Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

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)

I'm sure that was a rhetorical question but just a note, we don't actually care if your an expert on the fragmentation patterns of an MK82 bomb as we don't care about your WP:OR whatever your expertise. If you're such an expert, you're welcome to write up an analysis and get it published in a reliable secondary sources. Alternatively you can publish it only somewhere other than Wikipedia and hope or encourage secondary sources to cover it. If and when that happens, we can start to consider including these sources in our article. Note however, as you have a WP:COI, you still should not be adding such sources yourself. In fact by publishing such an article, I'd argue you have a COI with respect to the whole article even in areas unrelated to your published analyses. So you'd need to stick to making suggestions on the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 20 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 [1] 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 [2] Close look of blast site [This can be placed at start of article like map section in any country's article] and image [3] 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 [4] 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)

That isn't correct. We allow Copyleft licences which place an additional restriction, requiring that the image and any derivatives, must be released under that licence. While we stopped use of the particular onerous GFDL (see Template:GFDL and links), even the Creative Commons licence does place requirements/restrictions that any reusers need to understand that are beyond simple requiring attribution. Such restrictions are an intentional part of copyleft licencing. Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 20 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)

I am inclined to agree that this guy isn't a spokesperson. But, I think he should be cited as part of the controversy, because he was part of the controversy. Something like "there's a dude who's an Israeli influencer who said israel did it but it's unclear if he even has such direct knowledge"

He's described as a deputy social media advisor https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/from-praising-jesus-to-tweeting-bibi-pms-new-recruit-has-colorful-past-552612

I think this guy should be cited not because he's a reliable source, but because he made a mess, and we can document the mess Hovsepig (talk) 04:40, 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)

I think at this stage it would be exceedingly unwise to use any opinion pieces unless we are covering the opinion pieces themselves because they become sufficiently significant i.e. the opinion pieces themselves are for some reason widely discussed in reliable secondary sources in relation to this subject. Perhaps in a few years time retrospective opinion pieces will be useful, time will tell but at this time let's avoid them as being WP:UNDUE etc. Nil Einne (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree we should avoid it, there's so much regular coverage it seems unnecessary and risks NPOV Ashvio (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

All Economist pieces are Opinion Pieces. It's irrelevant, for factual information the Economist is 100% ok, see perennial sources: "Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. The Economist publishes exclusively articles in editorial voice with no byline, with a few featured commentary pieces by pseudonymous bylines, and publishes magazine blogs and several podcasts, which should be handled with the respective guidelines. " and "In short, there is a consensus that the The Economist is reliable for trans topics. The consensus is overwhelming when solely accounting for those who voted for one of the four traditional options: more than 90% of those editors picked option 1(Generally reliable for factual reporting). Alcibiades979 (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

From WP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact". If there is an opinion piece that is contributed by a principal to the story (an official of a government or major organization directly involved, for example) that might be relevant. However, most major publications are likely to have pundits weighing in on an event like this, often with contrasting points of views. Is it desirable (in terms of Wikipedia's mission) or even feasible to attempt to represent such a large number of publications/articles/pundits in this article? How do you select which to include and which to exclude? Pmokeefe (talk) 05:24, 20 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: [5])

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 [6])

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. [7] 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)

This is not a valid assessment.

A JDAM is not a distinct type of bomb, and therefore does not have a distinct sound. It's a guidance system that can be bolted on top of existing bombs, and so "JADMs" can have very many distinct sounds. To say that it "sounded like a JDAM" does not make sense.

It is true that many bombs outfitted with JDAMs have an airburst mode. However, pictures and videos from the courtyard show nearby solar panels as being undamaged. This is not consistent with an aerial detonation, which would have distributed shrapnel across a wide area and damaged the solar panels.

