Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital airstrike has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "killing over 500 civilians" to "resulting in over 500 casualties" per the source article. Xofg (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. The Kip 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Kip: This was undone during an edit conflict, it has since been restored. Ecrusized (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Protesters attempt to storm Israeli embassy in Jordan, source. 2A02:908:4E3:9520:2DD6:5A91:8C14:31D0 (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Added it. FunLater (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Since it's still not clear what caused the explosion, calling it an attack is undue conclusory language. It's obviously tricky, since the section is referring to reactions—they're not reacting to the explosion in the abstract, but to their own conclusion that the explosion was caused by an attack. But the article itself should not imply such conclusions until and unless the truth can be confirmed. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, footage from the supposed explosion indicates its an attack, and its very unlikely that the explosion would just be caused by itself. HeroOfPipeBombs (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Attack" as opposed to an explosion as the result of a rocket misfire or or some other kind of accident. Not sure what footage from the explosion would make it look more like it was intentional, and... "supposed explosion?" what does that mean? Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Taha.F.T (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

| perpetrators =  Israel ( air strike by Israel  Israel ) news|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-assessment-shows-failed-islamic-jihad-rocket-launch-caused-gaza-hospital-blast/%7Ctitle=IDF says assessment shows failed Islamic Jihad rocket launch caused Gaza hospital blast|newspaper=The Times of Israel|date=17 October 2023|access-date=17 October 2023|first=Emanuel|last=Fabian}}</ref>

 Not done: if you're asking for the Israel rocket launch claim, it is already in the article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, As i'm seeing all articles about this war, I saw only palestinan actions are called as massacres, beenwhile all Israeli bombing are called as explosions or airstrikes. This bombing should be at least named as a massacre, according to Palestinian version.

That's my opinion. Anas1712 (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If you had bothered taking one minute to read the talk page before posting, you would have known. Discussed in detail already. Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't find any useful discussion in the talk page. Everyone is talking about to change the name from "airstrike" to "massacre", not from "explosion" to "massacre". It's a question about the neutrality of Wikipedia. All sources called it airstrike or massacre or bombing (whether it's Israel or Hamas). But the title seems that it's just an accident. If massacre is not given, at least "bombing" or "airstrike" should be titled, not "explosion" in anyway. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Veggies and User:MaterialWorks Why did you close the RfC? RfC main goal is to ask for a third opinion but litteraly no one aside from User:Cullen328 participated in the disscussion as a third opinion because all of them have already voted in the disscussion above! Closing it like that making RfC with no use! ☆SuperNinja2☆ 21:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Please back away from the horse carcass. The Kip

21:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not a policy, so stop repeating it every now and then like you just discovered it. PLUS I have all the right to question suspicious actions. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 22:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It's describing a behavioral problem. Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Like I said in my closing comment, RfCs should not be used for page moves. Make a move request instead. —

MaterialWorks

22:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clarifying and sorry for the confusion. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 22:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Include a link to source - Al Jazeera Live Broadcast. https://www.youtube.com/live/bNyUyrR0PHo?si=4lhesTAFb_NQDrEn. And Include information: Al Jazeera Live Broadcast at 18:59 local time shows the hospital explosion and rockets launched. D11w4i (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Live broadcast doesn't seem necessary, and please provide a source showing that the explosion and rockets are the ones in this article. Also, please provide a clip of the video, since a timestamp isn't possible (livestream). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I added that, but just want to discuss if that's too trivial for the Wikipedia page? FunLater (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, what's the standard way of citing these microblog-like news? What do I put in the title field?

Example: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/17/world/gaza-news-israel-hamas-war/7a1ff81f-702d-57df-a1a4-a55391fe3d61 FunLater (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You're addition of Hezbollah's response was relevant. Lebanon closing schools seem rather irrelevant, though (in the scope of things). Jeppiz (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I removed it. :) FunLater (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason this tag is still present? The initial addition of the tag seems to have been resolved, and the article seems pretty neutral now. Pinging: @WeatherWriter. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Just removed it! Cheers y’all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! also congrats on reverting Jimbo Wales :) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the following after the quote from the Jerusalem Post:

Palestinian Ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansour has contested this narrative, calling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “a liar” for blaming the strike on the armed group, Islamic Jihad. “He is a liar. His digital spokesperson tweeted that Israel did the hit thinking that there is, around this hospital a base for Hamas, and then he deleted that tweet,” added Mansour.

