Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

RfC: Should the article include content regarding the statements of the "Forensic Architecture" group?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus has it that Forensic Architecture's position has been cited widely by reliable sources, and that it therefore is a matter of WP:NPOV to include it. Opposers focused on critiquing FA's reliability, credibility and neutrality, but these arguments were not very successful. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


Should the article include content regarding the statements of the "Forensic Architecture" group? This edit is the challenged content. See discussion above. Neutralitytalk 01:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey

(1) Given the large volume of media coverage of the explosion, there are relatively few news mentions of FA's claim. One of the sources (which includes a one-line mention of FA) is a NYT liveblog (i.e., not a fully reported article). The source that gives it the longest treatment (still only a few sentences) is Al Jazeera, which as noted at RSP, is regarded by many as a "partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict."
(2) Of those sources that do mention FA's tweet, most do so in passing (1-2 sentences).
(3) The reporting on FA's claim originates in the group's tweet that they identify as "preliminary analysis," rather than any report or longer analysis.
(4) There's no indication that FA has any subject-matter expertise on rockets or missiles. Its website's "team" page, as well as descriptions of the group in media reporting, suggest that FA's team consists primarily of architects, designers, and others.
(5) A profile of the group in the New York Times Style Magazine (2021) describes the group as an "activist art" collective that shares "a belief in art as a revolutionary practice." A review of the group in Art in America (2023) says that FA "emphatically refuses to distinguish between art and investigation"; produces "video art" that "muddle[s] index and inference"; believes in "there are no facts, only interpretations"; and takes "post-truth" approach often leans on "fuzzy evidence" and generates "debatable conclusions." This "post-truth"-type approach does not match up with rigor or data.
(6) FA clearly takes a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The NYT Style Magazine says that the group's "ideological opponents" include "pro-Israel activists." Their website is replete with pejoratives like "IOF" and "settler colonialism" and "apartheid state" — all extremely controversial characterizations. While bias alone does not make a source unusable, it's clear FA has an axe to grind here. --Neutralitytalk 02:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Your point (6), and partially point (1), rest on the presumption that biased sources are somehow unreliable, yet this is contradicted by WP:BIASED.VR talk 07:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course, they have been cited in a number of other reliable sources, in addition to being a reliable source themselves. What is being disruptively removed here are citations to 4 (!) reliable sources, the New York Times, Bloomberg News, al-Jazeera, and el Pais. With the exception of el Pais, they are all green at RSP, and el Pais would be if it were ever discussed and added. When reliable sources give weight to a viewpoint then it has WP:DUE weight for inclusion in our article. All the personal opinion on Forensic Architecture's language, qualifications, whatever, is completely and totally outweighed by the fact that four rock solid reliable sources have seen fit to consider their view worthy of inclusion in their discussion on this topic. Right now, we have an enforced POV violation, in which only POVs that reflect what some users agree with are allowed in the article. That goes against the very heart of WP:NPOV, which requires the inclusion of all significant viewpoints. The fact that the New York Times, Bloomberg News, al-Jazeera, and el Pais consider Forensic Architecture's viewpoint important enough to include in their articles makes it a significant viewpoint that must be included in ours. Additionally, the claims of no expertise are just so blatantly false, and proven false on this talk page, that I am astonished that they are repeated here. Their report on Israeli usage of white phosphorous, commissioned by Yesh Gvul, was cited by Human Rights Watch. Architect Magazine reported on their presenting findings related to that report to a UN panel in 2012. They reported with Amnesty International on Israeli attacks on Rafah in 2014. They have expertise not just in the wider field, but in reporting on Gaza and Israel. This idea espoused above that because they have a bias they may not be used goes directly against NPOV and RS, and beyond that FA is not even cited. The reliable sources cited are the New York Times, Bloomberg, al-Jazeera and el Pais. Youd have to claim that all of those have bias so severe that they may not be cited, an argument that is so obviously silly that the editors enforcing their own POV on this article dont even attempt to make it. Also, the description of al-Jazeera is misquoted, from Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. at WP:RSP to here is regarded by many as a "partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict." Hell of an out-of-context (if you can even call such a framing that) use of that quote. nableezy - 02:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    And now the New York Times has published its own analysis lining up with FA's findings. Whodathunkit. Wonder if that will be suppressed as inconvenient to the "correct POV" too? nableezy - 04:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    And noting further that this has now been cited in BBC News as well. I am struggling to see how anybody can claim that this does not have due weight to be included at this point. nableezy - 16:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strongly support inclusion surprised you moved it to an RFC in the first place when the main "concerned" editor just turned out to be a sock. Anywho, the group has won a Peabody Award as well as many other interactive journalism awards. Furthermore, they are cited by sources discussing Forensic Architecture's findings (steaking this from @Nableezy's comment in a different discussion relating to this very article.
Their work doesn't even fully rule out that it might not have been IDF, just that what the IDF reports isn't fully supported by the evidence. This does not even seem to be contrary to the general media narrative. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No. While much of the prior discussion has focused on FA's reliability, for me the issue is that they have only published two tweets about it. If they have something significant to say, they should publish it. In addition, the "preliminary analysis" does not contradict the experts' analyses. The WSJ, AP, and CNN analyses show that the rocket was launched in a northeast direction, before spinning out and falling apart in phases, with the piece that started the rocket fuel fireball eventually falling from the east (which does not mean it was fired from the east). I do not think that the fact that FA is radically anti-Israel--to the point of not being able to call the IDF, the IDF--is inherently disqualifying. Instead, as Neutrality has argued, it's an issue of undue weight, and I would also say false balance, because all they are saying is "Israel's lying," when the real issue is "Did Israel strike a hospital?" | Orgullomoore (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Leaning yes. Though I am unwavering in my opinion that we should not be citing to a series of tweets to support anything, much less these tweets to support this, I do find the fact that FA is cited/mentioned by Al Jazeera, NYT, Bloomberg, El País, and now BBC, to be something that we should not be stubbornly ignoring. A persuasive argument has been made that to omit the reliable sources' coverage of FA's "preliminary analysis" would be to fall short of our commitment "to describe disputes, but not engage in them" (emphasis in original). In other words we would be insisting on giving no weight to something that has been given weight by sources we regularly rely on to discern what is worthy of encyclopedic mention and what is not. | Orgullomoore (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes The group themselves are clearly reliable for the reasons other editors have laid out. That it's just a tweet is an important consideration, but the fact that tweet has been cited by lots of other very reliable sources like the NYT is enough to establish the reliability of the tweet. We should still attribute it and make it clear that it's a tweet and not a full report, but the edit in question does so already. Loki (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No. There are several issues with its inclusion.
1. Tweet format: Imagine Stephen Hawking tweets that our solar system actually has ten planets not eight, would that warrant entry on the wiki entry for our solar system? No. There needs to be some sort of analysis published, proof. Writing a 140 characters about something is an opinion not an argument with any sort of evidence.
2. They're a "post truth art collective" that can't answer as to when artistic research becomes fake news. What more need be said?
3. Obvious bias: The idea that they're some sort of neutral art collective that's publishing this tweet is of course not true. They've posted numerous inflammatory political statements. But their doing this in a professional setting begs the question as to what their motives are. Obviously Nate Silver at 538 votes Democrat, but I don't see him blurring the lines of website and statistical models by political belief.
4. Pejorative language: It's not only totally unprofessional but the inclusion of pejorative language makes it clear that their goal is not to provide analysis but rather to affect change in a political sense. That's fine but then it becomes important to differentiate that. But I think this is one of the clearest insights in to what their purpose is and who their audience is. Their goal is not to provide evidence, they've supplied none, but rather to make inflammatory political statements to advance an agenda.
5. Lack of notability: Going off of what Orgullomoore wrote, if you look at the tweet it self: "Preliminary analysis by FA, @alhaq_org & @earshot_ngo into the #AlAhli hospital blast in Gaza casts significant doubt on IOF claims that the source of the deadly explosion was a Palestinian-fired rocket travelling west to east." It says very little, all it says is that they think the rocket may not have been traveling west to east. This has already been covered in the article.