Maybe it's "the developing conclusion" by Twitter armchair theorists. 2001:569:7BCD:9C00:3C54:5920:2C34:14F3 (talk) 05:47, 20 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)

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)

This is your own independent reasoning. What we do know is that on 14 October they hit the same hospital with "warning missiles", and Israeli warning missiles usually precede ... [blank]. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:50, 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. happened 7 seconds later. 133.106.34.150 (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you watched or read anything? They did not concluded that. Quite the contrary, the investigation pointed that the missile was intercepted, completely destroyed, and is not related to the hospital explosion. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the whole thing. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

133, I recommend reading the article again. The article claims Israel didn't know the iron dome took down a rocket, and thought the rocket had malfunctioned. It says the rocket was destroyed, not that it was redirected and exploded later. The article makes no claim as to what caused the parking lot explosion Cursed Peace (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the implication is that Israeli 'didn't know'. And the video clearly explains that the al ahli bombing was just one of four air strikes within a span of about five minutes. It's a video explainer, so you do actually have to watch the video to get the explanation. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

If, as the article states, the Israelis mistook a rocket being hit by the iron dome for a rocket just falling out of the sky on its own, after they watched a video of it, then it would seem they didn't know about the iron dome making a shot in this case. Unlikely, I know, but it is Al Jazeeras claim. Cursed Peace (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The video makes a longer explanation, implying that it was an israeli rocket. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That's literally the exact opposite of the conclusion of the video. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: ah, I see. Have edited my previous comment. 133.106.34.150 (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

P.S. I find this suggestion particularly ironic since it was just about 2 days ago some editors were suggesting we use IDF primary sources directly. Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you think Al Jazeera is biased just because it's Arab? They are some of the only people still with on the ground reporters and have some of the most extensive coverage on the event in general. I'd consider them highly credible. (but once again you'd have to go through RSN) - LoomCreek (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I have not said it is biased," Arab", or pushing one sides story. But in this particular conflict they have lost MY trust due to hospital explosion reporting and then I browsed through their other stories on current conflict. They have selectively placed Palestinian stories(reactions) above despite them being occurring after Israeli actions/reactions. This is high emotion conflict -- I think all editors can agree on it. We have already considered IDF unreliable which is correct. I got aware that this issue (AJ reliability) has been discussed, so if editor want to continue to use it as RS, do that. Someone, please close this discussion or tell me how to do it. I am new to this. Thanks! `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨ 11:00, 20 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)

Al Jazeera paragraph in analysis section is also unwanted and inconsistent with what they were saying in the video. Proof -- at 1:54 they say Israel intercepts barrage of rockets from Gaza (note light/flame/explosion of those rockets). Then they claim when a Islamic Jihad/ Gazan rocket was over hospital on way to of course Israel it was intercepted by Israel. Now compare both explosions they are considerably different from each other. I am already convinced it is unreliable in current conflict [8] Also I discovered a thing from video that media cameras have heat sensors??? `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨ 11:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Announcement of bbc

https://www.zman.co.il/live/430915/ "We have reviewed our coverage of the immediate aftermath of an explosion at the ..."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications 2.55.183.118 (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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) said an initial investigation shows the explosion in Gaza’s hospital was caused by a failed Hamas rocket launch, i24NEWS reported.

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)

Less Propaganda then Al Jazeera, the qatari propganda news, litterly state owned. 46.121.27.170 (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Who is Hananya Naftali ?

Starting a new thread, since there are already too many overlapping conversations on this topic.

This is from fact-checking site Polygraph.info:

https://www.polygraph.info/a/fact-check-israeli-government-spokesman-did-not-take-responsibility-for-gaza-hospital-blast-/7317942.html

Naftali is a pro-Israeli social media influencer and YouTuber, who reportedly served as an informal media advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Currently, his name is not listed in the database of Israeli government spokespersons and media advisers, last updated July 23, 2023.