Mansour also pointed out that a spokesman of the Israeli military previously suggested that hospitals could be possible targets and should be evacuated.(THE TWO REFERENCES TO BE ADDED HERE ARE THE FOLLOWING: 1- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-hamas-war-live-iran-warns-resistance-front-may-attack 2- https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2023/10/15/%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B4%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%BA%D8%B2%D8%A9-2 113.212.64.109 (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Why should we add that? What information does it bring? We know both sides blame each other at the moment, so how is this

WP:DUE. Jeppiz (talk

) 22:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It adds 1) the information about the deleted tweet; 2) it tells the reader that Israel has been very open about its intent to bomb hospitals. Both are new pieces of info that add to the article 113.212.64.109 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there someone else than Mansour confirming the existence of these tweets? Should be easy to prove? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Most of the article is about hearsay and accusations; this person reported and that person reported... where is proof that "that Hamas puts "their command and control units inside hospitals"... who confirmed that? Same logic here. The article is conveying what is being said by different parties, it is not aan official UN report. No need for double standards. 113.212.64.109 (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Also a link to an image of the tweet:

https://twitter.com/JoeKassabian/status/1714369907444351261/photo/1 113.212.64.109 (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It also adds more balance to the article as the Israeli narrative is the dominant one at the moment in the article 113.212.64.109 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That is your own interpretation, not what the source says. Jeppiz (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

not sure what source you are refering to now... 113.212.64.109 (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

To the disruptive IP. Your edit request has clearly been answered. You may not like the answer, but that's irrelevant to whether it has been answered or not. Stop your purely disruptive edits. If you want to discuss, discuss. Jeppiz (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. thanks for the tip 113.212.64.109 (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add here that coming from somewhere else - that is, watching Al-Jazeera and stumbling a little (or wondering how much there is to it) over the Ambassadors statement, I checked it (that is - the fact that a Tweet was put out and then deleted again) and it seems true - for detail see here: Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#For_future_reference_-_Hananya_Naftali_(deleted_tweet)

I'm unaware of how affiliated or unaffiliated this person is to the Israeli goverment, but seems that its a pretty controversial thing to do if he **was** affiliated, and given that its been reported, I don't really see why it *shouldn't* be in the article ?

Regards, Sean Heron (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We might be looking at different parts of the suggestion. I agree the deleted tweet is relevant. In contrast, Mansour calling Netanyahu a liar is hardly relevant. Jeppiz (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I know that BNO news posted a compelling video and speculative tweet about the failed rocket. Just wait and keep the explosion cause as disputed before this article gets locked. -- Veggies (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I only found 1 discussion about BNO at RSP and it suggests that it is not reliable. Selfstudier (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't doubt that BNO is a reliable source, just that casting the definitive blame on this is something that requires a lot more sources than a single tweet. And keep in mind that it's likely that many Arabs and pro-Palestinian people will never acknowledge that it was a Hamas rocket (assuming that's what it was). -- Veggies (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE weight in the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)

21:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

When you say BNO News, do you still mean just that tweet?

Iskandar323 (talk

) 21:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. BNO News is basically a full-social media based news organization. And while that might not seem RS, it is. When the COVID pandemic happened, they switched to Twitter as their primary outlet, rather than "paper"/electonic articles. Basically imagine if CNN switched to using Twitter as their primary outlet. Would they still be RS? Yep. Same thing here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If the RSP discussion is all there is, BNO cannot be said to be reliable, you need to ask at RSN if it is reliable for some statement and see if editors support that.Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

LOL! So you are saying

WP:RSN. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)

21:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I can do it for you if you don't know how? Selfstudier (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There's this discussion from 2020 at WP:RSN, and having had a look, the company still does not provide information about its editorial board, and most articles are still not bylined. Wikishovel (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Occurred a month prior to this article] from Bloomberg News which was completely about that tracker. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Paywalled, sorry, not a subscriber. Wikishovel (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Archived without paywall. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

1. BNO News may not be RS per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_288#COVID-19_data_compiled_by_BNO_News.

2. Per

WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source

provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." A simple tweet of a video is closer to a primary source than a secondary one.

3. Even if we decide that the tweet is a secondary RS, its conclusion isn't 100% clear, they just write "appears to show failed rocket". Per Oxford Language: "seem; give the impression of being". It's a weak assessment, more like a guess.

