Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:16, 21 November 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic: You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Explosives Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Hospitals Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Israel High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration Military history: Middle East / Post-Cold War Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Post-Cold War task force Palestine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Reactions to strike on Gaza hospital killing hundreds - Reuters, 17 October 2023

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Stephen Harrison (October 26, 2023). "Misplaced Pages Is Covering the War in Israel and Gaza Better Than X". Slate. Retrieved October 31, 2023. The page for the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion states that the "cause of the explosion is contested." Hamas has claimed that Israel carried out an airstrike on the hospital, while Israel, the United States, France, and Canada have said that their intelligence sources indicate that the cause of the explosion was a failed rocket launch by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad from within Gaza.

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.

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

Survey

This section is mostly for a survey only. Please put discussions in the § Threaded discussion section.

The Arab–Israeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmeddoes not have the extended confirmed flag, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default.

• No. This material is problematic mostly from a due weight point of view. FA is also making extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence. To summarize points I've made above:

(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 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. --Neutrality 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.

• Al-Jazeera
• Bloomberg (News, not Opinion)
• Channel 4
• Defense for Children International
• New York Times

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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. | 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2023

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

change:

""" 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 caused a large explosion while many displaced Palestinians were taking refuge at the hospital. 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. """

to:

"""

A few days prior to the main explosion, 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 the day of the main incident, 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) 17:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Btw there is no need to open a separate request if there is an active discussion, we are still not that bureaucratised :) Alaexis_¿question? 20:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize you are EC...

Thank you :) HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Continued POV

In 11 years at Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 "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)

Not accurate that there is a consensus among independent analysts

i looked at the sources for consensus among independent analysts that the explosion was most likely a rocket and couldn’t find anything in the sources confirming that 188.236.163.120 (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

See the following, among others: AP, CNN, WaPo, AFP, Der Spiegel, WSJ, and BBC. | Orgullomoore (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources youre bringing are proving the point. WaPo 10/27: None of the more than two dozen experts consulted by The Post was able to say with certainty what kind of weapon struck the hospital grounds or who fired it. The BBC article doesnt give any type of indication that they think there is some conclusion that is a consensus. The AFP article goes to great lengths to say nothing can be determined. The other articles pre-date the later analysis by WaPo and NYT and FA. I dont think you can rightly say that after that there is any consensus on the likely cause, and using outdated sources that claim it when newer ones say there is no such consensus is not appropriate. nableezy - 16:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nobody's claiming certainty here. We're saying most likely scenario, and that has been said time and time again by the experts consulted. They all say, we can't say for sure, but it definitely doesn't look like an airstrike and it's consistent with a rocket fuel explosion. And that's based on the site photos more than anything else. The WaPo and NYT (and CNN) later reports just say that the Al Jazeera video does not show what everyone thought it showed, and the very partisan FA source just says that it would appear the projectile came from the east (which is not inconsistent with a failed rocket flying all over the place). | Orgullomoore (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

FA also says the crater is consistent with Israeli artillery fire. But the WaPo and NYT do more than just say that the video does not show what everybody said it did in their earlier quoted analysis that did have a consensus, what the NYT also says is 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. Plausible and "consensus view" are not the same thing. nableezy - 16:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how you're saying anything different than I am. NYT says (paraphrasing): People have been citing this video, but this video does not show the projectile that hit the hospital parking lot; but still, we don't know what did hit the hospital. And that's because their article does not address anything other than the video. The experts in munitions, acoustics, etc., said the rocket theory is the most plausible. We can do a headcount if you'd like. | Orgullomoore (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue is whether there is a "consensus" (a source saying so). As of 23 October, that was the case, I think it is not the case now, though. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather see something like "the majority of experts consulted concluded that a misfired rocket was the most likely cause of the explosion." I agree that there is not a "consensus." Not sure who wrote that and can't be bothered to check at the moment. | Orgullomoore (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I added the date because of the report with that date saying there was a consensus then. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

... or at the very least there is not unanimity, which I think "consensus" can be taken to mean (though it can also be taken to mean widespread agreement, which I think there is). | Orgullomoore (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Was. Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's a fair assumption that everyone's opinion needs to be re-analyzed because of the video issue. Those opinions that are not based on the video should be presumed unchanged unless the sources go back and retract the stories and say "Oh, now that we see this AJ video is not what we thought it was, we have a new opinion." That the news cycle has moved on and NYT was last to publish its video analysis should not mean that everything before it is invalid or obsolete. | Orgullomoore (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue is saying that there is a consensus view on the likely cause is incorrect, and all the sourcing for it comes prior to later analysis that have cast doubt on some of the evidence that was prominently presented as evidence for what was a consensus view. nableezy - 17:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

All right. Then let's change that "consensus" sentence to something that makes more sense. | Orgullomoore (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Your change fixed it. It wasn't consensus that it was a misfired rocket, but consensus that the likeliest option is a misfired rocket.