6. Other thoughts: Not to cast aspersions here, but to speak frankly, obviously the reason that we're having this discussion is that the some editors want a source that points blame at Israel. I mention that because I think there are probably much better ways for this whole thing to have been handled. If the whole thing hadn't turned so adversarial, as evidenced by the previous thread "Forensic Architecture reliability" I think there would have been alot more room to come to a consensus. Really the question at the heart of this is how to present information and represent the views of multiple sources particularly in respect to how WP:Balance and WP:NPOV the article, that instead we have an RFC on the inclusion of Forensic Architects, I think is unfortunate, as it just doesn't seem to me like this is really the core problem and as such ultimately won't solve anything. Alcibiades979 (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Leaning no until they publish their analysis and we see what kind of coverage they get. On one hand, they got some coverage in RS. On the other hand, there are multiple issues of which the most concerning is the lack of clarity on whether they do art or journalism (see u:Neutrality's comment). This also applies to Earshot, whose founder is also primarily a contemporary artist. Another option would be to include their findings putting them in context by adding information about this entities, but that would take a lot of place in an already very long article. Alaexis¿question? 06:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No. This is an obscure group of Palestinian activists, the "analysis" is throughly fake, and expertise in art and architecture is not relevant for rocket artillery analysis. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes of course - as and where referenced by reliable sources, per all the standing dictats of Wikipedia. It's pretty simple: if the reliable sources mention them and their analysis, so do we. We don't get to make a judgment call on their citability. They have already been cited by reliable sources. To exclude material mentioned in multiple RS as part of the overall investigative story is not WP:NPOV, not least if this proposal is based, as it has been by some, on the complaint of bias. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Neutral. While I don’t doubt that Channel 4 would be very reliable as a source, this analysis is just preliminary and other media also say it was initially from the northeast. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes NYT 24 October "A Close Look at Some Key Evidence in the Gaza Hospital Blast" notably says "The Times’s finding does not answer what actually did cause the Al-Ahli Arab hospital blast, or who is responsible. The contention by Israeli and American intelligence agencies that a failed Palestinian rocket launch is to blame remains plausible. But the Times analysis does cast doubt on one of the most-publicized pieces of evidence that Israeli officials have used to make their case and complicates the straightforward narrative they have put forth." and "Asked about The Times’s findings, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said The Times and American intelligence agencies had different interpretations of the video." So the "narrative" remains just that, a narrative, and attempts to exclude properly sourced alternative explanations are ludicrous.Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Of course I fail to see why a reliable source's findings shouldn't be included, even if contradicts findings of majority. It has been reported on by RS, so it is due. It is also not exceptional, because we are attributing its claims and not treating it as truth. With the NYT report casting doubt on the video evidence, there is no room for absolute truth being presented here in the name of Wikipedia, by ignoring dissenting views. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes Clearly attributed. From a source which has received considerable prior recognition for investigative work in other difficult contexts. Considered worthy of discussion by multiple mainstream sources. No doubt in the long term, we would expect more than a Tweet, but as things currently stand it would be thoroughly misleading to exclude mention of a source not in accord with a consensus that seems to have been arrived at in haste. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No. I've been thinking about this one and I believe there are several issues at stake. 1) The first issue is whether FA is reliable. You may say they are reliable by virtue of cites in NYT and a Peabody award, but The Daily Show also has a bunch of Peabodys. Reliability isn't conferred by an award, nor is it conferred by the type of citations we see here, as in passing links to a tweet. What we need are high quality sources that say FA is reliable - or, a demonstrated consensus of reliability by treatment of other sources. The cites in NYT, Bloomberg, AJ, etc do not endorse FA's reliability or their findings. Furthermore, they do not comment on what kind of outlet FA is or whether there is any substance there in terms of our requirements, namely, a reputation for accuracy & fact-checking, in reporting. 2) Even if we assume FA is reliable, is their viewpoint DUE for inclusion. Being DUE means sufficient WEIGHT and not a FRINGE perspective. Some editors believe that, for NPOV, we must seek to include "non-Western consensus" viewpoints. I do not agree that a viewpoint is automatically non-FRINGE for NPOV if we include it because it is "non-Western." Very often, "non-Western" is a code word for bad information. The "Western consensus" does not need to be balanced if that is the consensus in sources. Oftentimes, I've seen the argument that, "the IDF lies about things too." That doesn't matter. The question isn't whether there is a deep-seated lie about world affairs. The question in this case is, what are the reliable sources, mostly saying. We have plenty of sources still considered reliable that don't mind bucking the trend, like The Intercept, The Guardian, Haaretz, The Economist, Jacobin, or whatever, there are tons of sources that will deviate from what the AP/Reuters/NYT/CNN/WSJ/MSNBC/WaPo said. I just don't think this specific scenario is one of those cases. I think in this scenario there's been a herding of the reliable sources that the probably-PIJ-rocket is the best explanation, and this comes from reliable experts. I don't think "the other side's experts" get a fair say according to NPOV, that would be FRINGE if there's no meat there, and I haven't seen it. WP:VNOT, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:BALASP. 3) Now, that being said, I do favor a carve-out for AJ. AJ is super notable and important unlike FA, so I would favor attributing to AJ their continued maverick view on this. Andre🚐 15:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes because we summarize what reliable sources say. The edit in question is cited to reliable sources like NYT, Al Jazeera, El Pais and Bloomberg News. If RSes covered a report issued by Ronald McDonald, we would still include that in our article, because we summarize what RS say. We don't second-guess RS. We don't evaluate the experts cited by RS to see if we agree they're experts. Do you think NYT, Al Jazeera, El Pais and Bloomberg News are RS? Well, they're reporting on what FA says, so we summarize it. Levivich (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, per nableezy's arguments, and the following:
Being quoted by reliable sources gives them weight. That weight is refutable. Obviously we get to evaluate whether reliable sources are reliable in context, and we do so regularly. But here we have no basis to disbelieve their claims. No evidence that they're misrepresenting primary sources, or using bad-faith logic, for example. The "post-truth", "fuzzy evidence" piece presented in the nom is an interesting read, but not quite an indictment of FA. El País, a newspaper of record, said that FA has done brilliant work in the region. That's an endorsement of FA's reliability within the specific context we'll use it in. Reliable French newspaper Médiapart has co-published FA's work a number of times, they've been praised in Frankfurter Allgemeine (German newspaper of record), and they're a partner of Le Monde (French newspaper of record) and of Médiapart (reliable French newspaper). These are all endorsements of their investigations' reliability.
FA does say that their analysis is preliminary. So did U.S. intelligence. At this point, all analysis is still preliminary, especially given the recent NYT report.
Since WP:FRINGE was brought up: it's common for there to be a dominant view and a minority view in reliable sources. When a minority view is presented as reliable by RS, it is not WP:FRINGE. That minority view must be included, per WP:NPOV. It's also untrue that there's a consensus among Western sources, again see yesterday's NYT report. (And a research group at University of London does not represent "non-Western" viewpoints.) And to be clear, I don't agree that FA has a minority view, I'm only addressing arguments as presented. There's no "minority" and "majority" when we're still in preliminary stages with many facts unclear (see NYT, again)
Since they're often critical of Israel, we can mention that (as the NYT does) and let readers come to their own conclusions. But it should be included. DFlhb (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Forgot to respond to another argument (this one from Andrevan): when a reliable source brings up another source without comment as to its reliability, we can argue it's a non-endorsement, but generally, per WP:UBO, the opposite is true, and we treat the fact that it was mentioned without criticism as a de facto "semi"-endorsement of sorts. DFlhb (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes: The source is cited by other reliable sources. A quite similar analysis is put forward by the Times. --Mhhossein talk 18:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
    How do you come to the conclusion that the analysis is similiar? I don't agree at all. Aeonx (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes - And I agree with some people above that it is useful to cite the original tweet thread alongside the secondary sources that quote it, to ensure they are properly archived and check they are not misquoted in secondary sources. I'm undecided on their accuracy or credibility, but if they are widely reported in major media then that in itself is an important part of the story. The public debate and how it unfolded is just as important as the physics. Irtapil (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No: After a detailed review of recent Forensic Architecture content is it clear they are not providing a NPOV analysis on this topic, and it is unlikely that their analysis is credible - regardless of which News networks have decided to publish it. There is also no secondary analysis by independent parties or relevant published experts that supports their hypothesis and rather plentful analysis (with evidence) from such experts that refutes it. It's inclusion would result in undue weight to a fringe theory by non-expert non-neutral commentators. It is not encyclopedic content and has no place in Wikipedia. My review also supports the same conclusion made by Andre above.Aeonx (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    Just to be clear: there's no obligation for any individual source to be NPOV, and in fact this is impossible since WP:NPOV does not describe having a single neutral point of view but rather that we should be neutrally reflecting all significant reliably sourced points of view. Loki (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Bias leads to questions of reliability; just like it would do so in a scientific or medical journal article. Aeonx (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
    Here, one would need to show a severe bias in order to question reliability, to the point of misrepresentation or falsehood. WP is not a journal, we don't do peer review, we just report what RS say, even if it later turns out to be wrong. Selfstudier (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes largely per nableezy. --Andreas JN466 22:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes It can be suitable to be so, as other users said (Yes).Ali Ahwazi (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes - Per Nableezy & Levivich who made fantastic points on the subject. This looks to be edging towards snow territory. PackMecEng (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes (brought here by Feedback Request Service) Coverage by The New York Times, Bloomberg News, Al Jazeera and El País is sufficient to establish WP:DUE weight for inclusion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes I have serious misgivings about the impartiality of this group coloring their analysis, especially given that they use the "IOF" moniker, but we follow the reliable sources rather than our own analysis, so as long as places like the NY Times are using them, so should we. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, based on numerous comments above. Reliable doesn't mean wholly impartial. I think SNOW is in the forecast... WillowCity(talk) 01:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes of course per most previous comments. FA highly respected and noteworthy, and easy to source via reliable secondary sources if that's a concern. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes given Nableezy has pointed to reliable sources that quote the FA on this matter.VR talk 07:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