However, as it says in the article, this Israeli government personnel list has not been updated since late in the month of July, 2023. Does anyone have more recent information that could confirm or deny if he works as an official media adviser or spokesperson for the state of Israel? 133.106.34.150 (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I have previously said (and actually removed) that it is irresponsible adding Naftali's tweet under "Israel position". The other PolitiFact source that we have also states 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. Nothing indicates that he is a spokesperson, it seems that he is only an influencer that has worked with Netanyahu before. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I've moved it out and tried to improve it a bit. Removed first hand sources. Didn't link PolyGraph as it seems it isn't a RS. Anyone feel free to improve it. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

What role in the bombing are you trying to assert this YouTuber had? Why include him at all if he isn't part of the bombing? If there is another article about conspiracy theories, it may be appropriate there. Cursed Peace (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2023

Most of the evidenece and analysis brought in the article supports Israel's claim. Therefore, in the infobox under "Accused" Palestinian Islamic Jihad should be written first.

In addition I think this source [9] citing European intelligence that estimates maximum of 50 killed in the explosion can be added to the article. Yonathan33 (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a rule addressing which "accused" is supposed to go first. Are you?--Orgullomoore (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Tollens (talk) 09:37, 22 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)

I agree that we should include notable retracted claims, as long as we make it immediately clear within the text that these claims were later retracted. These claims had a distinct impact on how the event unfolded. The claim the hospital was "destroyed" clearly fed into the massive reaction this event; I still know people who are making this claim. And if we exclude retracted claims, we need to exclude all retracted claims. That includes the video shared by the Israeli twitter account. Including that retracted claim without including retracted claims by the Ministry of Health is a clear NPOV issue, in my opinion. Jogarz1921 (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly why there should be a "Misinformation" section in this article, to document and summarize the way competing narratives unfolded in a rush to describe the situation. 133.106.34.150 (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. And it's not just an NPOV issue because the very first estimate of the death toll given in the article comes from the same ministry that falsely claimed the hospital was destroyed, and I think it's clear that the estimate of hundreds killed relies on that claim. Thronos-24 (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as retracted claims go, BBC was actually willing to admit its journalist made a "mistake" while reporting on the explosion and giving the viewers a foregone conclusion that it has been an Israeli airstrike. Irony is that they still find it necessary to say "At no stage did he actually say it was caused by the Israelis", when in fact their news alert contained just one phrase: "Hundreds feared dead or injured in Israeli airstrike on hospital in Gaza, Palestinian officials say" (bold font added). I don't know where it should go in our article but given that most major media outlets do report on this retraction and apology I'd say we should follow. Deinocheirus (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This specific article is about the explosion at the hospital, not the history of statements and retractions coming out during the fog of war. We shouldn't make the article about the sources, but instead about what reliable sources say about the topic today. There can always be a section or page about media confusion, but it isn't the core of the subject. Cursed Peace (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your first statement, but the fact is we keep a whole paragraph in the article dealing with somebody's retracted tweet based on the fact that this tweet and its retraction were covered by RSs. But so is BBC's blunder and retraction. Why should we cover the tweet in detail but ignore BBC announcement at the same time? Deinocheirus (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

There is in fact a page about disinformation in this war. All content related to the narratives and retractions and social media/media back-and-forthing could be relocated to a section there, with an acknowledgement and link on this article. No? Inmymoonsuit (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

New comment by Canadian PM

Trudeau not ready to accept U.S. finding that Palestinian militants' rocket was behind Gaza hospital blast

Under the "Reactions" section, it may be worth incorporating this; there is already a sentence about Trudeau's response so shouldn't be too hard to update. The former sentence could even be removed to avoid WP:UNDUE, if we don't want to clog the article with the Canadian government's reaction. WillowCity (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Trudeau should be removed completely as wp:coatrack. He isn't ready to make a statement? Not relevant to this explosion far away from Canada. Cursed Peace (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

And yet "American position" merits an entire subsection that's substantially longer than the "Palestinian position" subsection? Explain that one to me. Don't see how a single sentence would be coatracking if we have an entire section on reactions from various state and non-state officials. WillowCity (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what the American position has to do with Canada. If you are arguing Canada is part of the US, it isn't. Cursed Peace (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That's completely not what I'm saying. You say that the Canadian position is irrelevant because Canada is geographically removed from the explosion. So is the United States. And yet, entire paragraphs are dedicated to the American view of events. If your reasoning is accepted, the American position should also be stricken entirely from the article as an unacceptable WP:COATRACK. WillowCity (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm discussing Canada, which is the topic. If you want to start a new thread about the US section, do it. Otherwise, explain why a non statement is wp:due Cursed Peace (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not gonna do that because you haven't offered any compelling explanation of why the comment of a G7 leader is undue, based on the actual policy or the article's current content. If you muster an argument worth refuting, I'll refute it :) WillowCity (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