I do disagree with though not unanimous, because it does seem that every RS is unanimous that a misfired rocket is the likeliest. DFlhb (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

At this point yes. I think every reliable source agrees that this is the most likely version of events. It's a shame that all of the debris was removed before journalists could access it. If we had access to some of the pieces of debris we could've settled this for sure (this is as per the NYT, I believe it's since been removed from the article). Chuckstablers (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nope. See the article, which as of this moment says: David Leonhardt concluded that Hamas's failure to produce evidence from the projectile "suggests the group may not want outsiders to see it." | Orgullomoore (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Very biased article written by pro Israeli sources.

Very biased article written by pro Israeli sources. 202.47.36.141 (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Many of us editors are actually against the Israeli occupation and are perhaps biased the other way, that being said we are required to report omn what reliable sources say. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

LOL. Two topics up we were accused of slanting heavily anti-Israel. I guess we're doing a good job. | Orgullomoore (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Orgullomoore: A) this isn't a funny topic, and B) no, conveying bias in any direction is not doing a good job, and even if this was a statement in jest, it undermines the work we are doing here. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

(A) is your opinion and appears to presuppose that the topic is death as opposed to repeated mutually inconsistent allegations of bias, (B) takes for granted the part that I found funny, i.e., that an article can be biased against Israel at the same time as it is in favor of it, and (C) is a nebulous conclusory statement lacking any argument to be addressed. | Orgullomoore (talk) 13:29, 7 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)

Lead section POV

I removed this sentence from the lead: The New York Times and The Washington Post have reported that a video pointed to by the Israel Defense Forces and others as evidence of what caused the explosion, in fact shows an Iron Dome projectile miles away from the hospital, and is not related to the hospital explosion. It's a detail from the Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#Origin_and_trajectory_of_munition section, the NYT and WaPo analyzing one video and coming to a conclusion. It's no more leadworthy than the other analyses listed in the Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#Analyses section. Selfstudier restored the text in Wikivoice, without the attribution to the two RS, and added editorial POV by connecting it to the preceding sentence with the word to watch "while": A conclusive determination of the cause was impeded by the lack of press access to Gaza and unavailability of the remnants of the projectile while a video provided as evidence by the Israel Defense Forces in fact shows an Iron Dome projectile unrelated to the incident. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It was worded poorly, attribution was unnecessary and it is at least as important as "A conclusive determination of the cause was impeded by the lack of press access to Gaza and unavailability of the remnants of the projectile" so I have partially restored that deletion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It needs to go, it's both WP:WEASEL and minor detail — one video out of at least four, two analyses out of a dozen or more and coming to the conclusion, well, this particular rocket wasn't the one that caused the explosion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The entire last para should be reduced and reworded to the effect that a) Contested and b) No conclusive determination and possibly some short statement to the effect that a majority but not all sources consider a misfire as the most likely cause. All else in the body. Then maybe it can come out. Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not just any rocket; it's the rocket implicated by the IDF in their now demonstrably innaccurate evidence, and a highly pertinent observation that is referenced in nearly all later reports on the event. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not a minor detail, and your edits have the effect of making the lead push what a contested POV without any of the other significant POVs in the article. You cant decide anything that does not conform to the story you want the article to go with is a minor detail. nableezy - 14:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a minor detail, and more importantly is largely irrelevant to the article as a whole. The last sentence in the Lead definently needs to be removed. Much of this article has been built around continued argument of misinformation which frankly has no encyclopaedic value. It's just reporting, and WP is not news. Aeonx (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You cant decide that anything that DOES conform to the story you want the article to go with is a major detail worthy of inclusion. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I think attribution is probably necessary. NYT, WaPo, CNN, and Le Monde all say that the projectile in the AJ video is probably/likely not what caused the explosion, but the IDF says they still think it is. Personally, I think (and who cares what I think) that NYT, WaPo, CNN, and Le Monde are more likely to be right than the IDF on this point. Le Monde makes the most mathematically compelling argument in pointing out that the debris would have had to travel (without propulsion) at 800 meters per second for 20 seconds to reach the hospital from the point it is seen disintegrating in the AJ video, compared to the maximum public speed of Iron Dome missiles (with propulsion) of 700 meters per second. The laws of physics would seem to rule out an object traveling at 700 m/s intercepting another object and thereby causing it to move at 800 m/s. But because we describe disputes and don't engage in them, I think we should present both contentions and attribute. Now, the question of whether it goes in the lead. I think it probably does not. On the one hand, the IDF presented the video as a smoking gun and continues to stick to its guns on this issue despite having contrary evidence thrown in its face by multiple outlets. And that makes it more relevant, in my opinion. On the other hand, I agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x's point that the video was only one of several signs that this was a rocket misfire and the video issue does not (as the articles themselves explicitly state) rule out the rocket misfire theory–it just pulls out one element of the case. The NYT put it succinctly: One of the legs of the stool — the videos of a rocket exploding in the sky — now looks a lot weaker than it did. But the other pieces of evidence remain in place. And the overall conclusion of the American intelligence agencies appears sound: It was a malfunctioning Palestinian rocket that most likely hit the hospital. I don't think it is so relevant that it deserves its own sentence in the lead. It is more getting into the weeds about the analyses and counter-analyses and poking holes in the analyses. As it is right now, that sentence looks like an orphan. The reader is suddenly confronted with "an Al-Jazeera video cited as evidence" without knowing anything about the video and what it was cited as evidence for. | Orgullomoore (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