re: Neutrality's comment: I don't think remarks that the Israeli Defense Force, which is occupying the West Bank is also an occupation force is particularly pejorative, and while claims of apartheid might be contested they are certainly discussed at length by academics. The founder is Israeli. I think excluding them due to "bias" ignores legitimate research and findings. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian: Respectfully, there is a difference between opposing an organization's practices and arbitrarily renaming the organization. The closest analogy would be if we had a source calling the U.S. DOD the DOW or DOO (Department of War or Department of Offense instead of Department of Defense). It's not that this is an unreasonable position; instead (IMHO), it's that this is a childish way of expressing disagreement. | Orgullomoore (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
It is an incredibly common way of referring to the Israeli army in the Arab world, youre basically ruling out a huge proportion of Palestinian voices with such a rule. To me it is closer to Arabs calling ISIS "daesh" instead of "el dawla al islamiya", its a way of mocking your oppressor (daesh, an acronym for the Arabic of a long form of the name for ISIS, sounding similar to the word for weak in Arabic). nableezy - 02:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
It's not uncommon, but it is unserious. It's an insult, and meant to be an insult. Same thing with داعش which is an acronym of the local chapter -الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشام - that sounds like داعس (I think that's what you're referring to). But insults are for playgrounds, not for serious academic writing. Whereas Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch refer to an apartheid state, they don't (to my knowledge) refer to the IDF as the IOF. Example AI ("Israel: IDF Inquiry into Qana a whitewash"); Example HRW. Whereas wikt:apartheid is a description of a state of affairs ("A policy or situation of segregation based on some specified attribute"), IOF is an epithet. It's name-calling. I suppose it's related to the third of the "Three Noes." Anyway, I think we're getting into the weeds here, because as I mentioned my issue with including the tweet is not the obvious partisanship of the source, but the fact that it doesn't add anything to the subject at hand. They say the projectile came from the east; nobody said it didn't, and plenty of other, less blatantly mocking sources, did. | Orgullomoore (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I would say it's less insult, more intellectual/moral disdain for the proposition that what the IDF engages in is "defense" - something that is for sure questioned on a regular basis. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
So an intellectual insult? I don’t think any reliable sources have called it that Aaron Liu (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter whether it's common in the Arab world or whether it's pejorative or intellectual/moral disdain for the meaning of the name. The only neutral term is their official name, and that's the one a source a non-partisan source would use. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Nobody claimed they were unbiased. That isnt relevant to the discussion however. nableezy - 20:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

One more thing, these findings are the result of a joint investigation by London-based FA, Earshot and West-bank-based Al-Haq. The latter is somewhat controversial, with Israel claiming that it's linked to PFLP. In case we do include their findings we need to list all the contributors to the investigation, including Al Haq. Alaexis¿question? 09:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli claims about Al-Haq, including their so called "terrorist" designation, have been rubbished by pretty much everybody. No problem with including them. Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying that they are terrorists. I'm saying that as a Palestinian organisation whose mission is "realise the aspirations of the Palestinian people in a free, independent, sovereign and democratic Palestine," they might be biased, which adds to other concerns I wrote about earlier. Alaexis¿question? 12:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
All sources are biased, just a question of how much and it doesn't mean they are not reliable. Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that Al-Haq is unreliable? Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
My suggestion was to mention them and let the reader decide whether to trust the findings more or less because of it. Alaexis¿question? 19:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

re Nableezy's second comment: I can't speak for everyone else, but I have no intention of trying to "suppress" it. NYT is practically canonical and seas apart from a tweet from an anti-Israel activist. I haven't had a chance to review the article, but I support it being incorporated fully. | Orgullomoore (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the channel 4 source? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I thought it was a pretty good summary of what we know and don't know and the questions raised. I didn't find it to be partisan. I wish there was more coverage on the authenticity of the recording; it's the only source I've seen that even touches that. | Orgullomoore (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The NYT took "A Close Look at Some Key Evidence", i.e., one video out of at least four that other RS analyzed (WSJ, AP, both cited in Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#Analyses. Then there are the experts who weighed in on the evidence visible on the ground (crater, minor damage to surrounding buildings, etc.), cited in Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#Rocket_vs_airstrike. They're all supporting the majority opinion that the explosion was not caused by an Israeli airstrike. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