4. In any case, other secondary RS say otherwise, so it's still disputed. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

(Small-text for a reason (not complete serious) - Being as kind as I can, while assuming

good faith. I don't really except your analysis given you consider this event to be "geopolitical" and not an event in history. That is too much of an extreme differing viewpoint from my own that my mind instant ignores it. Analysis from others though, I would accept. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)

22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

In other news (no pun intended), as mentioned just before your longer post (point 1), the discussion occurred prior to other

WP:RS using/mentioning the tracker, so it is outdated by a lot. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)

22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes but as said above "the company still does not provide information about its editorial board, and most articles are still not bylined". (Yes, the war is geopolitical, so more controversial and subject to a higher level of scrutiny than weather events) Also, according to the IDF, the perpetrator is the Islamic Jihad, not Hamas. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

To end this discussion off, I do admit my mistake that I said Hamas instead of Islamic Jihad (oversight on my end) & I did edit war (for sure broke the 1RR and technically 3RR). Either way, I'm going to stay off this article as a self-induced 24-hour "topic block" as I deserve a block for violating the 1RR/3RR stuff (please don't actually block, I plan to do some weather-editing). Nonetheless, I do disagree with the statements said that BNO News isn't a reliable source, but the problem is solved and article is

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "undue -- the spokesperson was speaking in generalities"; she was not alleging that it was happening at the hospital in question. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spudst3r @Stephan rostie -- Stephan removed my edit incorporating a Jerusalem Post article citing IDF reports that Hamas stores munitions in controlled areas like hospitals because in their words "JPost is citing an old IDF claim in 2014. It can’t be written as if it is JPost investigation or “JPost proved …”. It is just refreshing 2014 IDF claim, which can’t be written as a proven fact of course." Fine. Then, I posted a much more thorough article written years ago from The Washington Post which goes into the evidence that Hamas has done this in the past and Spudst3r removed it, claiming "Remove article written in 2021 from before the attacks, that isn't about the current attack. IT is WP:SYNTHESIS: SYNTH cautions against original research by synthesis, where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources." What I added exactly was: "Hamas has been known to store munitions inside hospitals, mosques, and schools in the past.[CITATION]" So what exactly is going on? Where am I SYNTHing anything? It isn't unreasonable, in light of the counterclaims by Israel that they had nothing to do with it, to note a very important and cited fact about these very same groups in the past. -- Veggies (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

How does it occurring in the past have any bearing on the present situation? 208.180.58.74 (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is a valid point to make in the article, but to cite an older article to make that point is synthesis on your part by connecting this claim to the current event. What you need to do to get this added is find a reliable source that makes this point *in relation to this specific attack*. Otherwise, you are connecting two concepts together to make a point, aka synthesis. Spudst3r (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that you are writing IDF claims in wiki voice as if they descend from god. IDF claims are not facts and can’t be written as a one in wiki voice, instead, write “IDF claims that …” and attribute the claim to the IDF. And of course @Spudst3r point too. Stephan rostie (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• I find this restored material to be undue: [1]. The article is from 9 years ago and is not related to the present incident. Brings
  WP:SYNTH to mind; lack of neutrality is also a concern. --K.e.coffman (talk
  ) 01:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is original research. If a reliable source reports that weapons were stored at the hospital that can be added. Until then its original research to speculate. Drsmoo (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Okay, I've removed this: [2]; there's sufficient consensus that this is undue / synth. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to make it clear I am not taking either side of the conflict here; rather I simply feel an NPOV tag is justified, as the following circumstances are currently true:

• An explosion hit the hospital and caused a mass casualty event.

• Hamas' government claims it was an Israeli airstrike.

• The Israeli government claims it was a misfired Hamas rocket.

• Independent press have thus far not verified either claim; notice that article titles/intros/etc end with ", [Hamas/Palestinian government/Israel/IDF/etc] claims."

• The article seemingly asserts Hamas' claim.

• Therefore, the article, given the current circumstances, violates NPOV to a degree.

Once more reputable reports regarding who's responsible come out, I'd be happy to remove the NPOV tag; the problem is that as the article stands, the cause is in dispute, and it's not our role to adjudicate that dispute. The Kip 18:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if the Israeli government has claimed that Hamas is responsible yet, but labelling Israel as the definitive attacker is definitely speculative at this point. Emkut7 (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"BREAKING: Initial investigation by IDF shows explosion in hospital in Gaza was caused by a failed Hamas rocket launch

— i24NEWS English (@i24NEWS_EN) October 17, 2023"

https://twitter.com/i24NEWS_EN/status/1714348101748559883?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Ksperber (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian is also now stating initial reports of Israel accusing Hamas of the attack.