NYT, WaPo, CNN, and Le Monde are secondary sources; the IDF is a primary source - they are not on a par. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Orgullomoore, do you have a cite for the IDF presented the video as a smoking gun and continues to stick to its guns on this issue? I've been looking for any later statements. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's in Le Monde: When asked, IDF spokesman Jonathan Conricus maintained that the Al-Jazeera images show a Palestinian rocket. And also NYT says: Asked about the Times’ 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. (I misremembered that as IDF). CNN says: In an interview with CNN on October 18, Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a spokesman for the IDF, held up a piece of paper with a screenshot of the Al Jazeera footage printed on it, claiming it showed “the rocket that fell into the hospital.” The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) told CNN in a statement that the Al Jazeera video in question was never claimed as “definite proof” of its findings, which it said, “are supported by other resources and intelligence.” So, I may be exaggerating. But I think it's fair to say the IDF has resisted or failed to accept or refute this new wave of reporting showing/suggesting that the AJ video initially "held up" while "claiming it showed 'the rocket fell into the hospital'". That's all I've got. | Orgullomoore (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Responding to Selfstudier, Iskandar, and Nableezy. Without that POV clause, the lead says:
  1. the parties involved blame each other
  2. experts mostly agree that the cause was most likely a failed rocket launched from Gaza
  3. the intelligence communities of five Western countries say that the cause was most likely a failed rocket launched from Gaza
  4. determination of the cause of the explosion was impeded because the press didn't have access to the site
  5. determination of the cause of the explosion was impeded because of "unavailability of the remnants of the projectile" (dissolved like water, as missiles are wont to do).

To me, that — in addition to the when/what/where of the first two paragraphs of the lead — seems to sum up the article's most important contents very nicely. You're all harping about an initial, presumably faulty analysis presented by the Israeli army based on the evidence they had at the time, i.e, the Al-Jazeera video. What about Hamas's presumably also false claim that the hospital was hit by an Israeli airstrike? Should we put that in the lead, as well, for balance? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I dont think the experts agree part is true, Forensic Architecture says that it is consistent with an Israeli artillery strike. And the experts mostly agree that the cause was most likely a failed rocket launched from Gaza was based, in large part, on the video that the later analysis debunked as a possible cause. So removing that leaves an older consensus that has since been brought in to question unchallenged. No, we are not harping about anything, and no that is not only from the IDF, every source prior to NYT that was discussing a failed rocket was pointing to this video saying it showed the failed rocket. You are attempting to use analysis that has since been shown to be based on incorrect assumptions and use their conclusions without including that the evidence for it has been debunked. nableezy - 16:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

When and where did Forensic Architecture say that something "is consistent with an Israeli artillery strike"? Please cite the link to that statement. Forensic Architecture said on October 20, as cited by the Bloomberg source in Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#Origin_and_trajectory_of_munition: "In reviewing our analysis, investigator & explosive weapons expert @CobbSmith agrees the fragmentation patterns may indicate the projectile came from the northeast—the direction of the Israeli-controlled side of the Gaza perimeter—and not from the west, as claimed by the IOF." Nice slur but not mentioning an Israeli airstrike or even claiming that it was an Israeli projectile. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC). I just found the other (initial?) statement by Forensic Architecture. It's cited by El País in the origin and trajectory section: "3D analysis shows patterns of radial fragmentation on the southwest side of the impact crater, as well as a shallow channel leading into the crater from the northeast. Such patterns indicate a likely projectile trajectory with northeast origins." Doesn't contradict the rocket malfunctioning and changing trajectory explanation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

BBC:

While it was difficult to be sure at such an early stage, he said, the evidence suggested the explosion was a result of a section of a failed rocket hitting the car park and its fuel and propellant (a combination of fuel and an oxidizer agent) causing a fire. However in the past week, not every analysis has agreed with this.

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.

Several types of artillery have been deployed by Israel since the start of the conflict, including M109 155mm howitzers and M270 MLRS rocket launchers.

We have since showed images of the crater to several weapons experts and asked them whether the damage markings were consistent with the type of explosion caused by artillery shelling.

NR Jenzen-Jones, a director at Armament Research Services, says the crater is significantly smaller than one typically generated by a 155mm artillery projectile.