And so what? What does that have to do with DUE weight for Forensic Architecture? But they actually used 3 videos, the al-Jazeera broadcast and two from Israel pointed at Gaza. nableezy - 14:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

re Andrevan's comment: I mostly agree, but channel 4 was significant coverage and I haven’t seen anyone talk about it yet. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd favor a similar carve-out to discuss Ch4 and the BBC, but not for the lead. Andre🚐 16:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
What is Channel 4 News's importance for UK news? According to their WP page, they don't even produce their news programs? That goes to due weight since other RS, Bloomberg, for example, cite Channel 4 citing Forensic Architecture. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Here is BBC, today "The Forensic Architecture agency, a UK-based organisation which investigates human rights abuses, has carried out its own analysis of the crater, and suggests it is more consistent with the impact marks from an artillery shell which it concludes came from the direction of Israel. It says that the scarring patterns above the crater are consistent with the shrapnel damage that would be expected from an artillery strike." Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: I know it's not our job to critique the BBC, but I think it's worth noting that the tweet apparently forming the basis of the text you quoted says: "Our/ @CobbSmith’s analysis of the crater size suggests a munition larger than eg a Spike or Hellfire missile commonly used by IOF drones. It is more consistent w/ the impact marks from an artillery shell—but w/o additional material evidence, we cannot make a definitive assessment." The words "carried out" in the text you quoted link to this tweet. The sentence before the sentence you quoted in the BBC article is: "However in the past week, not every analysis has agreed with this." ("This" referring to conclusion that leftover fuel and propellant was ignited by failed rocket hitting parking lot). It appears to me that FA is included for the purpose of having a competing narrative–any competing narrative. I will say, though, that I feel unstable in my "no" !vote. Though I am unwavering in my opinion that we should not be citing to a series of tweets to support anything, much less these tweets to support this, I do find the fact that FA is cited/mentioned by Al Jazeera, NYT, Bloomberg, El País, and now BBC something that we should not be stubbornly ignored. A persuasive argument has been made that we would be falling short of our commitment "to describe disputes, but not engage in them" (emphasis in original). I hope I won't be criticized for being overly susceptible to persuasive arguments, but I am going to change my !vote to leaning yes. | Orgullomoore (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
L'Orient-Le Jour also covered Forensic Architecture/al-Haq/Earshot's work today.[1] | Orgullomoore (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I’m not sure why the fact that ITN produces their news is important. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Neither Channel 4 nor ITN is mentioned in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Are they reliable for fact-checking, verifying sources, etc., are they non-partisan? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be no reason to doubt their factuality and it qualifies for the general criteria, so yes. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Television in the United Kingdom ("All providers make available the UK's five most-watched channels: BBC One, BBC Two, ITV (ITV1/STV), Channel 4 and Channel 5") & ITN (Between 1955 and 1999, ITN was more commonly known as the general brand name of ITV's news programmes. Since 8 March 1999, ITV has used ITV News as the brand name for its news programmes, though ITN continues as the network's news provider). Presumed reliable. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I know its early in the 30 day RFC timeline, but we are now at something like 12-5 in vote count and now BBC is also citing this. In 30 days time this will likely not even be relevant as we will have probably many more articles examining this issue and providing more information. Neutrality I know you said you were backing away from this article, but are you willing to concede there is at least a rough consensus here for inclusion and self-revert the removal so we can add BBC as well? Can always remove it if consensus shifts somehow. nableezy - 17:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Easy does it. Consensus isn't a vote. Andre🚐 00:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Im aware. But holding this up when there is a clear consensus for it currently is an issue, and this isnt a bureaucracy. Do you dispute there exists a clear consensus for inclusion now? nableezy - 00:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
There's definitely a stronger majority and if the discussion were closed today (2 days in) it would definitely go that way in my view. Let's give it at least a couple more days before asking for an involved closer if you think the consensus is so clear. OK? Andre🚐 00:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Im just saying that with a story moving this fast that waiting days seems pointless, and personally I think ONUS has been satisfied at this point, and it should be included unless and until there is not consensus for it. Not going to force the issue, but I think even the no !voters can see the writing on the wall, and Id hope that since we are all Team Wikipedia that we not put up procedural roadblocks to stall against what, again to me, seems pretty clear cut in terms of consensus. nableezy - 01:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.dw.com/en/gaza-hospital-blast-what-investigations-have-revealed-so-far/a-67237447 posted down below, as of today, again citing C4/FA and the rest. Conclusion "There is still little clarity about the deadly explosion at a Gaza hospital on October 17." About right. Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This has reached SNOW territory, Im restoring it now. nableezy - 01:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about the RfC, no it hasn't. You'd need quite a bit more yesses for an involved course. Requesting a WP:CR is much better. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Arguably, opening an RFC just to block the addition of properly sourced material was somewhat disruptive to begin with and I very much doubt that the RFC would be closed as anything other than for inclusion at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Considering that there are two-week-+-old requests, maybe. If people would think so then IAR is available, and I guess SNOW is an extension of that. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
There is very obvious consensus in the above section. If you want to request an admin to review feel free. But pretending there is not a clear consensus is silly imo. nableezy - 14:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok, with the recent !votes it does seem like SNOW territory Aaron Liu (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Can we get an uninvolved editor to close this? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:CR, which we already have, is the best bet. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Academic perspective on disputes here and errors

I wanted to add an academic perspective here; I will defer to others who have longer histories with Wikipedia on internal Wikipedia policies and standards. But on some of the issues here, a scholarly perspective could help:

1.) Forensic Architecture is a highly respected source within academic analysis. Their work is regularly cited across a number of social and even occasionally natural scientific fields as highly rigorous and reliable.(c.f. for example, the sheer breadth and general use of Weizman et al.'s 2014 book (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=4294752780594364223&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en). Above it seems like consensus was reached about this but the opening part of this page does not reflect what is to many scholars the best game in town for this kind of thing. I think their provisional analysis which disputes the more journalistic accounts deserves mention probably at the end of the opening section. Especially since they are very reliable and their portrait emphasizes cautious, preliminary facts and uncertainty which, truth be told, is the reality at the moment. Given the nature and danger of doing history in real time, this kind of caution seems prudent. Currently the impression is given that the dispute is one largely between many "independent analysts" and accounts solely from "Hamas" and "Islamic Jihad." This does not seem remotely neutral to me or in line with a plain reading of the Wikipedia policy especially considering these kinds of accounts are often settled but usually a year or more after the fact. They are rarely settled by journalists in real time but, for example, most Israeli and Palestinian academic histories largely agree now on past controversies, including recent ones. Interpretations and causality, etc. are of course disputed. But this article should not give IMO the impression that even a preponderance has been concluded. Currently, it heavily suggests that the Israeli story is correct and simply awaiting further post facto confirmation. T

2.) "Hamas-run" in the lead is unnecessary. The Gaza Health Ministry has been consistently reliable according to numerous international sources for years, both before and after Hamas seized power. (c.f. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/despite-bidens-doubts-humanitarian-agencies-consider-gaza-toll-reliable-2023-10-27/) This "Hamas-run" language (particularly in English) is almost entirely new for this particular episode in the conflict. The Israeli government recently revised down its October 7th estimates. Does that mean we should always assume it is lying? No. That is simply normal for figures during wartime. As Hamas is widely covered in Western/Anglophone sources as an extremist group (appropriately), adding "Hamas-run" seems to add little here but to discredit what is widely regarded as an accurate source. If it remains, then literally every statement from Israeli gov should be similarly marked "current extreme-right coalition"; "fascist coalition government," "current theocratic and ethnocratic coalition," etc. I hope that we can see how that would be silly and also controversial and in no way leading us back from this morass to something resembling neutrality.

3.) Overall, I would suggest much greater caution on this and similar articles. The information we are conveying is being used to adjudicate serious disputes before clarity has been achieved and frankly even as causus belli (on both sides). Whole sections (for example the rocket vs. airstrike section) simply repeats ad nauseum information now not really in question and already covered. (In question is Israeli shelling or Palestinian rocket misfire. And as such most of those analyses are no longer relevant. Furthermore, the journalistic sources are often just citing each other.) I am relatively new here but was shocked to see this article which does not seem to live up to the standards instructed in the onboarding and policy materials. Profloab (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Profloab Thank you for taking the time to write all that out. Re: # 1, please use {{TextDiff}} to clearly convey the changes you are proposing. The format is {{TextDiff|Current text.|Proposed text.}} Re: # 2, this is a hotly contested issue. You can find a very similar debate here. Many agree with you; many do not. It's an unsettled issue. I personally disagree with you for the reasons I stated and re-stated until becoming blue in the face at the linked discussion. Re: # 3, again, if you have concrete changes, please use {{TextDiff}}; the general observation is reflected in WP:RECENT and is a known side-effect of having a platform that can be edited in real time by humans who are naturally excited about what is new. Welcome to Wikipedia. --Orgullomoore (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the courteous and prompt response (despite differing points-of-view). I didn't realize there were such formal rules for a Talk page but I will try to adhere to them better in the future. Profloab (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Death toll misreporting

Hi! I read this article from a serious journalist investigating that the initial report from the Health Ministry of 500 deaths did in fact not happen, but was a game of telephone between journalists picking up a mistranslation and then repeating it. Apparently, the health ministry claimed over 500 "victims".

Might not be the most important thing in the world, but reading it I figured it would be of interest to the people here maintaining the article, for accuracy;

https://www.silentlunch.net/p/did-the-entire-media-industry-misquote TanteRouge (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Its irrelevant because of the 471 report William M. Connolley (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
What's the primary source for the 471 deaths? This article should be based on high-quality secondary sources, not that (hypothetical) primary source, but I think questions about the accuracy of our secondary sources, including things like translation errors, are quite germane.
I wouldn't advocate changing anything in this article purely on the basis of that link, but paying attention to further discussion on the topic, and asking after the quality of the sources this article uses, seems appropriate. Evand (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The infobox links to an article by The Guardian, in relation to reports on the 471 deaths. 133.106.140.85 (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Right. That's the article that OP is criticizing. From said article: "Palestinian officials blamed an Israeli airstrike for the explosion that Gaza’s health ministry said on Wednesday had killed 471 Palestinians and wounded 314 others."
The article in The Guardian does not appear to me to be a primary source. It does not include a video or transcript of the claim. There is no suggestion or evidence that the reporter writing the article was present at the conference, or interviewed the unnamed representative from the health ministry. It seems to me to clearly be a secondary source, of exactly the sort the misreporting writeup is calling into question. It does not cite its sources. In fact, the writeup specifically calls out The Guardian, I believe referring to exactly this article. The author says they attempted to contact the reporter without success.
I don't think pointing to the exact source being criticized is actually a valid response to this sort of criticism.
If I missed something, could you point it out more specifically with a quote or specific citation? Evand (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The article as it stands today says that 471 was revised from an earlier claim of 500. So at the very least, that "earlier claim of 500" part should be removed or edited, as there is no primary source for it - the Silent Lunch author conscientiously searched for a primary source and (most likely) found it in a mistaken tweet from Al Jazeera English that mistranslates the reporting from Al Jazeera Arabic.
In light of the prior form with the 500, lessons should be learned and the 471 also should not be uncritically included here (without any caveating tags) until a reliable primary source is found. Elcalebo (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Now his analysis is referred in the Tablet magazine. If it is quoted by RSs, may be noteworthy enough to be included in the article. Deinocheirus (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


A senior European intelligence official speaking to Agence France-Presse (AFP), on the condition of anonymity, has reported that 10-50 deaths occured. https://humanevents.com/2023/10/19/number-of-dead-in-gaza-hospital-blast-revised-from-500-to-10-50-european-intelligence-source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvynadam (talk • contribs) 11:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I have never heard of that website before, but at first glance it does not look the slightest but credible and reading the article itself so far confirms that. e.g. "…who asked 'Where are all the bodies?' Le Point reports." BURIED! Within 24 hours is the religious convention, but they'd also be buried quickly for public health reasons. The hospitals are all struggling to cope, they have limited or no electricity, and there have been thousands more deaths than usual. Nobody is Gaza is going to be finding room for 500 extra bodies, or 471, in a morgue refrigerator that needs electricity to stay cold. AFP runs a bell as something reputable, but this is one annon source with some fairly daft speculation. Irtapil (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Second Paragraph can be misleading

In the second paragraph in the lead of the article there is this part:

"""

A few days prior to the incident, the hospital had received evacuation orders from Israel, and was hit by Israeli rocket fire, which damaged two floors and injured four staff members. The incident that followed...

"""

This way of presenting the information links the major explosion in the hospital to the Israeli rocket fire that is discussed in the beginning of the paragraph.

The information about the Israeli rocket fire prior to the major explosion should be in a different paragraph, so that the main explosion will not be confused with the earlier attack. The current form of paragraph 2 doesn't fit WP:NPOV.

I suggest something like:

"""

A few days prior to the incident, the hospital had received evacuation orders from Israel, and was hit by Israeli rocket fire, which damaged two floors and injured four staff members.

On 17 October 2023 a large explosion took place at the hospital while many displaced Palestinians were taking refuge in it. Reports of the number of fatalities vary widely, with the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry reporting 471 killed, and the Anglican diocese that manages the hospital reporting 200 people, while US intelligence agencies assessed a death toll between 100 and 300.

"""

HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. I think it's also wise to add a sentence first that states how Israel has bombed hospitals in the past -/ there's already a section on this. Hovsepig (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
SO WHY IT HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTED??? 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:904B:171F:1846:C9CF (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Well someone has to submit an edit request :p Hovsepig (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the general idea, however the wording you've suggested makes the beginning of this paragraph almost identical to the first sentence "On 17 October 2023 a large explosion took place..." Maybe there is a way to change it a bit? Alaexis¿question? 08:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I submitted an edit request, using a different Wording as suggested. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I can't quite follow the change you want? does it look better now? Irtapil (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The issue I talked about is already fixed, thank you however for the willingness to help :)
HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Audio recording

There's a subsection on how publicly-available audio recording is dubious. Given that was one of the earlier evidence provided by Israel, I suggest the following

1) the introduction section should state that israel provided dubious audio recordings, which further made it unclear how Israel's culpability got confusing

2) the audio section now says there's more audio evidence. But is that audio publicly available at all? Hovsepig (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That section currently looks ok to me, is there still a problem? Irtapil (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Continued POV