See wp:onus Cursed Peace (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Not applicable as I'm merely providing an update on content that is already included. See WP:PRESERVE. WillowCity (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Your update is contentious and undue. The original statement probably needs pulled as well. Cursed Peace (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

If non-EC editors can simply declare something contentious and have it removed until consensus is reached, I hereby declare that all references to the American position are contentious and undue, and request their immediate removal. WillowCity (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you trying to pull rank? It is contentious because it is undue. Your above statement that because I find one thing contentious you find everything contentious is a form of disruptive editing, see wp:pointy. You should consoder striking that comment unless you really are now calling for the removal of these sources. Cursed Peace (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. The point stands, though. Your logic is equally applicable to countless other portions of this article. And I have no rank to pull--I'm not EC either. WillowCity (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it should be incorporated.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, why not organize the analyses and reactions based on the various explanations that have been offered, not on arbitrary geopolitical ownership. Who cares if the statement is made by an American or a Martian? Isn't what matters above all how these comments and sources contribute to the understanding of the event? Inmymoonsuit (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, but in practice, we have to cover information in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS; WP:DUE). I do think that my suggested update meets your criteria, though; it demonstrates that, even among the most resolute allies of the US and Israel, their version of events is still being debated and considered. This is important context for readers, and its coverage in reliable sources justifies at least a sentence or so about it. WillowCity (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Iranian propaganda image

@Baratiiman: In this edit, you added the image captioned "Iranian propaganda '1520 people . . .'" What does that have to do with the hospital attack and why does it deserve such prominent placement in the article?-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

the hospital's name is written at the top Baratiiman (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

OK. Should probably disclose that in the caption since most people won't be able to read--much less understand--بیمارستان المعمداني in Perso-Arabic script. In any case, I moved it down to the part of the article dealing with rushed reactions and calls for a day of rage-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Baratiiman Also, can you point out the part that says they were killed by Zionists? I see the star of David. I'm not proficient in Persian, but I can read the letters, and I see the part at the top where it says (what looks to me like) "number of martyrs, peace upon them" and "Baptist hospital in Gaza" and "mostly women and children" and "the time has arrived for an end." But I don't see any words mentioning the alleged perpetrator.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:56, 20 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)

[10] 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)

It's not the US and Israel anymore, all of the analysis paragraph in the article states that the explosion was due to failed missile launch. The RS there are also independent research and analysis, not relied on any government. I don't see a single contradicting source either, even the Al Jazeera source isn't claiming it was an airstrike anymore. Therefore, I don't see the dispute. dov (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing this anywhere, I see reporting on both sides positions the same way the article here does. Plus new evidence is still. coming out against Israel as noted in the new topic below. https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/18/middleeast/gaza-hospital-explosion-israel-wwk-explainer-intl/index.html Ashvio (talk) 19:46, 20 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: [11][12], 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2023 (2)

The video published by Al Jazeera (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyNLvL_8SeY) demonstrates that the Iron Dome, Israel's anti-missile system, successfully intercepted all the missiles. This contradicts the assertion that the attack on the hospital was caused by a Hamas rocket. 85.243.119.25 (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

We discuss this investigation in the analysis section, but if there are details that were missed, post them here and we can work them into the article.Dhawk790 (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2023 (3)

Source No. 58 (Was the Gaza hospital attack caused by a failed rocket launch? 172.59.224.136 (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Not clear what you are asking for here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:16, 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)

Hi WillowCity, I've changed it a bit, it is now under Analysis. Let me know what you think — AdrianHObradors (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it's alright, but I wonder if there are some SYNTH issues? On my reading it sort of reads like PolitiFact was specifically reacting to AJ, maybe I'm reading too much into things.

