Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:19, 17 October 2023 editA455bcd9 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users20,604 edits →Keep Edit Warring and this Article will be Full-Locked: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:23, 17 October 2023 edit undoJimbo Wales (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,538 edits →Thank you: new sectionTags: Reverted New topic Next edit →
Line 326:		Line 326:
	That's my opinion. ] (]) 22:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)		That's my opinion. ] (]) 22:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
	:If you had bothered taking one minute to read the talk page before posting, you would have known. Discussed in detail already. ] (]) 22:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)		:If you had bothered taking one minute to read the talk page before posting, you would have known. Discussed in detail already. ] (]) 22:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

			== Thank you ==

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

			Thank you, Wikipedians. ] (]) 22:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:23, 17 October 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.

Article policies

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: 2 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 Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Israel Mid‑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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

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

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

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 Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events.
Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

Requested move 17 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW not likely to pass. (non-admin closure) Ecrusized (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital airstrike → Al Ahli Hospital massacre – This is a massacre commited by Israelies and it is confirmed by many outlets and reiable sources. so why is it called a regular airstrike and the writer says it is not confirmed? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 18:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe because we don't know the circumstances yet, it's entirely possible that it was a munitions depot and hence a military target. 81.174.167.150 (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It is also enterily possible that this was a Disney Land park resort in disguise. But it doesn't seem so. Theklan (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Think you are jumping the gun here, wait a bit for some more info to come in, then we will see. Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Circumstances still disputed. It would be better to call it a "bombing" until the confirmation of mode/cause of attack. -UtoD 18:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. THere are no reliable sources called it a massacre. A3811 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Question: Will you still want to call it a "massacre" if it is confirmed to have been a failed Hamas rocket? Ksperber (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Times of Israel news reports the IDF determined it was a failed jihadist rocket. 2601:403:C300:B220:7904:B946:782F:4683 (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose For the moment, the info regarding the bombing is Hamas' word versus the Israeli government's, with neither exactly having neutral motivations; as such, WP:NPOV applies until we can get some kind of independent media confirmation regarding the circumstances and casualties. The Kip 18:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Anyone object if this is closed for now? It is too early to make judgements on the title.Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

oppose closure ☆SuperNinja2☆ 19:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I support your proposal. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Note I hope you will not deal with double standards and look at the reality. Most of the dead were children and women, and this can be verified through the largest international and impartial news sites. The hospital was not bombed, but rather the hospital courtyard where hundreds of civilians fleeing the war slept was bombed? How can the article be described as an air strike!!!! On the other hand, in articles devoted to what Hamas carried out in Israeli villages, it was described as a massacre!! Please change the name of the article to Al Ahli Hospital massacre.--— Osama Eid 18:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@ User:Osps7, do you support or oppose the move? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 19:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I support moving the article to Ahli Hospital massacre — Osama Eid 19:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: Do you mind closing this? Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't have the right to close this so early so stop! ☆SuperNinja2☆ 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with it, consensus is pretty firmly against the move for the moment. The Kip 19:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Far too early to be renaming, when even the fact of an airstrike is currently in dispute. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, as noted by others above, far too soon. Wikishovel (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per above. AryKun (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: Too soon to determine, given uncertain nature of casualty count. ARandomName123 (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Note for those who are saying that it is disputed, it's not ☆SuperNinja2☆ 19:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A Gaza civil defence chief said... A Gaza Health Ministry source said... Both departments are under the Hamas-run government.

Hamas' government is not a reliable source regarding the war, nor is the IDF. That's why it's considered disputed. Be careful not to approach the point of WP:BLUDGEONing. The Kip 19:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, your source only says what Hamas says. How does that support it is not disputed? Israel claims it was a misfired rocket fired by Hamas - Galatz גאליץ 19:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It says IDF is "ironing out the details" whatever that means. Selfstudier (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly it would be better to close this and continue the discussion at the new RM, we can't have two RM at the same time. Selfstudier (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose clearly this won't get support and there is a more relevant RM below. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
It is closed ftb, although this may get SNOW closed if the oppose votes continue to mount. Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose — Airstrike not a massacre. Wording is appropriate. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - How many more "opposes" before someone gets a clue and SNOW closes this NPOV silliness? -- Veggies (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2023

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

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

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

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

Edit request

Time of the attack should be added. First report I find is from Al Jazeera. (16:49 GMT) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-hamas-war-live-iran-warns-resistance-front-may-attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hummelman (talk • contribs) 21:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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

While Hamas claims that the cause of the airstrike was Israel, Israel claims that the cause was a Hamas missile bound for the Tel Aviv region, but had accidentally hit the hospital. Please include both claims in the article and give each claim due weight. Source: https://www.srugim.co.il/853287-%D7%A8%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%A1-%D7%A4%D7%92%D7%A2%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A0%D7%A4 2A0D:6FC0:6B8:EB00:8CE7:C9CC:21D7:AF80 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Must have been a big rocket, I guess. Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Added claim; dubious, but notable nonetheless. AryKun (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Official IDF statement can now be referenced/cited as well:

https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1714371894521057737 Ksperber (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"The Guardian reported that "the scale of the blast appears to be outside" the capabilities of Hamas"

