Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

Page lede should include both perspectives to ensure NPOV

To SPECIFICO, you deleted from the lede summary of RS content from the body of the page ensuring NPOV in the lede, arguing that it is somehow content that is not a summary of the body, which it plainly is.

Do not do that again before obtaining consensus here for wanting to violate NPOV in the lede.

It should be added that SPECIFICO is now extending edit-warring from another page where they are also trying to delete RS NPOV content in violation of Wiki rules.

Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Lede-body consistency is more of a technicality that can be fixed, but your lede additions were lacking in neutrality -

• Channel 4 News investigations contested Israeli claims seems misleading, firstly since they're just reporting on investigations by Forensic Architecture and Earshot. Also while they report on evidence which casts doubt on certain Israeli claims, they don't back a particular theory; they also say Hamas and Islamic Jihad have so far offered little evidence to back their claims that Israel fired the missile ...
• If the New Yorker quote is included, it should be clarified that it's another reference to FA report, not some additional investigation.
• an aggressive disinformation campaign seems like FA's editorialization which I don't think belongs in the lede
• multiple news outlets erroneously cited the IDF’s claim doesn't really match FA's language
• noted isn't the appropriate language for FA's controversial claims; it's one of the loaded terms that MOS:SAID warns us about
• The New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País cited Forensic Architecture seems like an effort to bolster the prominence of the report, when it's very normal for media sources to refer to one another, and we don't typically note such references (let alone in ledes)

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The lede additions were literally taken from the body of the page from accepted RS content. It was summarizing that, so unless you or anyone else wants to change the body of the main page to no longer contain those which would require you to challenge those claims and RS sources, the lede should be returned as was.

Every word of the lede is exactly matched by the RS sources.

The Channel 4 investigations are not "just reporting on FA and Earshot", they are independent investigations that drew their own conclusions, as is noted in the body of the page where both investigations are referenced and sourced, here and here.

seems like FA's editorialization which I don't think belongs in the lede, fortunately what you think isn't relevant, Wiki rules are: FA is a RS, they concluded that, it's in the body of the page, it is highly relevant and must be included in the lede.

Otherwise when I say that the prior paragraph making claims about the rocket clearly being a misfire is "loaded" and "contentious" it would also have to be removed. Fortunately, again, Wiki doesn't work like that.

doesn't really match FA's language it is an exact summary of what FA concludes: "Multiple news outlets cited Israeli military spokesperson Daniel Hagari’s claim that it was a Palestinian rocket that struck al-Ahli hospital with ‘most of this damage… done due to the propellant, not just the warhead’. Similar claims were made by Human Rights Watch, the Washington Post, the BBC, and AP. Our analysis, however, suggests that all seventeen visible rockets in the salvo the Israeli military claimed was responsible had finished burning their fuel mid-flight, meaning that by Hagari’s own logic they could not have caused the damage to al-Ahli."

In fact I was overly summarizing by not including the names of all those outlets FA concludes repeated what they say was a false account.

noted isn't the appropriate language for FA's controversial claims what you think is "controversial" is fortunately irrelevant: FA is a RS widely cited by other RS, "noted" is not only the exact right term, it should actually be "concluded".

seems like an effort to bolster the prominence all those outlets cited FA's analysis, they are all RS, and the language matches that exactly. What it "seems like" to you is again irrelevant, it meets RS standard and should be included in the lede.

All these points are contained in the body of the page, and if you would like to contest them and have them removed, good luck with that.

The lede will include it until those elements are successfully challenged and removed by consensus.

Make sure to make a separate talk topic for each the parts you want to remove, and again good luck. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Channel 4's reporting doesn't seem like an "investigation" to me - I see some basic background info, some summaries of other investigations, and a few sentences of verbal commentary from a newscaster. I suppose it's debatable though.

FA never refers to other reports "erroneous", and it inherently cannot be erroneous to simply cite a spokesperson's claim.

FA's statement about an aggressive disinformation campaign is hardly an objective "conclusion", and verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, especially in the lede.

To suggest that statements like the Israeli military launched an aggressive disinformation campaign are uncontroversial seems extremely farfetched, and I don't see why we would ignore the advice of MOS:SAID here. It also seems undue for the lede anyway, since it's a vague statement which reflects the opinion of one source.

Do you think we should list, in the lede, all the prominent tertiary coverage of AP, CNN, etc. investigations? Presumably not; tertiary coverage is rarely mentioned especially in a lede. Why should the FA report in particular be afforded special treatment?

