformation), and cast skepticism on the misinformation (or even legitimate information) by sources which conflict with their world view.

My philosophizing aside, if this is a special research topic of yours, I encourage you to write and submit your own article on this. OJDrucker (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Couldn't an entire section on the hospital be created at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_in_the_2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war ? Inmymoonsuit (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I was about to propose that. I don't think a desinformation section is due here, but I would find appropriate creating one there and adding something small here. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz It's directly mentioned in an Israeli article from a year ago that Hananya Naftali works for PM Netanyahu. And the current Aljazeera article, a reliable source, mentions it as well. To claim this is some fabrication is a blatant lie. LoomCreek (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if Hananya Naftali was currently main media advisor of Netanyahu (doubtful), it is still WP:UNDUE. He isn't an official source of info for Israel — AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@AdrianHObradors He's hired by the head of the Israeli govt, it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. and it is clearly notable enough to be covered by several sources . LoomCreek (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this issue has a few facets to it.

1. Hananya apparently(?) has handed his social media accounts to his spouse (seen on this talk page, haven't verified it)

2. Hananya was, at some point, and may still be, on Netanyahu's digital media staff.

3. Hananya's post has been used as positive evidence for an air strike by both reputable sources and government bodies.

4. It has been argued that Hananya is probably not in an position where he would actually know military information about the strike itself as it happened.

I think it's certainly worth mentioning that, at the very least, his tweet is being used as a source of evidence, but there's been a pretty big amount of editorializing about his access to Netanyahu. The question, imo, shouldn't be whether or not it is included but whether it's given undue weight. If mentioned, it should be clear what his position is explicitly (rather than something nebulous like a "close advisor"), and should be treated like any other claim is on this article by editors. OJDrucker (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@OJDrucker It's okay if there is a cavet in the article. but It still clearly belongs under the Israeli section and he IS the social media aide to the PM currently. Everything in the previous edit is verified information. LoomCreek (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@LoomCreek

I agree it belongs in the article, but I'm not sure it belongs necessarily in the "Israeli" section because it's not indicated in the tweet itself that it was made in an official capacity rather than a personal post. The concern is that putting it in the Israeli section gives it WP:UNDUE and makes it appear as though it is an official statement; people who are employed by heads of state do not automatically have all their statements made on their own social media reflect the official government line, though they usually cohere.

I think the current structure of the article doesn't well lend itself to including this sort of information unfortunately, and there's a tension between succinctness including every comment by every person. IMO, it'd be best placed in a 'timeline of events' which then both Israeli and Palestinian sections could speak to, but would require an article restructuring, or perhaps an 'evidence' section which can speak to various facts on the ground, so to speak. OJDrucker (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"Naftali has been working for the former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as part of his digital team for the past 3 years. Naftali served in the IDF and fought Hamas terrorists during Operation Protective Edge (2014) and treated wounded Syrian civilians as a combat medic. "https://m.jpost.com/author/hananya-naftali

Al Jazeera also refers to him as a" digital aid" to Netanyahu

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/18/what-is-israels-narrative-on-the-gaza-hospital-explosion Ashvio (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

LoomCreek, you have not provided any source for your claim. One year ago, Netanyahu wasn't PM, so saying an article from your ago says so is rather irrelevant. As for Al-Jazeera, I never mentioned them. I mentioned using articles from two days ago from any media that no longer claim the same. In short, all your objections are moot. Jeppiz (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any of this justifies tagging the entire article as an NPOV violation.

Regarding Naftali, as infuriating as it may be for certain POV-pushers, AJ is a WP:RSPSS. The reference to Naftali's tweet (or X-post or whatever) is extremely material: as the Al Jazeera citation notes, it's part of Israel's evolving narrative; the article further identifies him as a digital aide to the Israeli PMO.

I can hear the cries already: "Qatari propaganda!" Well, here's ABC talking about the very same issue:

"Attention focused soon after the blast on Israeli social media influencer Hananya Naftali, who worked for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when he posted on X that Israel had bombed a Hamas base inside the hospital. He later deleted the post and said he mistakenly shared a Reuters report blaming Israel, but his first post did not reference Reuters and the agency did not report that a Hamas base was bombed."