In 11 years at Wikipedia, I struggle to remember a stronger POV than here. The article continues to lean heavily towards an anti-Israeli POV. Despite a strong consensus that the explosion was caused by a misfired rocket, the lede's first paragraph implicits Israel (mentioning only an Israeli warning, not a word about the misfired rocket). The lede also finishes by saying it lead to accusations against Israel. We're in the bizarre situation of not only trying to conceal the perpetrator from the infobox, but even pretending it was Israel instead. As per WP:NPOV, we are to present the facts as reported in reliable sources. This article currently does the opposite. Jeppiz (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Which sources are not represented correctly? Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
The article, or rather the lede, does not build on the sources. There is nothing in the infobox on the perpetrator, despite plenty of reliable sources. Same thing, the first paragraph reads as if it were Israel that bombed the hospital. In short, there is a clear consensus in sources that a misfired rocket hit the hospital. That consensus is poorly represented in the lede, and absent from the infobox. Jeppiz (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
There's no consensus of that, and if you think there is, you clearly haven't read the later reports properly. The only firm consensus is that no consensus will be readily attainable unless experts can get in and study the site. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Can I remind you that "consensus" does not mean "unanimity". There is certainly a consensus in reliable sources. Jeppiz (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
That is definitely not true, and if you could establish that here instead of just proclaiming it as fact that would be lovely. nableezy - 23:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Pro-Palestinian people have mostly given up discussing it because Israel has given up the pretence that it does not bomb hospitals since this event. 149.248.103.115 (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I do think the second paragraph of the lead ("A few days prior to the incident, the hospital had received evacuation orders from Israel, and was hit by Israeli rocket fire, which damaged two floors and injured four staff members.") is given undue weight because it insinuates Israeli authorship and suggests the two incidents are related. That sentence or its relatives have been added and removed numerous times since the article's inception. Seems some people just can't help themselves from making Wikipedia their soapbox, unfortunately. But the article itself is not anything close to the strongest POV I've seen in the last 11 years. I agree that the perpetrator field of the infobox should remain omitted. The admonition at Template:Infobox military conflict seems on point: "Information in the infobox should not be 'controversial'. Refer the reader to an appropriate section in the article or leave the parameter blank rather than make an unsubstantiated or doubtful claim." | Orgullomoore (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree regarding the second paragraph of the lede. Alaexis¿question? 08:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I do not think a single line on this is undue. That there were calls to evacuate and warning shots is extremely widely reported. However it does not need its own paragraph and could be trimmed down. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
If circumstantial insinuation belonged in the lead (and I strongly believe it does not), then we would need to balance that with the circumstance that the Palestinian militant groups were publicizing their unguided rocket launches contemporaneously with the explosion and that they have a track record of accidentally hitting targets within Gaza. This would cause the lead to be as big as the background, which would not be helpful. | Orgullomoore (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
That's apples and oranges. The IDF did hit this specific hospital with a "warning missile" and call for it's evacuation (not least to mention that in hindsight that it clearly has zero compunction with striking hospitals). The forewarnings are widely mentioned and directly associated background information. That missiles can misfire is just speculative general trivia. As for the "contemporaneously" part, the NYT analysis debunked this. The explosion was five seconds after the last missile volley. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not that "missiles can misfire" in general. It's that there's plenty of evidence of very specific Hamas rockets being fired over that site and falling short just before the explosion. Plus the photographic evidence from the hospital parking which is entirely inconsistent with IDF hits but consistent with DIY rocket kinetic hit. Plus Hamas refusal to allow any independent experts to the site and their absurd claims that there was no rocket remains on the site because "it all turned into steam". Cloud200 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
"refusal to allow any independent experts to the site" - yes, because as we know, there's a free flow of international experts in and out of Gaza at the moment. No. Part of the whole problem is that no independent experts can get into Gaza. Hamas didn't provide physical evidence of the projectile type, that is all. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
That is part of the problem. Another part is that, after saying that they had the munition, PIJ/Hamas then told journalists that it had "dissolved like salt in water," so they have nothing to show. Riiiiight... | Orgullomoore (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the BBC reporting that "[p]ictures taken in the immediate aftermath show Hamas-led security forces on the scene, with officers wearing tops with logos of the Palestinian police's Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit examining the crater". So, no molten metal, no residue of anything anywhere on the compound. Also, BTW, no pictures of the hundreds of dead bodies and injured.) Yeah, right. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
It is undisputed that IDF called for evacuation. That there was a "warning missile" I think is more controversial. I've seen a press conference where a member of the hospital staff/clergy says they took on rocket fire damage, but he doesn't have any way of knowing where the rocket came from. Do you have a source that confirms the IDF hit the hospital with warning missiles? Who is to say that it wasn't another misfired Palestinian rocket that grazed the hospital? Palestinian militant groups clearly have zero compunction with amateurishly firing unreliable rockets from right next to civilian objects, so... I don't see how it's not equivalent. Hamas/PIJ were publicizing their rockets and one of their rockets hit the hospital (or at least a great many sources have come to the conclusion that this is the most likely scenario). Again, this is why the circumstantial insinuation does not belong in the lead. It just complicates things. Keep it simple. | Orgullomoore (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not just that rockets can misfire, it's that they frequently do and Hamas/PIJ hides it after the fact and blames it on Israel. See, e.g., here and here. You will see that Palestinian sources are blaming Israel for striking al-Omari mosque on 10 May 2021, and that HRW subsequently determined from examining the site, munitions, and witness statements that it was a Palestinian rocket. | Orgullomoore (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Partial record of misfired Hamas rockets can be found here Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel#Misfired_rockets (note it's only the most tragic ones). Most notably it also shows a pattern: Hamas always blames all explosions on Israel airtstrikes as a principle, months later UN or journalists identify some of them as Hamas rockets but nobody cares by then. There was one case in 2019 where Hamas admitted their rocket fell short and killed civilians in Gaza. Cloud200 (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Here's another one I came across from August 2022. | Orgullomoore (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I count within five seconds as contemporaneously. | Orgullomoore (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The IDF did hit this specific hospital — that's disputed. See the Washington Post article cited in the second paragraph of Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#Incident_on_14_October_2023. One of the POV problems with this article is the press releases issued right after the explosion when everybody, including Anglican Church officials, uncritically went with Hamas's announcement of an Israeli attack on the hospital. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I dont think thats actually disputed, what is disputed is that it was targeted. nableezy - 18:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Just so happens that Le Monde found a picture of the shell from the first incident 3 days earlier and showed it to experts, who concluded it is probably a 155 mm illumination projectile. See here. Quote: According to several specialists, the photo shows a 155 mm caliber shell. Richard Stevens, of the CAT-UXO collective, which specializes in collating information about explosive devices, said: "It looks like there's an underlying color of yellow that may indicate that it's a 155mm illumination projectile. As a carrier projectile, it would have ejected its illumination candle in flight and then fallen to the ground. There is no high-explosive detonation to the projectile hence it is intact." Shockingly, Le Monde made numerous attempts to contact the Palestinian police and Hamas, neither of which answered. | Orgullomoore (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Just realized that WaPo also determined this to be an illumination round: On Oct. 14, just three days before the hospital explosion, hospital officials said the facility had been struck by another projectile, and a video filmed inside showed a 155mm artillery illumination shell sitting on the floor of a room with a large hole in the wall. | Orgullomoore (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
And the NYT also calls it an illumination round. | Orgullomoore (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Coming back to the article after a couple weeks I find it kind of funny just how slanted it's become. Somehow, despite essentially every reliable source stating that a failed palestinian rocket was the most reliable scenario here, the lede doesn't reflect that. This article has issues. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Except that it does? There was widespread, though not unanimous, agreement among experts in munitions that the most likely cause of the explosion was a misfired rocket. I consider it a success that we are being accused by both sides of bias in favor of the other side. If the accusations were one-sided, that would be an indication that the article was one-sided. But since both parties appear to be dissatisfied that we have given too much space to the competing narrative, we are probably close to a NPOV. | Orgullomoore (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Except it doesn't? The sources are essentially unambigous at this point, and the lede isn't. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I have an issue with the last sentence, because is has no bearing on who's guilty, and isn't treated by sources as if it did, but its presence in the "who's guilty paragraph" implies guilt. It doesn't seem more lead-worthy than any of the other details we mention. No objection to mentioning the illumination flare that hit the hospital 3 days earlier, earlier in the lead. DFlhb (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I removed the sentence. The "who's guilty paragraph" is actually the "opinions on and assessments of the cause differ" paragraph". I removed mention of the (presumed) illumination shell that landed in the ultrasound room on October 14 from the lead. It also doesn't belong in the lead because it's a different incident mentioned briefly in the background section, and it also implies guilt ("they did it before, so they did this, too"). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Have you read the pages about Taiwan? Or attempted to edit them? Irtapil (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel and PIJ in the infobox

@Parham wiki You recently filled in PIJ and Israel in the infobox. Can you please remove it? In the alternative, community, can we please discuss (again) whether it should remain? I cannot remove it myself because I already reverted Irtapil (at their request) within the last 24 hours. At a prior discussion, archived here, we arrived at the solution of omitting the accused parties from the infobox because of the uncertainty. It has since been removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, and added. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Parham wiki (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much 💓 --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Perpetrator

Can we put "disputed", with or without footnotes as the perpetrator in the infobox? TimeEngineer (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn't really disputed, most reliable sources say it was probably a Palestinian rocket. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Already discussed and decision to leave it blank because it is disputed. Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@Selfstudier Just because it's disputed doesn't mean we can't put that fact into the infobox. TimeEngineer (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I didn't participate in the discussion myself but leaving it blank seems reasonable, prevents POV push via infobox. Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
The issue last time around was that it was considered NPOV to have it as "disputed" when there was no real dispute other than speculation and bias-driven accusations that it could have been or should have been Israel. So we just left it out and left the ambiguity to the body of the article. The prior Noticeboard discussion is here, for what it's worth. | Orgullomoore (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the pro-Palestinian editors refuse to allow that. Funny considering that if the international consensus was the other way and most sources believed Israel did it, they wouldn't rest until that was said in the infobox. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:D016:C6A8:C3CA:36C8 (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't know which section {{Infobox event}} "disputed" would go in? Irtapil (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
@Selfstudier and TimeEngineer: etc. I found the {{Infobox event}} has an "accused" section. "Accused" implies nothing about who actually did it? And it's indisputable that the accusations have been made in public? I think it's useful to have something there, because the possibilities are infinite, but there's only 2 or 3 competing claims: a PIJ misfire, an IDF airstrike, and possibly Iron Dome if that counts as a third? i.e. most sources are more specific than "Palestinian". A few media sources blame "Hamas" but that's an inaccurate over simplification. The IDF side of the story has consistently been that it was PIJ specifically, and nobody is (seriously) saying it was the DFLP, or PFLP, or a long range Houthi missile, etc. Irtapil (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
detailed option?
accused =
 Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) misfired rocket
 Israeli Air Force airstrike
 Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Iron Dome
or simpler?
accused =
 Palestinian Islamic Jihad
 Israel Defense Forces
There are some that maybe don't fit any of those specific three, e.g. a "rocket fired from Israeli town of Nahal Oz" in Dawn (a moderately reputable newspaper from Pakistan), and I'm not sure if that describes the iron dome or something else? So the simpler version might be better? Irtapil (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Opening lead in article is misleading

this following opening section is misleading, and gives an impression that there is consensus among analysts about the cause of the blast, when in fact consensus at the moment is that exact cause is not known.

Several independent media outlets, citing expert analysis and analyzing publicly available videos of the explosion, said that the damage was consistent with a failed Palestinian rocket launch Marshmallowjunkie (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Please follow WP:EDITXY --Orgullomoore (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think saying "several" implies a consensus. How would you rephrase it to make it clearer that the cause is disputed? Irtapil (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
the publicly available and most cited video so far for claiming that it was a Palestinian rocket has been proven to be a Iron dome missile (as per NYT investigation), so this could be misleading to put it in context of publicly available videos.
further more all these independent media outlets cited here, never say that it was "consistent" with a failed Palestinian rocket, they all precisely mention in their reports that cause is unknown. Marshmallowjunkie (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

Your article should include a description of and link to this video https://rumble.com/embed/v3nnl6p/?pub=jj93z showing firstly a known use of a JDAM bomb and then the explosion at the Al Ahli hospital. The sound of the falling projectile and the look of the resulting explosion are very similar in the two clips. The video is nineteen minutes or so long but the two video clips occur in the latter half of the first minute. Take a look. Chrisrushlau (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see WP:OR Cannolis (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


PIJ accused

Is there a good reason we can't specify Palestinian Islamic Jihad as "accused" in the info box? To be honest I haven't managed to catch up on the archived conversation. But just PIJ seems like an option thar wasn't discussed? Is there a short version of what the problem was with listing both as accused? Personally, I think it would be wrong to leave out the Israeli Airforce from "accused" section, but if that was the controversial aspect then I would prefer to specify which Gazan faction was accused rather than leave it as nothing. Irtapil (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The 'Doppler Effect' investigation

I see that the Doppler effect analysis is explicitly mentioned in the article. The mentioned analysis (https://nitter.net/earshot_ngo/status/1715386372532416647) has a fundamental misunderstanding of the Doppler effect.

The pitch change from the Doppler effect is a function of the relative velocity of the object, not of the distance of the object; Hence, the highest pitch is heard when the object is accelerating the fastest towards the microphone, and not when it is closest to the microphone as the investigators claim.

Any conclusions drawn from this mistake are obviously meaningless. Citing a source with such a blatant physics error is misleading, in my opinion. Another source that reputes those conclusions is mentioned in the next paragraph, but the whole section creates a false sense of a 'dispute', when one of the sides does not know the difference between distance and velocity. 147.235.221.35 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can only use published sources, otherwise it would be WP:OR. Do you know if someone has published such a debunking somewhere? Alaexis¿question? 20:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
CNN quoted an expert on the matter anonymously that said they're wrong but they didn't elaborate. Multiple people in the twitter comments tell them about their error as well but I guess that's not a reliable source :)
It seems bad that such a flawed analysis is quoted and used as a source with no way to remove it. 147.235.221.35 (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
CNN quote is okay, could you provide a link? Alaexis¿question? 08:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
sure - [2]. (It is already cited in the article). 147.235.221.35 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
So what exactly do you suggest to change in the article? Alaexis¿question? 21:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The easterly (ie Israeli) source of the projectile was determined by comparing the Doppler shift from multiple locations. MathewMunro (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't Channel 4(UK) and Al Jazeera's findings mentions in the intro unlike Pro-Israel sources are?

The introduction is entirely biased.

It ends with the following: "While this is not a conclusive finding, it is currently considered the likeliest explanation based on the evidence gathered in investigations conducted by the Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal"

The major sources that believe the bomb was from Israel are completely omitted. Please add to the intro that Channel 4 and and AJ reporting showed the opposite. Here are the video sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyNLvL_8SeY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVQALHmgo8U 86.5.202.27 (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hrw