To your point about consensus, the WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include disputed content. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns about FA although there may be an older consensus that it should stay in which may need to be litigated by a further formal consensus. However personally I do agree FA doesn't belong in the lead, it is part of the story but should be treated as a primary source report and contextualized by secondary sources, and attributed for any of its conclusions. Andre🚐 20:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not a primary source, that makes zero sense. It is not "part of the story", it is an independent, and reliable, source covering the story. And it has been given a ton of weight in other reliable sources. And you know full well it is not just "there may be an older consensus that it should stay", you were there when that consensus was established. nableezy - 20:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is the consensus that I meant, thanks for finding it. That was from almost a year ago so I didn't remember. However I'm making a slightly different argument about treating it as a primary source. Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, such as a work of art or a scientific paper documenting original thought. There are plenty of secondary sources that cover it. Andre🚐 20:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

They are none of the involved parties here, they are definitionally secondary to what they are covering. They are no closer to the event than the New York Times is. You cant just claim that any investigation that doesnt line up with the ones you agree with are suddenly "close to the event" and a primary source. nableezy - 20:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, even the New York Times' breaking news reporting would be considered a primary source. Andre🚐 20:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

We already went over this recently on another page, but to reiterate here too, the FA February investigation on an event that took place in October is clearly 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. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[f] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[g] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary, or scholarly review.

This is not even controversial, the FA investigation is plainly not a primary source. Not even the earlier FA investigations are primary sources, as they are plainly secondary analyses based on primary sources. Adding the New Yorker reference to the FA text adds a strong secondary RS to it, so that's why I suggest including that.

In any case, since there is consensus established regarding it already, the onus is on those who want to challenge and remove it to gain consensus for it. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn’t breaking news, this is an independent report by a well regarded and regularly cited reliable source. nableezy - 20:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Not much to add here apart from what nableezy and Raskolnikov.Rev have already said but since it seems this is a continuation of another discussion that I also took part in I'll add my two cents. FA is not a primary source, that has already been established. Trimming the lead to only exclude one viewpoint is a flagrant NPOV violation, especially considering that the proposed addition mentioned things already included in the body. I do agree with SPECIFICO re: the paragraph being too long. Seems like a shortened version is now up, so there shouldn't be any problem with it anymore. When content is new, the onus for consensus is on those seeking inclusion, but if it's been there for a while, onus is on those seeking to remove it. So, if anyone has a problem with the content being summarized in the lead, feel free to open a proper discussion to deal with each case and decide if it should stay or not. - Ïvana (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Re Do you think we should list, in the lede, all the prominent tertiary coverage of AP, CNN, etc. investigations? We do mention their findings. Per NPOV we also need to mention the findings that dispute theirs as well. nableezy - 20:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

These are not their "findings," they are reporting that Forensic Archaeology has made its own findings. Scharb (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What exactly are you replying to here? nableezy - 21:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You. Scharb (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if you say so, but your reply doesnt seem to be a reply to anything I said here. nableezy - 21:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

FA's analysis was already in the lead, and NPOV demands that all significant views be included. We already have a consensus for the inclusion of FA in an RFC earlier. nableezy - 19:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping the lede per your latest edit, as it ensures NPOV and accurately reflects RS as included in the body of the page. Maybe add the New Yorker source as well after the FA reference, as it is RS and references the same investigation noting the same point as in the text you added. Also there's a minor grammatical error, "the Human Rights Watch" should just be "Human Rights Watch." Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also fine with a succinct mention of FA's report like this in the lede. Fixed the typo you mentioned. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the FA analysis a significant rebuttal of the other studies - including the various foreign military intelligence assessments? Or is it a marginal possibility such as will always be present in the fog of war and imperfect information? SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. nableezy - 03:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lede is fine, it doesn't give undue weight to the FA report.

The phrase "The cause of the explosion is contested" in the previous paragraph has NPOV problems since it makes it seem like RS support both versions equally. Alaexis_¿question? 20:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily against tweaking it, but I don't think it's much of an issue since the proceeding sentences clarify that there's more weight behind the failed rocket explanation (or at least against the intentional Israeli strike explanation). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agree with this, and am against tweaking it for that reason.

Also noticed the sources for that section were cut out in the previous revision, so I've re-added them. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

No. The New Yorker describes the Forensic Architecture analysis as follows:

"Four months later, Forensic Architecture published its full investigation, demonstrating that all seventeen Palestinian rockets had finished burning their propellant while in flight. The investigation was not meant to prove that Israel had destroyed Al-Ahli Arab Hospital. It is still unclear what caused the explosion. What the investigation did was show that the I.D.F. had fostered an environment of uncertainty by putting out misinformation about a misfired Palestinian rocket."