PolitiFact is also covering it: "The person who posted, Hananya Naftali, is a pro-Israel social media influencer and writer who has worked on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s digital team, online biographies for Naftali say."

So, we have now three RSPSS discussing this. Removing any reference to this story, when it is being reported on by RS, is a pretty blatant attempt at revisionism. We can't just memory hole relevant information that is reported by RS because it makes particular editors uncomfortable. Sure, include caveats, but completely erasing this from the article is its own NPOV violation, imo. Edit: moved this because I cut off the discussion above. WillowCity (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

PolitiFact goes on to note: "Though social media users referred to Naftali as a "military leader" or an Israeli spokesperson, we found no evidence on his social media accounts or an Israeli government list of spokespeople that he is an official spokesperson for Israel or its military. He said in an Oct. 14 Facebook video that Netanyahu assigned him to a task force to defend Israel in the media." (emphasis added) WillowCity (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the PolitiFact source, WillowCity, I believe that one is the best we have so far. I took the liberty to move the {{POV}} tag to the Israeli Position section and changed it to {{POV section}}, @Jeppiz, do feel free to change it back if you still feel the rest of the article doesn't have a NPOV — AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

So maybe someone should restore the sentence that was removed by this edit? It's sourced, notable, relevant, and accurate. WillowCity (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WillowCity, I am not sure if you have read the whole article.

we found no evidence on his social media accounts or an Israeli government list of spokespeople that he is an official spokesperson for Israel or its military
— PolitiFact

I would argue, by your own provided sources, adding Hananya Naftali anywhere under Israeli's position is completely WP:UNDUE — AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I emphasized that passage myself, I certainly have read it! They say that he is not an official spokesperson, and then go onto note that, by his own admission, he was assigned to a digital media "task force" by the PMO. Moreover, ABC and Al Jazeera report that he is or was a digital aide to Netanyahu. I think that is sufficient connection to the Israeli state apparatus to qualify his post as an "Israeli position" (I note that the subsection is not headed, for example, official Israeli position). It may not be the current Israeli position but, it was, at one point, a position taken by an (unofficial) spokesperson for the Israeli government. WillowCity (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That said, I acknowledge potential concerns regarding WP:UNDUE and the placement of the sentence in question. I do believe that it merits inclusion elsewhere as it has been noted and commented on by multiple RS. Perhaps under "Reaction" or "Aftermath" or further down the "Israeli position" section. WillowCity (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

WillowCity, it might still be relevant as his tweet has been brought up a lot. Still don't think it should go under "Israeli position", as again, he did not speak on behalf of Israel. Al Jazeera has used his tweet for their claims, so perhaps under the Al Jazeera section under Analysis, or under Palestinian position if they have used the tweet for any claim. Personally I still believe the tweet holds no weight and it has been retracted, and we shouldn't focus on outdated news. See WP:RECENT. But if it is used in analysis by involved parties or RS that are stating Israel's fault, it can be mentioned. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I certainly would not place it under the Palestinian position as no RS are drawing that connection, to my knowledge; if it is undue to cite him for an Israeli position it is even more problematic to use an Israeli propagandist as a source for the Palestinian position.

The AJ section of "Analysis" may be somewhat more appropriate, but is still not ideal as that paragraph deals with Al Jazeera's October 19 debunking of the IDF's claims. Linking it to Naftali's tweet risks running afoul of WP:SYNTH since the source doesn't explicitly make the connection.

Imo, the most logical place for inclusion is after the last sentence of the Aftermath section, which ends with "... conflicting reports from Gazan, Israeli and American sources". Naftali is a good case in point, as an Israeli source who promptly contradicted himself (or at least took a different view of events later on).