says likely a Palestinian rocket but further investigation needed. nableezy - 03:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Ha! You beat me by 6 minutes... --Orgullomoore (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
though it says, investigation is need on who fired it, this should be added in the paragraph that cites HRW report. Marshmallowjunkie (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
It is valuable to include in the HRW report section that the report is inconclusive and has recommended an investigation to determine the party responsible for firing the projectile.
Present section, gives the impression that HRW conclusively showed that it was a Rocket fired from Palestinian armed groups Marshmallowjunkie (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I haven't had time to work it in. I agree with you that HRW says everything they have (which is mostly everything we have + 1 witness statement and some vague answers they got back from Hamas) points to Palestinian rocket misfire and away from Israeli airstrike, and that they want the remnants, witnesses, and other videos/photos, and want an independent investigation. What's in the article now was added by nableezy and Dovidroth since yesterday. I hope to find the time this week to work on it some more. --Orgullomoore (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Right now the report is quoted in two different sections in an inconsistent manner. The "Explosion" section just says "An independent analysis by Human Rights Watch concluded that the cause of the explosion was a misfired Palesinian rocket." At the same time, the "Rocket vs airstrike" says only that it was "consistent" with the kind of damage that could be expected from a rocket, more specifically, the type of rockets the Palestinian side uses. It would probably be better if we keep only one version, and the latter looks more reasonable to me, given the language of the report itself. Deinocheirus (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
You wrote: 'I agree with you that HRW says everything they have... points to Palestinian rocket misfire', but the person you're replying to (Marshmallowjunkie) never said that! And nor did HRW. What they said, as Marshmallowjunkie, correctly stated, was mostly 'inconclusive'. It was also mostly speculative and mostly unreferenced.
For example, the report states:
  • 'a type of munition that Human Rights Watch has not been able to conclusively identify hit a paved area inside the hospital compound'.
  • They say a large air-dropped bomb is highly unlikely, but they don't comment on the possibility of a small unguided air-dropped bomb.
  • 'Human Rights Watch is unable to confirm whether the barrage of rockets fired by an unidentified Palestinian armed group and visible on videos flew, or not, over the hospital: the rockets are only visible for the first seconds after their launch as bright dots, and their subsequent flight path through the night sky cannot be established with precision.'
The fact that the HRW report leans towards blaming Gazan militants should be taken with a grain of salt anyway, seeing as Israel and its allies have the resources and the motivation to mislead, infiltrate, influence and pressure organisations like HRW, including by targeted expulsions of certain HRW members (https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/25/israel-expels-human-rights-watch-director-today), and by the legion of right-wing anti-Arab/anti-Muslim racist media personalities who constantly malign any organisation that criticises Israel, including the UNRWA, the OHCHR and human rights organisations.
HRW's report/news article makes numerous irrelevant, dubious claims, and relies on dubious (possibly fabricated) and unnamed sources, for example:
  • Repeating claims made by the Washington Post without any proof that some unspecified Hamas source told them that they were in possession of fragments from the projectile.
  • Rubbishing the Hamas Ministry of Health death toll from afar and referring to lower estimates from 'other sources' (plural), despite only giving one reference, to a CNN article that also only relied on one source: Israel's main arms dealer, the US, whose ballpark estimate of '100 to 300' was quite obviously just a guess.
  • Mentioning a gas cylinder of the type used in barbeques in one of the cars (like that would have any significant contribution to a fireball 20-25m high and 40-50m wide)!
  • Mentioning a lack of a 'fuse-furrow' (narrow pointy parts of an impact crater in line with the line of fire) supposedly typical of a spin-stabilised artillery shell fired at an angle of less than 45 degrees, but fails to mention that you would expect such features if it landed in dirt, but not necessarily if it hit on pavers as it did, and that it doesn't rule out a higher projectile angle.
And there are numerous omissions from the report that indicate bias, such as:
  • The fact that Israel was in possession of seized Palestinian rockets.
  • Israel is in possession of several large calibre high-explosive mortars, artillery and vehicle-mounted multiple rocket launcher systems that fire munitions either indistinguishable from or slightly more deadly the most powerful ones possessed by Gazan militants - including but not limited to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soltam_M-66
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soltam_M-68
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soltam_M-71
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soltam_K6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PULS_(multiple_rocket_launcher)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAROM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAR-160
https://elbitsystems.com/product/gatr/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delilah_(missile)
  • Israel is capable of setting many of their munitions to detonate a few feet above ground, which would dramatically reduce the crater size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_burst
  • There is not a single photo or video in existence of a single Palestinian rocket doing anywhere near the level of damage or creating a fireball anywhere near as large as the one done by the munition that hit the hospital grounds.
  • Neglecting to mention that there has in the past been 'No evidence of inflated mortality reporting from the Gaza Ministry of Health' - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)02713-7/fulltext
  • Neglecting to mention that even Israel's largest artillery (155mm) sometimes leaves only a small crater even when landing in dirt, let alone when landing on pavers (https://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/iopt0707/iopt0707_files/image015.jpg) and that they nevertheless have a kill radius of 'between 50 and 150 meters' (https://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/iopt0707/6.htm).
  • The report states: 'Videos show a munition rising and exploding in the air seconds after the Palestinian rocket barrage and before the hospital explosion. Our analysis found that this projectile was likely to be an Israeli interceptor missile, which appears to strike a rocket mid-air above Israeli territory at a distance too far for the falling debris to have caused the explosion at the hospital.' - What they failed to mention, was that this was the last Palestinian rocket launched before the munition hit the hospital and that the barrage of Palestinian rockets launched 40-seconds earlier all appear to have been destroyed, and if they weren't, then they would be well inside Israeli territory by the time the hospital was hit.
  • The report states: 'The video shows two explosions in proximity of the hospital before the hospital explosion (both at 6:55 p.m.) and four in the following minutes (at 7:03 p.m., at 7:04 p.m., and two at 7:05 p.m.).' In fact, Al-Jazeera identified four Israeli airstrikes near the hospital in the six minutes before the munition hit the hospital grounds, starting at 6:54:28 p.m., 6:55:02 p.m., 6:57:42 p.m. and 6:58:01 p.m. and then the hospital strike at 6:59:57 p.m. as shown in this video: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/19/what-hit-ahli-hospital-in-gaza
  • The HRW report ignored analysis by Earshot of the Doppler analysis that determined the projectile came from the East (the Israeli positions), or the analysis of the impact crater by Forensic Architecture, which also concluded the projectile came from the East, (video by Channel 4 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVQALHmgo8U - different to the one in the Analysis section of this Wiki article).
  • The HRW report states: 'Documenting damage caused by misfired rockets is difficult because the authorities in Gaza have impeded investigations of such incidents. For example, authorities in Gaza detained two Palestinian journalists investigating rocket misfires during the August 2022 escalation.', but they don't mention that Israel has denied access to all reporters and has killed dozens of reporters in Gaza.
And in certain sections of the report, HRW even point the finger at Israel, for example:
  • 'Israeli forces have carried out repeated, apparently unlawful attacks on medical facilities, personnel and transport during the current hostilities, which Human Rights Watch has documented. The World Health Organization (WHO), as of November 24, had documented 187 attacks on health care in Gaza since October 7, which damaged 24 hospitals, according to data shared with Human Rights Watch.'
  • 'Governments should suspend military assistance and arms sales to Israel so long as its forces commit widespread, serious abuses amounting to war crimes against Palestinian civilians with impunity.'
  • 'the areas around the hospital – in particular, the mostly residential neighbourhoods of Sheja’iya and Zeitoun – were under intense attack by the Israeli military when the hospital explosion occurred'.
  • 'three days before the major explosion, a remnant of an artillery projectile struck the hospital’s diagnostic cancer treatment center, damaging two floors and reportedly injuring four medical workers'.
MathewMunro (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
i agree on that. Marshmallowjunkie (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2024

"Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion" should be changed to Al-Ahli Arab Hospital Bombing. It exploded because of a bomb. We can present what reputable sources say about who is responsible for the bombing but the word explosion is unnecessarily passive like "officer involved shooting" It leads to the questions "how was the officer involved" JazzFooBH (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Should probably take a look at WP:PCM specifically Cannolis (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed?

There is a POV tag on this article since Nov 2023.

Is the neutrality still disputed or can the tag be removed? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing the talkpage history, there has been no active POV discussion for some time. Additionally, the issues for which it was originally raised have been resolved long ago. I've removed the POV maintenance tag accordingly. It can always be re-instated if there are new NPOV concerns raised. Aeonx (talk) Aeonx (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I removed the "globalize" tag as well, since the editor who added it did so without explanation or discussion (and that editor has since been topic banned also). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It should be written that the racketeer was Palestinian in fact

This is a fact, only anti-Semites can say that it is an Israeli rocket and to decree it 1 The most unreliable sources regarding the war in Israel מושיקו מהאבטיחים17 (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Forensic Architecture Analysis

Source:

https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disinformation-al-ahli-hospital


This new analysis conflicts with statements in this main section of this article such as "The consensus from various independent studies of videos, images, and eyewitness reports of the explosion, its aftermath, and the blast area suggests that an errant rocket launch from within Gaza is the most probable cause."


Also, it is interesting that the many of the analyses parroting the Israeli narrative are in the main, but analyses which clash against it are absent from it. The neutrality of this article seems rather absent.


Analyses such as that from Channel 4 and Forensic Architecture need to be given brief mentions to maintain neutrality and ensure each source gets proper weight. Formless Entity (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Forensic Architecture's initial analysis is mentioned in the article as it has been mentioned by several media outlets (though it's that it hasn't been challenged). If this analysis is also widely reported on by reliable source, we should mention it too, probably replacing their initial findings. Alaexis¿question? 19:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion/Archive_8&oldid=1220097959"