Still not decisive enough to link an actual perpetrator, but definitely enough to warrant putting both at the moment until further evidence and reports come out. Emkut7 (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

100% correct. This Wikipedia article states as fact that an Israeli airstrike hit the hospital when that is absolutely not independently confirmed at this time. This is not up to Wikipedia's aspirational standards of factual accuracy and objectivity. Ksperber (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The Kip, please check now; Israeli claims have been worked into the article sufficiently, I think. AryKun (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Initially both Reuters and AP were calling it an Israeli airstrike, but now the news reports have been updated and are calling it a blast. However some reports, including CNN[3] are calling it an airstrike. Too early to tell. Ecrusized (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not my point; if both Israeli and Gazan claims on the cause are mentioned in the article's lead, the NPOV tag isn't justified. AryKun (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It is actually because the title assumes an airstrike. Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Reworded the first two sentences. AryKun (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The opening paragraph still states unequivocally that the blast was caused by an Israeli airstrike and further states that the casualties are the result of that Israeli airstrike. Those factual claims are unestablished/unverified at this time. Ksperber (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Owing to massive cleanup of the article, I've removed the NPOV tag. Good job, folks. The Kip 19:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We have to be careful of media source bias here. For example Al Jazeera and The Guardian have a pro-Palestinian viewpoint, while the Times of Israel and CNN have a pro-Israeli viewpoint. We should always be mindful of how each news organization frames or levels there claims, even if with evidence. We have to wait and see at this point as both sides blame each other and supposedly neutral media sources are holding steadfast to their preconceived notions about the conflict and the opposing side. Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

CNN is pro-Israeli? If so, that makes CNN's Clarissa Ward basically saying she doesn't believe the Israeli claims about this incident all the more remarkable. CNN reported that "that Abu Akleh was shot dead in a targeted attack by Israeli forces" when Israel was asserting it was Palestinian militants who killed her.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Random Guy about being cognizant of the viewpoints of even high quality sources.

There is actual video footage showing the alleged rocket barrage hitting the hospital. At this time this is actually the only claim for which any supporting evidence is being provided.

https://twitter.com/manniefabian/status/1714377828131553446

https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1714380403782324249 Ksperber (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The article, in its current form, mentions that the perpetrator is the IDF according to the Gaza health ministry, and the PIJ according to Israel. Other news outlets, including Palestinian ones such as the "Gaza report" or Al-Jazeera English Correspondent Farida Khan, independently claim that the attack was a result of failed rocket launches of Palestinian resistance organizations (their initial reports were published before Israel laid its claim). Both the "Gaza Report" and "Al-Jazeera" are far from proponents of Israel. I think that the fact that the same claim has been made independently by unrelated sources could benefit the article. JaywalkerPenguin (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Farida Khan's" account is pretty suspicious, are you sure it's genuine? Alaexis_¿question? 20:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera has confirmed the account isn't linked to the network.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Those sources are simply reporting IDF claims, not asserting that those claims are true. That's why they attribute both sets of claims to their respective proponents. AryKun (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, a Google search for "Farida Khan Al-Jazeera" doesn't return any relevant results besides the Twitter account; it seems like some sort of misinformation/astroturfing and shouldn't be taken seriously. Gaza Report seems a tad more legitimate, but still not a reputable-enough source for us to consider for inclusion. The Kip 20:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera has confirmed that the account is fake.

Source: https://twitter.com/AlJazeera/status/1714388205900894623 Enum~frwiki (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

And "Gaza Report" also seems suspicious. A Turkish disinformation center reports that it's not real. And I couldn't find this "Gaza Report" thing anywhere on Google outside of Twitter.

https://x.com/dmmiletisim/status/1714383108454125996?s=46&t=5Pr4TVPNdylAEC9-O1__Rg Hovsepig (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Would it be better to put disputed or unknown in the info-box? I see both examples in info boxes during attacks. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

”Disputed” is the better call here, since it was pretty clearly one side or the other; we just don’t know which.