I see this sub-story as important context; you're correct that it's been brought up a lot, including by various RS, and I do think it merits inclusion somewhere in the body of the article on that basis. I would normally not suggest discussing a tweet by an influencer/aide/spokseperson for the Israeli government in a WP article, but this does seem to have caught on and garnered coverage. Regarding WP:RECENT, I thought that policy was more applicable to an imbalance favouring new sources; in any case, recentism is a tough nut to crack on an article like this: who can say what the most salient aspects of this event will be in 10 years? WillowCity (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

more problematic to use an Israeli propagandist as a source for the Palestinian position I thought I had seen some spokesperson from Palestine mention or tweet about him, but I couldn't find anything after a quick Google. So you're completely right.
For Al Jazeera, there is this source: youtube and this one
It doesn't specifically use Naftali's tweet to blame Israel, but they do use it to attack Israel's version of events. It is something that could be mentioned. I don't see the aftermath section as again, gives him more importance than he actually has. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen that video; thanks for sharing!! Are informational videos accepted as citations? If so, I agree it would be reasonable to fold the deleted Naftali sentences into the AJ paragraph of "Analysis" WillowCity (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

When I say "the most logical place for inclusion", I mean other than the "Israeli position" section (to be clear: I do not agree this would be undue weight, just that I know the argument was raised). WillowCity (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is no evidence that Naftali published this tweet in his official capacity (whatever it is - apparently no one knows exactly), then it is no more a private citizen's opinion and shouldn't have any weight. By assigning it an undue weight, we implicitly direct the reader to conclusions that are not warranted by the hard facts. Deinocheirus (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

He's hired as a social media aide, just not under an official position. That definitely does not at all qualify as a private citizen's opinion. - LoomCreek (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz Let me clarify by one year ago, I mean December 2022. When he in fact was the prime minister. The sources are clearly listed in the edit itself, if you bothered to read them. LoomCreek (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023 (3)

Please, include the findings by US Army veteran, Dylan Griffiths about the the hospital bombing being carried out by Israel. 49.37.8.102 (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian Ministry of Health falsely claimed the hospital collapsed

Hello! This is my first edit ever, I just signed up because I have been reading about this event for the past two days, I think I have a decent grasp of it and I always wanted to contribute to Wikipedia so I thought this is the time to start. I understand that this is an especially sensitive article and I hope I'm not doing anything I'm not allowed to do.

I propose to include, at least in the casualty section, a reference to a statement of the Palestinian Ministry of Health as quoted by Al Jazeera on 17 October, 17:27 GMT, i.e. about 30 minutes after the attack, on their liveblog.

In it, the ministry claimed that there were ""hundreds of victims" under the rubble of a Gaza hospital compound that was hit by Israeli bombing.".

We know now, after photographs and videos of the site emerged on October 18, that the hospital was not only not destroyed but was not even damaged apart from broken windows and fallen dropped ceiling tiles, so there was no rubble anyone, let alone hundreds of people could have been buried under and the statement by the ministry was completely false.

Furthermore, this means that the death toll of "at least 500 killed", as the ministry then stated at 17:32 GMT as quoted by Al Jazeera and as cited by most other media, must have included these "hundreds of victims" allegedly buried under the rubble of a building that in reality never collapsed at all.

This is of utmost importance because the Palestinian Ministry of Health is the source for basically everything we know about this event, so if they either mistakenly or deliberately issued a statement where such a basic aspect of it was entirely fictional, obviously their entire credibility is in question and should not be relied upon in any way. Thronos-24 (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I would advise against assigning ill intent to any government being incorrect in its initial reporting. The bombing happened in night in a city with no electricity so it's reasonable if they encountered dozens of bodies to believe the bomb hit the hospital at first, especially without the electricity needed to light the area. Israel also posted several claims of evidence initially that they later deleted for inaccuracy. Let's not focus on the accuracy of such claims but rather just inform users what each side's position is and wait for third party independent verification of facts on the ground. Ashvio (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should not assign ill intent, and I did say that they issued this statement "either mistakenly or deliberately", I would not have wanted to include that in the page itself of course.

However, I disagree very strongly that it is reasonable for a government ministry to issue a statement that a building collapsed and "hundreds of victims" were buried under rubble without making sure the building had actually collapsed. That the explosion happened at night under conditions of war (although there were electric lights in the videos of the aftermath I saw) can excuse inaccuracy when it comes to counting casualties, not when it comes to the question of whether a two-story building has collapsed and buried hundreds of people or not.

The article includes two instances of the Israeli government publishing evidence later found to be mislabeled or spurious as you mentioned. What is the justification for keeping these but not including the much more significant false statement by the ministry, even more so since the casualty numbers cited here seem to include these hundreds of people who could not possibly have died?

If we are to inform users what each side's position is, which I agree with, then we must inform users that the position of the Palestinian Ministry of Health - again, the main source for basically everything about this event that isn't the IDF - was that the hospital had collapsed and hundreds were buried under the rubble. I have not heard of an official retraction of this statement by the way. Thronos-24 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I would actually suggest removing all retracted evidence, on both sides - it just muddies the waters and makes the article more confusing. However, if we are going to keep retracted evidence on one side then we need to keep it on both. BilledMammal (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the latter point but disagree with the former. It seems very important to keep tabs on the various disproved and retracted claims of both sides in order to give the future readers a complete and objective picture of the event. Thronos-24 (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Reorganization Proposal - Analysis

The Analysis section as written now is a little hard to follow and seems to be organized in a fairly arbitrary way (and one that again seems to reinforce the information war rather than being able to back away and look at the facts independent of whether they are Israeli or Palestinian claims).

Could this section be structured instead based on the types of explanations that have been offered (e.g. Airstrike, Misfire, Intercepted Missile, etc.) with these various perspectives supported by the appropriate sources and an omission of what seems like an emphasis on partisanship or ownership of the claims? Inmymoonsuit (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point, are any reliable sources backing the air strike story? Perhaps we need a section about disinformation in the immediate aftermath of the PIJ rocket hitting the hospital Cursed Peace (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I have advocated on this talk page for acknowledging the disinformation campaigns somehow. There is a page at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_in_the_2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war where a timeline of disinformation after the event could be relocated. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

"disinformation in the immediate aftermath of the PIJ rocket hitting the hospital " is implying that it's a forgone conclusion that this is the case, when it is still disputed what the actual cause of the explosion was. There is no third party verification yet. Ashvio (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think in the future it will make sense to organize according to discrete claims. Right now I think it easier to present each of the investigations separately as right now it is most relevant (1) where the claims are coming from and (2) when the investigation was conducted. It is more or less chronological right now. Dhawk790 (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Economist Leaders piece

There was a reference to a Leaders column in The Economist for the proposition that analysts largely agreed with US/Israel's explanation that the explosion was caused by a Palestinian rocket. The quote selected was Despite strong evidence that their deaths were caused by the failure of a Palestinian rocket laden with fuel, Arab countries rushed to condemn Israel. I reviewed the article thoroughly and this is an opinion piece. It does not cite to any particular analysis or state why the writer believes the evidence is strong. Therefore, I don't know where to fit it in. The thrust of the article's point as it pertains to this quote is that Arab leaders could have called for calm and for an independent investigation of the hospital blast instead of rushing to blame Israel with words that cannot easily be taken back. It's interesting, and The Economist is a very high-quality source, but I'm not sure where to work this in. What do others think?-- Orgullomoore (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree we should not be using Opinion/Columnists for evidence in this page unless they are bringing new relevant information not found in other reporting. It's best to stick to the news section of various outlets for WP:NPOV. Leaders is clearly the opinion section of the Economist. Ashvio (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

As I've said, this Wikipedia article needs to address the role that media, narrative, misinformation, and bias have played in the aftermath of this event, and in fact are largely the reasons for its significance at this point.

This is no longer purely a casualty event whose particular details should or can be presented factually. The context at this point is really the reason for public or encyclopedic relevance. Inmymoonsuit (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be bold-- Orgullomoore (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

You can't fix bias by using one sided opinion pieces as a source. It's preferably to cite objective coverage for current events. If we include opinion pieces from one side we will need equivalent pieces from the other as per WP:UNDUE Ashvio (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera video investigation: What hit al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza?

From Al Jazeera, posted on October 19.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/19/what-hit-ahli-hospital-in-gaza

Conclusion of video investigation is that a missile launched from within Gaza was then intercepted by the Iron Dome defensive weapons system, and the hospital explosion was the result of falling debris. 133.106.34.150 (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)