That is not "reporting," that is opining, and in any event, it is PIJ, not Hamas that is being identified as the source. Ksperber (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: i24NEWS is an Israeli propaganda outlet controlled by Isreali state. They first lied about “40 beheaded babies” now this. I have concerns about the credibility of i24NEWS due to past reporting It cannot be used as a reliable source.223.123.90.61 (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I would still prefer to wait a bit. There's no rush. Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

1) The claim about "40 beheaded babies" was never actually made. It was a conflation of two comments made in close proximity to each other, one about "40 babies," one about "beheading." There is no actual source for your claim of anyone actually uttering this initial alleged "lie."

2) "i24NEWS is . . . owned by Isreali state" {citation needed} Ksperber (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"The Israel Defense Forces says that based on “intelligence information, a failed Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) rocket caused the deadly blast at the Gaza hospital.”

In a statement, the IDF says that “from an analysis of the IDF’s operational systems, an enemy rocket barrage was carried out towards Israel, which passed in the vicinity of the hospital, when it was hit.”

“According to intelligence information, from several sources we have, the PIJ organization is responsible for the failed fire that hit the hospital,” the IDF adds.

(Source for above text transmitting IDF statements is Times of Israel) Ksperber (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Link to the article @Ksperber mentioned: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-assessment-shows-failed-islamic-jihad-rocket-launch-caused-gaza-hospital-blast/ sherpajack (talk ) 19:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if this link to an item on a NY Times live feed is static enough, but they've now relayed the same claim https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/17/world/gaza-news-israel-hamas-war/3458db20-bfe7-5352-8aad-520338f6d484?smid=url-share sherpajack (talk ) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Also The Guardian, including IDF spokesperson Jonathan Conricus telling CNN: "We did not hit that hospital."

www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/17/israel-hamas-war-live-gaza-city-update-news-today-joe-biden-visit-aid-plan-latest-updates?page=with:block-652ee4ff8f08269fdea761c0#block-652ee4ff8f08269fdea761c0 Ksperber (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

NPOV tag and explanation

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

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

Hamas' government claims it was an Israeli airstrike.

The Israeli government claims it was a misfired Hamas rocket.

Independent press have thus far not verified either claim; notice that article titles/intros/etc end with ", claims."

The article seemingly asserts Hamas' claim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Massacre

Categories relating to massacres have been removed. Please do not add them without reliable sources calling the airstrike a massacre. A3811 (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Temporarily removed move request - the above has not been closed quite yet. The Kip 19:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Having two RM at the same time is not allowed. Please close this. Selfstudier (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I was under the impression the initial one was on the verge of a SNOWclose, if not closed already. The Kip 19:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Obvious support given the uncertainty. If reliable sources can't agree on what it was, we shouldn't make an article that implicitly espouses a certain view. -- Veggies (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Support there has been no reliable sources confirming that the incident was a result of an airstrike. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 October 2023

The result of the move request was: Moved during discussion. Uncontroversial move to a neutral term owing to disputed responsibility. The Kip 19:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital airstrike → Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital explosion – Reopening this after first RM was SNOWclosed. Similar rationale to NPOV tag explanation above. Reuters and AP have switched over to calling it a "blast" rather than an airstrike, and the actual cause of the explosion is in dispute between Hamas and the IDF's accusations, with no independent press verifying either claim yet. Happy to cancel this request or reverse the move whenever the fog of war lifts on the cause. The Kip 19:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Obvious support given the uncertainty. If reliable sources can't agree on what it was, we shouldn't make an article that implicitly espouses a certain view. -- Veggies (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Support there has been no reliable sources confirming that the incident was a result of an airstrike. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment — Oh shoot. I did not realize this RM was started. I moved the article to explosion as the more neutral word, used by western media, Israel, and Hamas. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
If RSes are already using it, I've got no issue with the solo move. Lines up with NPOV anyhow. The Kip 19:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I am OK with that, for now. We shouldn't need an RM for the obvious (currently). Selfstudier (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Explosion should be an uncontroversial move. Does not require a discussion. Ecrusized (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The clear right choice until the cause is determined. No problem with the move. Penitentes (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claimed by...

The "Claimed by Hamas" should be changed to "Claimed by Gaza", as it is a claim done by the Gaza Health Ministry. Theklan (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The GHM is a part of the Hamas-run government. The Kip 19:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant now as it's been categorically proven Gazan militants were responsible not the IDF 80.195.8.42 (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Source? Selfstudier (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The IDF claims that, but independent media haven't verified it, and the IDF isn't exactly a reputable source here. The Kip 19:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Reactions section refers to "attack"

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

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

Edit Request

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

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

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

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

Al Jazeera has confirmed that the account is fake.