”Unknown” is moreso used for stuff like yesterday’s attack in Brussels before the Islamic State claimed it, in which case we genuinely have no idea who carried it out. The Kip 01:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Disputed or Unknown are both problematic. If Russia bombed a hospital I'm pretty confident wikipedia would be attributing the perpetrator quickly rather than allowing spin and propaganda muddy the waters. At some point this article is going to need to definitively declare who did it, no matter what the spin says, based on strong reliable sources and independent consensus. Spudst3r (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Spudst3r I agree with you on that, but there is currently no "strong reliable sources and independent consensus."--Orgullomoore (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

According to France24:

European Union, France and African Union do NOT mention Israel as the perpetrator of the hit.

France strongly condemns after the statement by foreign ministry.

According to Afrikan Union chief the hit was a 'war crime'.

EU chief (who?) said the strike that killed hundreds was outside 'international law'.

UN rights chief (who?) said the attacking was totally Unacceptable.

Hamas is blaming Israel;

"the cover for its aggression"

Israel is blaming Islamic jihad militants... Kartasto (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Since it has yet to be determined which side or group is responsible for the missile strike (and it was a missile, not just some random explosion). Then the article should call it a missile strike and not an "explosion". Yes, missile strikes result in explosions, but so does a build up of sewer gasses, and this "explosion" occurred during a war.

If Hamas or Islamic Jihad did this, or even the IDF. Then it would be a terrorist bombing. But we don't know that yet, and most likely it was unintended (collateral damage) cause by one of the two sides. But it was a missile strike of undetermined origin at this point. 47.149.186.81 (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

My two cents on this: take it easy. This event will be investigated and reinvestigated for years to come. It just happened. Give it some time and we will rename it accordingly. Right now all we know is something big blew up and a lot of people died and both sides are pointing the finger at each other. There's no deadline.--Orgullomoore (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

One minute before the explosion Hamas bragged it was firing at Haifa. No such rocket arrived. https://abualiexpress.com/%d7%95%d7%9b%d7%93%d7%99-%d7%9c%d7%a1%d7%92%d7%95%d7%a8-%d7%90%d7%aa-%d7%94%d7%90%d7%99%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%a2-%d7%a2%d7%93-%d7%94%d7%a1%d7%95%d7%a3-%d7%94%d7%96%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%a2-%d7%94%d7%a6%d7%91/

And coincidentally the rocket attempt was filmed, it fell and exploded in the hospital: https://abualiexpress.com/%d7%95%d7%94%d7%a0%d7%94-%d7%a2%d7%95%d7%93-%d7%a1%d7%a8%d7%98%d7%95%d7%9f-%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%9b%d7%99%d7%97-%d7%92%d7%9d-%d7%90%d7%aa-%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%a7%d7%95%d7%9d-%d7%94%d7%a0%d7%a4%d7%99%d7%9c/

this video was published by Hamas, in the Shahab news agency.

Shovalis (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait until more reliable publish this. Alaexis_¿question? 06:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas has stated they had bombed Gush Dan,Tel Aviv and the Ramon Airbase in retaliation for the attacks, gunfights and protests have also engulfed the West Bank. Hezbollah declared October 18th to be a day of “unrelenting rage on Israel”. Should these be added? A.H.T Videomapping (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Source? 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:1C3:E2ED:C13B:9883 (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Stephan rostie: Regarding this edit, the added sentence is not in the provided source? BilledMammal (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm removing this. A 45-second clip, via Twitter, from a pundit on cable news is not a good building block for an article, least of all in this area. Neutrality^talk 01:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That’s not a pundit, that’s a journalist. No reason not to include it. —Megiddo1013 02:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's speculation on breaking news. Neutrality^talk 02:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, speculation is not a basis for the removal of content in a current event. In the Nordstream pipeline sabotage article we posted plenty of speculation but labeled it as such. There is nothing else to go on but the statements from reliable sources that allow the reader reach a conclusion. If the material is sourced and directly relevant to the incident they should be preserved. Spudst3r (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That's just not an accurate statement of policy. The project of building an encyclopedia is distinct from just compiling information: we do not indiscriminately post "plenty of speculation" - we have to follow

the fact that some information exists does not means it goes into an article. (This applies even to verifiably true content, so it applies with especially great force to speculation.) And we already represent the various conflicting claims in this article. Neutrality^talk

02:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

We are reaching a level of evidence in this story where the preponderance of evidence is on Israel to explain how Hamas could have done this with their level of technological capability. So much so that I would argue, once we get more RS confirmation from nation states and NGO's, it will rapidly become UNDUE to keep the article in the state that it is, pretending that the facts are still disputed when they are not. If this article was about Russia (e.g. the Mariupol Theatre bombing) we would have already assigned the perpetrator by now. Spudst3r (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the article I’m not seeing any evidence like that; can you link some of the relevant sources here? BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources on Twitter are coming to that conclusion, which are not considered RS so can't be officially linked in the article, but e.g.: https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1714419377305428295?s=20 Spudst3r (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn’t pay any attention to tweets like those; we can just as easily find tweets saying the opposite, and we can probably even find tweets saying that aliens did it. Unless actual reliable sources are saying it then it’s worthless. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Sources on Twitter" 🤦‍♂️ -- Veggies (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

As I stated already I didn't post it or let it influence the article as it is obviously not RS. Journalists are struggling to figure this story in real time along with the rest of us. Spudst3r (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That little screed above shows it's already influenced your preconceptions and you seem like you're champing at the bit to assign blame to one side—but you only have tweets thus far. -- Veggies (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think we should be using Newsweek for that. That did happen, though, and I'm sure it's going to receive attention. I'll try to find another source.--Orgullomoore (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The same goes for

WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, which is not reliable in this domain.--Orgullomoore (talk

) 07:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

1 Doesn't seem fake. The video was also showen on al Jazeera. This seems to be the highest resolution footage posted until now. I'm not an expert on copyright rules, but if it's free use I think we should incorporate it into the article. dov (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Wait for RS to confirm; the last couple videos the IDF have posted have been proven to be fake. AryKun (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, previous videos were proven to be fake and not explained at all by the IDF why they were posted in the first place. Talk about a credibility issue here. Hopefully reliable sources will investigate what is going on. 133.106.41.137 (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Was also broadcasted in al Jazeera which is considered RS. dov (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

OSINT experts affiliated have already analyzed the explosion site and

WP:RS would be released soon. The consensus is that the explosion does not match an air strike and more likely to be a misfired rocket. - 2402:4000:1241:6635:CC28:65BD:161:753A (talk

) 07:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Cool, tell us when the RSes are released. AryKun (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "Reactions" section, after the sentence beginning 'Biden stated that he was "outraged and deeply saddened...", please add the following:
'Biden subsequently said at a meeting with Netanyahu that, "based on what I've seen it appears as though it was done by the other team, not you"'.^[1] 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:29E6:2B0:E677:2E30 (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. MarkiPoli (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's fair.

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

It appears that some

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:RS. Cloud200 (talk

) 09:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

This edit request to Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

• 
  Hananya Naftali Tweet on X

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

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

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

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

According to an analysis by team formed by Mario Nawfal :

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

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:

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

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

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

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

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

BBC Verify initial report

Relevant Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's a lot of misinformation about Naftali flying about, which doesn't seem appropriate. He's a social media influencer who worked with Netanyahu in the past[4] but clearly not a government spokesperson with novel information in this instance.

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

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

– SJ + 14:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please see

WP:RAPID for some materials relevant to your comment.--Orgullomoore (talk

) 16:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@

WP:UNDUE for the lede. Can you explain why you disagree? BilledMammal (talk

) 14:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

Apologies for the

initial revert Jimbo Wales! Didn't realize it was you! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)

22:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Be right back, putting this on my resume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lots of users, both IPs and registered users, keep starting numerous threads here based on a single tweet saying what they themselves want to believe. Could I suggest we hereby agree to just remove such new threads at sight? We will not make any changes to the article based merely on tweets in any case, and the impression starts to be that some users are abusing the talk page to push rumours. As per

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

WP:TALKOFFTOPIC indicates removing any comments which are about the subject itself and not about improving the article, so anyone should just do this.—Alalch E.

10:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

He might have referred to ANY hospital the Israel forces bombed

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Times of Israel has stated that the Gazan Health Ministry has decreased the initial death toll, from over 500, to between 200 and 300: [5]. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a good removal; these initial reactions are now

WP:UNDUE and have been supplanted by sources that have done more in-depth analysis. BilledMammal (talk

) 11:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

No. Read

WP:FALSEBALANCE. DeCausa (talk

) 11:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:RS. Jeppiz (talk

) 11:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Going through the diffs, it was removed in this edit: [6]. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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