But Mark Cancian of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies said that, based on evidence so far, it was difficult to differentiate whether it was caused by an artillery shell, a mortar or a rocket - it could potentially be any of them.

nableezy - 17:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I completely disagree that the prior consensus was based on the video. | Orgullomoore (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't disagree. Show the older sources that don't recall the video. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I also completely disagree on the basis that a number of news reports have been published since that NYT piece, have acknowledged the NYT piece, and have restated that they believe the failed scenario rocket is the likeliest. So experts mostly agree that the cause was most likely a failed rocket launched from Gaza was based, in large part, on the video that the later analysis debunked as a possible cause is untrue; the media didn't alter their conclusions, and those conclusions were never solely based on that one AlJazeera video DFlhb (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ive only seen CNN say this, I havent seen a number of others. CNN did go back, after adding a note in their initial reporting, saying that their conclusions have not changed and "the balance of evidence suggests the explosion was not the result of an Israeli airstrike and was likely caused by a malfunctioning rocket." WSJ has not, nor have the other analyses that I have seen so far. If I am wrong, and I may well be, then please bring some of those sources. But the earlier analysis was largely centered around that video showing what they said was a failed rocket motor and that explained the odd trajectory and so on, and that was all bunk. nableezy - 17:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

My recollection is that the majority of the initial sources relied mostly on the conclusion that the images from the explosion site (crater size and lack of damage to surrounding buildings) were inconsistent with an Isreali airstrike and were consistent with a rocket misfire. I won't have time to do a survey of the sources until after work, about 7 hours from now, but I am willing to do one. | Orgullomoore (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree they used multiple pieces of evidence for their conclusions, but nearly all of them featured this video prominently as one of the centerpieces of their analysis, and just leaving those conclusions left unchallenged when that centerpiece has fallen apart strikes me as non-neutral. I dont think anybody, besides the initial claims by Hamas that it was an Israeli airstrike, is saying it was an Israeli airstrike, but per FA it still is up in the air on if it may have been an Israeli artillery shell. nableezy - 17:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, well this is encouraging. So we (you and I) agree that the airstrike theory is out. We agree that analyses that relied on the AJ video as showing the projectile that caused the explosion (and not those that relied on other types of evidence) are obsolete. Now we are left with the preponderance of experts agreeing that a rocket misfire was the most likely cause, but a source that calls the IDF the IOF saying they think an artillery shell is the more likely explanation and one expert saying he cannot rule that out? | Orgullomoore (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I dont accept calling the IDF the IOF makes a source unreliable, and I think we have established repeatedly that Forensic Architecture is a source treated as a serious source by other reliable sources. Again, I dont think the preponderance of experts agreeing can be taken as true when that preponderance of experts repeatedly cited the video as a primary reason for their conclusion. Sure, you cant throw them out entirely, even the ones that have not gone back to restate their belief, but you do have to include that one of the centerpieces of their arguments has turned out to be completely false. nableezy - 18:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know your position on the IDF/IOF issue very well, and I have no desire to rehash it, which is why I was careful not to say "unreliable" and stick to the undisputed fact that they call the IDF the IOF. What we are left arguing about, I think, is whether a preponderance of the experts who did not rely on the video agreed that a rocket misfire was the most likely cause. For that we need a detailed survey, which I intend to provide. | Orgullomoore (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The BBC says that The Forensic Architecture agency ... has carried out its own analysis of the crater, and suggests it is more consistent with the impact marks from an artillery shell ... but the FA tweet they link to says this: "Preliminary analysis by FA, alhaq_org & earshot_ngo into the Al-Ahli 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." This is another FA tweet merely saying it is doubtful that the object that the parking lot was travelling west to east. The BBC's suggestion that the crater is "more consistent with the impact marks from an artillery shell which it concludes came from the direction of Israel" is unsourced, as far as the reader can tell. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 18:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I imagine they talked to FA? nableezy - 18:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

They talked to "it"? 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. I added the link to the same tweet the BBC links to. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC) The source of the photograph of the crater is the European Pressphoto Agency. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Youre also mising the tweet in the thread "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." nableezy - 19:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I finally found the thread (I'm not on Twitter) - wow, they don't hide their bias, do they? A very large artillery shell carrying large amounts of explosives? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Bias != unreliability. nableezy - 19:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually in most cases, I think you'll find it does. It's for that exact reason scientific papers disclose any bias they may have. Aeonx (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This is WP, bias and reliability are two different metrics. Selfstudier (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Articles that acknowledge the AJ video isn't right, but still finds more evidence that points to a failed rocket launch: NYT 11/3, CNN 11/2, Le Monde 11/3, WaPo 10/26, L'Orient le jour 10/27 (last one summarizes other reporting, no analysis)

More interestingly, WaPo contradicts something mentioned in other outlets and FA, which say that the small crater could be consistent with small Israeli munitions, but WaPo says experts told it that small Israeli munitions would be inconsistent with the lack of visible fragments and with the fireball shown in videos. I also think much of the pre-NYT analyses rely on the crater rather than AJ.