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

Request for comment on changing the title to "Al Ahli Arab Hospital massacre"

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.

Boldly closing this per WP:RFCNOT. Ignoring the very likely SNOW closure this would've gotten, RfCs should not be used for page moves, as that is the purpose of the RM process. — Material Works 21:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We had a disscussion above that was closed by a user (without having a consensus) so I decided to ask for comment. There's a disbute on wether this article should be moved to "Al Ahli Arab Hospital massacre".I think it should be moved because there are already multiple articles on 2023 Israel–Hamas war titled "massacre" where the casualities are Israelies such as Ein HaShlosha massacre and Kfar Aza massacre, so why this article shouldn't be called a massacre? Whether the perpetrators are Israelies or Hamas, it won't change the fact that this is a massacre. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 20:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose wait for any RS to call it a massacre before another discussion about this. AryKun (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Doctors Without Borders (MSF) says Israeli attack on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza is massacre, al jazeera ☆SuperNinja2☆ 20:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I read that and added it to the article already; MSF is not RS for the name by which this is commonly referred to by sources. In the other examples pointed out above, most newspapers call it a massacre, which is not the case with this airstrike so far. AryKun (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources:

Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Assuming the translation is correct, the article is asserting Israeli responsibility (and using loaded terms such as "martyrs"), which again, reputable and independent sources have not confirmed. Doctors without Borders, meanwhile, is not considered a news source. The Kip 20:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This is disruptive, I suggest you close this. Selfstudier (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose and SNOW close (without having a consensus) - the vote above was nine opposes and just one support, besides you as nominator. There was a consensus to not move the page that you're blatantly choosing to disregard because it didn't go your way, and you're fast approaching the point of WP:DEADHORSE. Drop it. The Kip 20:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
consensus is not a vote count. And it i's too early to call it a consensus. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 21:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose "Massacre" is a word that implies deliberate intent. If the warhead of an errant Islamic Jihad rocket caused the death and destruction, then this is not a massacre. Cullen328 (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: There was a clear consensus above not to move, and most RS aren't calling it one yet. Please drop the stick. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
consensus is not a vote count. And it i's too early to call it a consensus. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 20:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Your side of the argument is losing the vote count an consensus; just give it up for now. If Rs start calling this a massacre, it'll be moved. AryKun (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

International reactions

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2023 (2)

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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

'Perpetrators'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hamas as perpetrators

The only source claiming Hamas bombed the hospital is the IDF. Before they said this, numerous outlets, including Reuters, claimed Osrael bombed it. Are we really supposed to be repeating claims from the IDF as settled fact? That tag should be removed immediately 75.162.154.142 (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

طلب تحرير موسع ومحمي في 17 أكتوبر 2023 (3)

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

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

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

References

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

Keep Edit Warring and this Article will be Full-Locked

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

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

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

Veggies, I attempted to add a sentence about BNO News's video and that was reverted. Why is TOI and The Guardian given WP:UNDUE weight? TOI especially as it does cast blame, but BNO News's sentence about it is not allowed? If that is the case, I request the TOI sentence also be removed as it gives WP:UNDUE weight in the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

When you say BNO News, do you still mean just that tweet? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

LOL! So you are saying BNO News isn't a reliable source, without a discussion occurring to say it isn't a reliable source? On top of another editor above saying "I don't doubt that BNO is a reliable source"? Wow. Read up on WP:RS because that is the opposite of WP:RSN. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Small-text for a reason (not complete serious) - Being as kind as I can, while assuming good faith. I don't really except your analysis given you consider this event to be "geopolitical" and not an event in history. That is too much of an extreme differing viewpoint from my own that my mind instant ignores it. Analysis from others though, I would accept. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

In other news (no pun intended), as mentioned just before your longer post (point 1), the discussion occurred prior to other WP:RS using/mentioning the tracker, so it is outdated by a lot. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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

New video published

A new video has been published which proves that the explosion resulted by Jihad' failed launch:

Tal Schneider, Security cameras of the Ben Ben Nursery in Netiv HaTara recorded the failed launch, Kan 11, October 17, 2023.

Pacifico (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

there has been at least 5 debunked videos 'proving' that it was really an Palestinian rocket that did this, what a fucking joke. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. Twitter. If a ToI reporter get it published by them. Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You can literally see the waft of smoke from the hospital in this video, prior to the launches. Did you mean the post the video that the IDF shared, which takes place 40 minutes after the Hospital strike happened? Or perhaps the one Netanyahu shared that was 20 minutes after? Or maybe the one being proliferated that happened in 2022?173.70.121.247 (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2023 (3)

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

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

RfC closure

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

WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Please back away from the horse carcass. The Kip 21:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Like I said in my closing comment, RfCs should not be used for page moves. Make a move request instead. — Material Works 22:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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

why named an explosion and not a massacre?

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

Categories: