Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"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I think this is now out of date, with the US verifying Israel's account - I note that the source came out before the US did so.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)

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)

"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)

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)

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[1].VR _talk 03:46, 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)

"... 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)

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)

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)

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. [2]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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ([3]). -- 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[4].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 [5], 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)

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)

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. [6]. 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: [7].-- 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)

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)

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)

"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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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 [8]) 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."[9] 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 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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 we've all seen the photos at this point. All recent analysis is in agreement, this was a misfired rocket, not a really tiny bomb dropped from an invisible airplane that accidentally hit a parking lot instead of its target. But this isn't a forum, I'm sure you have some reliable sources to back up the fringe view it was possibly Israel. Cursed Peace (talk) 03:40, 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)