We could word it more cautiously: "independent experts found more circumstantial evidence pointing to a misfired rocket, though definitive conclusions are impossible at this stage" (rather than 'consensus that it's most likely'); though as I said above I don't think the last sentence should be in the lead. DFlhb (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

But Le Monde doesnt reach any conclusion as far as I can see, they only say it remains possible that it was a rocket from a salvo launched near the time. "Two weeks after the blast, Le Monde's analysis of the images shows the trajectory and speed of a salvo of Palestinian rockets are compatible with the explosion at the hospital. Our investigation sheds light on a night of clashes, from exchanged fire to the presence of two fighter jets, probably Israeli, without establishing with certainty the cause of the explosion." isnt quite the same as "reached a conclusion that a Palestinian rocket is most likely". The WaPo has "None of the more than two dozen experts consulted by The Post was able to say with certainty what kind of weapon struck the hospital grounds or who fired it. But munitions experts agreed that the damage at the hospital was consistent with a rocket strike. They said it was not consistent with an airstrike, which would have caused much greater destruction, or with an artillery strike, which would have left substantial fragments and probably not caused the massive fireball seen in videos." And "The analysis of that and other videos, in addition to expert review of imagery of the blast site, provides circumstantial evidence that could bolster the contention by Israel and the U.S. government that a stray rocket launched by a Palestinian armed group was responsible for the Oct. 17 explosion.

At the same time, no visual evidence has emerged showing a rocket hitting the hospital grounds, and the evidence reviewed by The Post does not rule out the possibility that an unseen projectile fired from somewhere else struck the hospital grounds." I dont see how that makes the conclusion that we are stating in the article. Saying that the damage is consistent with a Palestinian rocket but also that some other projectile may still be the cause is not the same as what we are saying in the lead. The earlier analyses that were more conclusive in their wording were in large part based on the now debunked claim that the AJ video showed a failed Palestinian rocket. nableezy - 19:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's why I'm proposing more cautious wording as replacement for our current wording. Notice my stance did shift since my first post in this discussion after reviewing those sources. - DFlhb (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have responded to that part as well, my bad. I agree. nableezy - 19:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: Do you have a concrete proposal? Maybe we will all be able to agree on it. | Orgullomoore (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"independent experts found more circumstantial evidence pointing to a misfired rocket fired by Palestinian groups, though definitive conclusions are impossible at this stage". It's not a definitive proposal, copyediting is welcome DFlhb (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a starting point. The "Independent experts" part lends itself to being tagged with {{who}}, if the history of this article is any guide. We probably need to work on that some. I can't think of a solution off the top of my head right now. The "at this stage," I think lends itself to being merged with an existing sentence: ". . . more circumstantial evidence pointing to a misfired rocket fired by Palestinian groups, though a conclusive determination of the cause was impeded by the lack of press access to Gaza and unavailability of the remnants of the projectile." @Nableezy: Do you have any concrete suggestions we can build on? | Orgullomoore (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"Independent experts" is fine; many people overuse {{who}} due to not having read the Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity paragraph in its documentation. That wording is meant to indicate separation from the government assessments that come before, clarify that it's not journalists assessing it (who have no expertise), and properly attribute expert statements to experts. I agree on replacing "at this stage" by merging with the next sentence. DFlhb (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I would go with "Several independent media outlets have analyzed the publicly available footage and found that an Israeli airstrike was an unlikely cause, and that the damage was consistent with a failed Palestinian rocket launch but that no conclusive determination could be reached without further evidence, including the remnants of the munition". nableezy - 14:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not ignoring you. I'm working on this to inform my proposal and our discussion. I'll propose something soon and we can go from there. | Orgullomoore (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Cool, Ill respond down there. nableezy - 19:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Canada, UK, France, US did conclude that it was a Palestinian rocket. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

We already say that. nableezy - 19:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Issues for which the principle relevant guideline is WP:AGEMATTERS. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Explain? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed."

Point would likely be that earlier sources shouldn't be given the same weight as later ones. This thread is so jumbled that I can't tell who that was a reply to. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Just for interest, translated copy of Spanish WP lead Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Tabulated survey, discussion, and proposals for last paragraph of lead

All right. I have gone through all the sources and tabulated them by date, analyst name or description, and whether they relied on the AJ video. The table is supposed to be collapsible, so I am transcluding it below. If that becomes an issue, it can be found here. Details about the methodology can be found at the bottom.

Looking through this, it seems that those who believed they were looking at a failed rocket in the AJ video, thought they were watching the motor separate from the warhead, with the motor falling and causing a small explosion, followed by the warhead exploding in the parking lot and igniting a large amount of rocket fuel and/or the gasoline tank in one or more of the vehicles, causing the larger explosion that killed, at a minimum, scores. Now, NYT, CNN, WaPo, and Le Monde say that whatever the video shows is likely unrelated to the cause of the explosion. So for our purposes (rephrasing the last paragraph of the lead in a way that justifies removing "under discussion" from every last sentence in that paragraph), we should focus on analysts who did not operate under the mistaken belief that the AJ video showed a rocket falling apart in midair before crashing into the hospital parking lot.

What's left after removing the AJ video-reliant opinions? About 25 analysts' opinions not based (in any way, at all) on the AJ video. And what do they say? That: (1) the crater and damage rule out an Israeli airstrike (including an airburst bomb); (2) the fireball is consistent with rocket fuel/propellant and not consistent with an artillery shell (which is more likely to result in a visual plume of dust or dirt); (3) the Iron Dome is not designed to hit objects while flying over Gaza; (4) the amount of time between the end of the contemporaneous rocket barrage and the explosion is consistent with the usual speed of Palestinian rockets and the distance between the launch site and the hospital; (5) the acoustics are consistent with an object that is accelerating, as if falling from the sky as opposed to horizontal movement; (6) the size of the crater and "blast bore some similarities to an impact from a 155-millimeter artillery round, a munition in the Israeli arsenal," but that "an artillery round would not have produced the fireball seen in the blast videos"; (7) the impact marks are (according to Forensic Architecture) "more consistent with the impact marks from an artillery shell which it concludes came from the direction of Israel"; (8) (according to Forensic Architecture and Earshot) the projectile came from the east or northeast; (9) one expert (Mark Cancian) could not rule out an artillery shell, mortar, or a rocket, but another expert (NR Jenzen-Jones) opined that the crater was significantly smaller than one generated by a 155mm artillery projectile; (10) the slow burning was inconsistent with military-grade explosives, which detonate much more quickly than low-grade explosives, such as propellants; and (11) the fact that the projectile missed the target, i.e., hit the parking lot and not the hospital, is inconsistent with an intentional attack by Israel because of Israel's precision-guided targeting capabilities. Time and time again, the experts stressed that they would want to see the remnants in order to make a conclusive determination. We know that Hamas said they had the remnants, then said they didn't, and that they had their OED unit on the scene on the night of the explosion.

So the possibilities are: (1) a Palestinian rocket's engine failed, causing the rocket to spiral downward into the parking lot, ultimately making impact at a southwest angle, resulting in the payload igniting the leftover rocket fuel and a car's gas tank; or (2) an Israeli artillery shell missed its intended target (or intentionally hit the parking lot makeshift campground with hundreds of civilians), ignited gasoline in one or more of the cars, and was then retrieved by Hamas, who concealed evidence of the Israeli war crime. Regarding # (2), and with all due respect, that smells like WP:FRINGE. The 155mm artillery shell theory is not the accusation from Hamas, which is that the IDF carried out an airstrike–a possibility that nobody is taking seriously. There is one expert (Cancian) who cannot rule an artillery shell out, whereas another one (Jenzen-Jones) can rule it out. It should also be noted that "Former British army Maj. Chris Cobb-Smith, a weapons and munitions expert" is cited by FA in this tweet: In reviewing our analysis, investigator & explosive weapons expert @CobbSmith agrees the fragmentation patterns may indicate the projectile came from the northeast—the direction of the Israeli-controlled side of the Gaza perimeter—and not from the west, as claimed by the IOF. But what does Cobb-Smith also say? He also says that, although the size of the crater and the blast bore some similarities to an impact from a 155-millimeter artillery round . . . other weapons could do the same, and an artillery round would not have produced the fireball seen in the blast videos, and that e should not be blinkered that this may, indeed, be an error on the part of the Palestinian forces.

Now, how do we rewrite the last sentence of the lead? We have these proposals to start with: (1) Independent experts found more circumstantial evidence pointing to a misfired rocket fired by Palestinian groups, though a conclusive determination of the cause was impeded by the lack of press access to Gaza and unavailability of the remnants of the projectile (proposed by DFlhb); and (2) Several independent media outlets have analyzed the publicly available footage and found that an Israeli airstrike was an unlikely cause, and that the damage was consistent with a failed Palestinian rocket launch but that no conclusive determination could be reached without further evidence, including the remnants of the munition (proposed by Nableezy). My proposal is: "Experts consulted by independent media outlets ruled out an Israeli air strike and stated that the damage was consistent with a failed Palestinian rocket launch. The experts noted that a conclusive determination could not be reached without further evidence, including the remnants of the munition, which Hamas asserted "dissolved like salt in the water", and were therefore unavailable for examination. Efforts to determine the cause of the explosion were impeded by the lack of press access to Gaza and confusion surrounding a video that was initially believed to show a rocket failing midair over the hospital, but in fact showed something unrelated." Your thoughts?

Also, is it really true that the entire last paragraph is under discussion? I'm pinging you, Selfstudier, since you made it a point to tag every single sentence in that paragraph. What would you like to discuss, beyond the last sentence, before those blemishes are removed? And if nothing, would you kindly remove them already? Also pinging Space4Time3Continuum2x and Iskandar323, who participated above.--| Orgullomoore (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Orgullomoore

You have clearly put a good deal of work into compiling this table. However I feel there may be issues with your methodology which could influence the conclusions you make. These questions speak to that if you are happy to engage:

1). Could you explain a bit more about how you decided if analysis relied on the AJ video or not? Why were close calls and partial reliance resolved in favour of a Y and not an N? How did you decide if analysis was a close call or partial reliance?

2). Did you have criteria for deciding if an analysis related to the "cause of the explosion"? E.g. how do you distinguish analysis of travel distance of rockets (include) versus accents of supposed Palestinian militants (exclude)?

3). How did you come to the conclusion that the 25 analysts' opinions "rule out" an Israeli airstrike (your proposed rewrite)? Reading through the table, it seemed to me that no-one used this language except Garlasco, though I was reading quickly. The weight of language used by analysts seemed to be more moderate (e.g. 'unlikely', 'most likely cause', etc). Hanne Thato (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't just Garlasco who ruled out an airstrike. Michael Knight (#62) said that "We have none of the indicators of an airstrike—none". Mostly, the experts said that the damage is not consistent with an airstrike. That's "ruling out" rather than unlikely. "Most likely cause" refers to the determination of rocket vs. intercepted rocket vs. failed rocket vs. artillery shell. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x Apologies, I missed Knight and agree with that point. If the experts mostly said the damage is not consistent with an airstrike, shouldn't we use that language? Hanne Thato (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Re #26, WaPo citing Markus Schiller. They cite him again in the last paragraph: The seven seconds between the midair explosion and the hospital explosion miles away was not enough time for debris from the intercept to have impacted the hospital, Schiller said. Any object at the site of the midair explosion would have had to travel at more than 500 meters per second, a supersonic speed, which "is quite impossible,” he said. Schiller said the culprit was more likely an unrelated rocket that was malfunctioning and "hit the hospital grounds just a few seconds after that intercept event." Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Re #99, CNN citing Markus Schiller. They also cite him again in the fourth to last paragraph: Schiller said that he estimated a Qassam rocket, which are used by Palestinian militants, would have taken about 25 to 40 seconds to reach the distance from the launch site to the hospital, depending on variables like launch angle, acceleration and burn time. He added that the most likely cause of the explosion was a rocket launched towards Israel "that fell short and hit the hospital’s parking lot" just a few seconds after what he described as the “intercept” seen in the Al Jazeera footage. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Pinging myself, Space4Time3Continuum2x, to see why Orgullomoore's ping didn't work. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Again: Space4Time3Continuum2x. Nope, nada, not a clue, didn't work. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Added the rest of Schiller to #99. | Orgullomoore (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Orgullomoore: I already explained why I tagged those sentences, following the tag placed by yourself on the last sentence. I will repeat here what I said above.

Quote "The entire last para should be reduced and reworded to the effect that a) Contested and b) No conclusive determination and possibly some short statement to the effect that a majority but not all sources consider a misfire as the most likely cause. All else in the body. Then maybe it can come out." Unquote

And that is still my position. Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: OK. So, concretely, your proposal would be something like: "The cause of the explosion is contested. A conclusive determination of the cause was impeded by the lack of press access to Gaza and unavailability of the remnants of the projectile. There was widespread, though not unanimous, agreement among experts that the most likely cause of the explosion was a misfired rocket." Is that an accurate portrayal of your proposal? | Orgullomoore (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well first off, thank you for going through all this, it is obviously a lot of work and you should be commended for it. The problem I have in the analysis is trying to segregate views and experts the way you do it. For example, the the AP story has 5 entries, but you cant really tell if any one expert is making a conclusion solely off of the part they are cited in during the story. Like they are telling a story, and they are going through different parts of the story and citing a for x, b for y, and c for z. You dont really know if any of these people are relying on only x, y or z when they reach their conclusion. But I dont think we are really that far apart in our proposals to be honest, I dont think we need the dissolve quote (and also it was later contradicted by Hamas saying they have the remnants), I think that can be summarized better. How about Several independent media outlets, citing expert analysis and analyzing the publicly available footage, have found that an Israeli airstrike was an unlikely cause, and that the damage was consistent with a failed Palestinian rocket launch but that no conclusive determination could be reached without further evidence, including the remnants of the munition, which Hamas has yet to produce for analysis. nableezy - 19:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Thanks. I agree, we are getting there. What if we tweak that like this: "Independent media outlets, citing expert analysis, found that the damage was consistent with a failed Palestinian rocket launch, and inconsistent with an Israeli airstrike. However, no conclusive determination could be reached without further evidence, including the remnants of the munition, which Hamas has yet to produce." I took out "several," because it's quite a bit more than "several" but I want to avoid "numerous," which I presume would be controversial. I also trimmed some words I considered superfluous, for brevity and simplicity. I also broke it up with punctuation, for readability. I took out "publicly available footage" because that is only one component of the analyses, and one of those videos has been convincingly challenged, which complicates things for the lead. I agree with you that we don't have to quote Hamas's "dissolve" statement. | Orgullomoore (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy's wording was a better fit, with experts remarking that an Israeli airstrike was unlikely, and that the damage was consistent with a failed rocket launch or other munition. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"Has yet to produce" sounds as if they promised to produce it in future, but they outright rejected to produce any evidence, claiming it does not exist. I would just write "which Hamas declared does not exist". Cloud200 (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cloud200 They have actually said at least three things: (1) it dissolved like salt in the water (NYT); (2) since when do we have to provide proof of all the massacres? (NYT); and (3) it will soon be shown to the world (WaPo). So they have claimed inability, unwillingness, and future intent. | Orgullomoore (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment that you wrote remains short of Neutrality, as mentioned below. I think @Space4Time3Continuum2x proposed a better wording below that reflect the conclusion of Independent Media Homerethegreat (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Part of your wording I disagree with is the whole "yet to produce" thing. Hamas has refused to produce it, after evidence that they removed the site of all debris before journalists arrived (after claiming to have debris, then when asked to produce it claiming it "dissolved like salt in the water"). Saying "has yet to produce" implies that they might produce it in the future, and they've blatantly said that they won't as it doesn't exist (according to them). Chuckstablers (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• What part of the third paragraph of the lead is the proposed text intended to replace? The last three sentences? have found: "said" is better wording; an Israeli airstrike was an unlikely cause isn't not neutral wording. The sources say s.th. along the lines of "the cause could not be determined" and "most likely cause is a Palestinian rocket". None of the sources mentions "cause" in conjunction with an Israeli airstrike. Based on the sources, here's my proposal for the text to replace the three sentences of the lead: 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 and inconsistent with an Israeli airstrike. They also said that a conclusive determination was not possible without further evidence, including the remnants of the munition which Hamas said did not exist. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is also fine. I just think we ought to mention that not only independent media confirm this but also Western Intelligence (The 5 countries mentioned: US, Canada, France, UK (can't remember the 5th)) Homerethegreat (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Have you searched the sources? Because I seem to remember some specifically stating that the cause was unlikely in their analysis to be an Israeli airstrike? I don't even know why this would need to be explicitly stated, as the only causes seriously discussed are an Israeli airstrike or a palestinian failed rocket. They're mutually exclusive; one or the other. A conclusion of likely palestinian rocket necessarily implies that it's inconsistent with an israeli airstrike and vice versa. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Well done for the heavy work :).