As well, I think @LoomCreek had already re-incorporated it into the article at the bottom of the "Israeli position" section so I think their views on this passage and its placement are particularly relevant.

I specifically liked the last sentence of their revision, which said: "Naftali is not an official spokesperson for Israel or it's military, however in an Oct. 14 Facebook video he said that Netanyahu had assigned him to a task force to defend Israel in the media.[cite]" I think this makes the same point as your revision, but presents a fuller picture of his role.

Just my thoughts :) WillowCity (talk) 12:33, 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)

Being an aide doesn't make you a government spokesperson. Being an elected official doesn't even make you a spokesperson automatically. What makes this person qualified to speak for Israel? Cursed Peace (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

He's hired on behalf of a head of government, for social media relations. With him saying in a Oct. 14 Facebook video that "Netanyahu assigned him to a task force to defend Israel in the media" I shouldn't have to explain this. - LoomCreek (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid the onus is on you to explain it, even if you would prefer not to. I know a social media aide who works for a huge company. She isn't a spokesperson for the company though. She doesn't have insider info. She just helps the less technical people use their accounts. So, I don't believe your claim that all people who help with social media are spokespeople claim, and I need for you to explain it, with citations about the persons position please. Cursed Peace (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps there are sources from the Arabic or Hebrew Wikipedia articles on this topic, which may better clarify exactly what is Hananya Naftali's position/role and job responsibilities? 133.106.34.150 (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

If this is an account authorized to speak on behalf of the Israeli government it shouldn't be this difficult to confirm it. Israel doesn't have secret spokespeople right? Cursed Peace (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

^Citation needed on that point. I think Israel has made its policy of recruiting "private citizens" into its propaganda campaigns crystal clear.

I disagree that the onus is on @LoomCreek to find additional citations when three RS have linked Naftali to the Israeli state apparatus. I think now the onus has shifted and it's time for you to show some indication that he was not posting in his "official capacity". If a government engages someone to use social media on their behalf, and they then post on social media in relation to an ongoing armed conflict prosecuted by that government, how exactly are they not acting within their mandate? How are these the comments of a private citizen? WillowCity (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, read the PolitiFact article. They asked Naftali and Netanyahu's press office for comment and no one answered. The silence is deafening. WillowCity (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The silence is deafening? What does that have to do with the material you want to add? Do you have reliable sources about this deafening silence you want to use for the article? This isn't a forum. Cursed Peace (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not foruming. You seem to imply that the reliable sources can't be trusted until there is some undefined "confirmation" (from whom? The Israeli regime? The subject of the controversy?); I am explaining that this type of "confirmation" has been sought and not received. At no point did I suggest commenting on the absence of a response from the PMO in the article itself, and thus your request for RS is irrelevant, as no OR issues arise. Moreover, I note that you offer no sources supportive of your position (other than SYNTH based on your "friend who works for a huge company"). WillowCity (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait, what? I'm not trying to add a sentence about my friend to the article to draw a new conclusion not backed by the sources, I don't see how wp:synth applies to me explaining that employees are not all official spokepeople. You need to provide a source showing this account is an official source Israeli government statements, or move on. Cursed Peace (talk) 15:40, 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)

Hi @Jeppiz, I've changed the article a bit in a way that I believe addresses your concerns. The info regarding Naftali is still there, but under Al Jazeera's claim. Are we all clear to remove the POV tag? — AdrianHObradors (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @AdrianHObradors, sorry for late reply, been offline. Yes, go ahead if you feel it's OK! Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request - Lede to acknowledge disinformation

On 17 October 2023, an explosion took place in the parking lot of the courtyard of al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, resulting in an unverified number of fatalities and injuries. In the aftermath of the tragedy, the reporting and exchange of inaccurate information led to difficulty establishing accountability, and further contributed to disinformation in the conflict.

Sources:

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/ Inmymoonsuit (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed so long as the wording and sources give WP:DUE weight to disinformation from either side Ashvio (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Would anyone with editing privileges be willing to make such a change? Inmymoonsuit (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)