I think we can write simply that: "Independent Media sources indicate the explosion was most likely the result of a failed Palestinian rocket" if you wish you can add: "US, Canadian, UK, French intelligence also indicate the same". Homerethegreat (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Would agree, that seems to sum it up pretty accurately. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Al-Shifa hospital

Note that the New York Times has once again contradicted IDF statements that blamed Palestinian rockets for deaths and damage at a hospital, in this case the al-Shifa hospital:

• Browne, Malachy; Collier, Neil (2023-11-14). "Evidence Points to Israeli Shells in Strikes on Gaza's Largest Hospital". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2023-11-15. Retrieved 2023-11-15.

As the NYT article points out, this is beginning to look like a pattern: "Israel’s assertion that Al-Shifa was actually hit by a Palestinian projectile echoed similar – and unresolved – claims and counterclaims following munitions that hit the courtyard of another Gaza hospital, Al-Ahli, nearly a month ago. The evidence reviewed by The Times from Al-Shifa points more directly to strikes by Israel – whether on purpose or by accident is unclear."

Quite independently of the question of what happened at al-Ahli, we know that the IDF presented evidence that was found to be untrue by the New York Times and Washington Post. The fact that this has now happened again makes this point worth highlighting. It shouldn't be buried. I restored the sentence a few minutes ago when I checked back into this article (I had not seen the discussion above). --Andreas JN466 10:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The Western media is slowly catching on to being constantly gaslit ... Iskandar323 (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Another editor has removed the sentence I added again. There is something else in the lead: The New York Times article says:

• U.S. officials believe that the health ministry also inflated the toll when it announced 500 deaths; the actual number appears to be closer to 100. This episode doesn’t mean that Gazan officials always mislead or that Israeli officials always tell the truth. Even in this case, for example, Israeli officials have cited video evidence that Times reporting suggests does not support their argument. Both sides deserve continued scrutiny.

What our article makes of this in the lede is this:

• The New York Times has concluded based on available evidence that death toll is closer to 100, and estimated that that the Gaza Ministry of Health has, on this case, deliberately disseminated misleading information to the international community

I don't think that quite covers it. Also, reading this, my feeling is the NYT is not quoting its own estimate based on its own analysis for the 100 figure, but that of the US officials. I admit it's not quite clear in the original; but saying "The NYT has concluded based on available evidence ..." seems to be stretching things a bit. Andreas JN466 14:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• I removed part of the sentence in the lead. The NYT sentence about "the Gaza Ministry of Health, controlled by Hamas" having “deliberately told the world a false story" refers to the preceding paragraph about the cause of the explosion. It then continues to say, "U.S. officials believe that the health ministry also inflated the toll when it announced 500 deaths; the actual number appears to be closer to 100." As for pattern: the NYT says "appears to" and "echoes", and this is not the article on the Al-Shifa Hospital siege; that hospital, BTW, was used as a Hamas HQ and torture center during the 2014 Gaza war, according to Amnesty International (AI, WaPo). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for spotting this, you're right. I didn't notice your comment at first and reverted your edit, now I've partially reverted myself. Alaexis_¿question? 21:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages on internal Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Mid-importance Death articles
• C-Class Disaster management articles
• Mid-importance Disaster management articles
• C-Class Explosives articles
• Low-importance Explosives articles
• C-Class Hospital articles
• Mid-importance Hospital articles
• WikiProject Hospitals articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• High-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class Israel-related articles
• High-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Start-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• High-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in the Palestinian territories
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press