(The latter seems to be editorializing and non-chronological.) Scharb (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ïvana: I’m not seeing a consensus here to include the old FA report as well as the new one, and the WP:ONUS is on you to get such a consensus as the status quo is to exclude the old report from the lede.

Personally, I see it as undue emphasis on FA’s reporting to include both, and generally suspect - the older report, which attributes blame to Israel, has been superseded by the newer report, which says it is unclear what happened. BilledMammal (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

agree with BilledMammal Andre🚐 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There was wide agreement that the lead was fine prior to your edit. That consensus seems fairly clear. nableezy - 12:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You're wrong. The report from February did not refute the October report's finding that the blast originated from munitions fired from Israel. Instead, it concluded that the cause of the blast remains inconclusive. So, first report establishes location, second determines cause was inconclusive. And the third one says the likely cause was not a rocket but a fragmentation bomb (not included on the lead, just an update). The munition is still considered to be originating from Israel, that was never retracted. - Ïvana (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't read it that way. Regardless, we've got WP:UNDUE emphasis on the claim that Israel was responsible; there are four sentences discussing that claim in the lede, compared to three discussing the claim that Palestinian militants were responsible, despite the latter claim being far more widely accepted.

Please self-revert until WP:ONUS is met. BilledMammal (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how you read it, that's what the reports say. You're welcome to check them out. The lead has been thoroughly discussed and the onus falls on you. But if the problem is one single extra line then we can easily combine the FA ones. It was originally one line but it was splitted for clarity. - Ïvana (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Really? Alaexis, "the last paragraph of the lead is fine, it doesn’t give undue weight". xDanielx "also fine with a succinct mention of FA's report like this in the lede". It was nearly unanimous until you attempted reimpose your position here. This at this point is stable with consensus and *you* need consensus to change it. nableezy - 13:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Nableezy and @Ïvana. This has consensus, and if anyone wants to challenge it they have to gain consensus for that.

Also saw that a new FA investigation has further added to their case against the errant rocket/munition theory, and I support adding that to the lede too.

Something like this succinctly captures all three FA investigations: "In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel, and in subsequent visual investigations published on 15 February and 17 October 2024, with the latter including situated testimony from doctors, it cast further doubt on the errant rocket launch theory.[14][15][89]" Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

That looks good to me. - Ïvana (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks bad to me, gives undue weight, it's too lengthy for the lede, and misstates the facts. (See section below) --Scharb (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Uh @BilledMammal you can't just force your view in here, there has been wide agreement in this section that is at odds with your editing. Kindly establish a consensus to change what already has consensus. nableezy - 21:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources you just added don't support your claim. The BBC says (On 14 November, Forensic Architecture removed a tweet and changed its analysis to say the projectile was probably a rocket although the group stood by its conclusion on the direction it had come from.)

If you insist, I'll revert to the status quo and open an RfC, but inserting content that is contradicted by the sources you cite is highly problematic. BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

FA did not change its analysis. The BBC update mistakenly summarizes FA's 14 November post, which was referring to a photo of a crater in Ukraine that they deleted, not the Al-Ahli site analysis, which is still up. This is accurately reflected in the long-standing version of the lede that you edited, and in fact in their latest investigation FA cites situated testimony referring to munition. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The status quo is already there, and insisting on following a mistake in an otherwise reliable source (FA didn’t delete the tweet about this) is curious. nableezy - 12:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

By my count, in this discussion page as of this post:

The status quo has been contested by 1. BilledMammal, 2. xDanielx, 3. Miberg 4. Andre 5. Alaexis and 6. scharb.

The status quo has been supported by 1. nableezy, 2. Raskolnikov.Rev, and 3. Ïvana

The contesting group has pointed to numerous problems with the current description, including WP:Peacocking and undue weight and the text simply does not match the source or pertinent secondary sources.

Please do not Wikilawyer when consensus that doesn't exist. --Scharb (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Uh, xDanielx: Also fine with a succinct mention of FA's report like this in the lede., Alaexis: The last paragraph of the lede is fine, it doesn't give undue weight to the FA report. No idea who Miberg is. But may want to accurately reflect what other editors have said. nableezy - 22:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, "MiBerG" and Alaexis said "The phrase 'The cause of the explosion is contested' in the previous paragraph has NPOV problems since it makes it seem like RS support both versions equally." Scharb (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That isnt an extended confirmed editor, they cannot participate in the consensus making process. There is clear consensus for the inclusion of FA in the lead. Full stop. nableezy - 23:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the BBC report was inaccurate - but if you were why did you add it? And if you weren't, why did you add content that was contradicted by it?

However, even setting aside the BBC report, the content added doesn't align with the sources. The content says the munition came from Israel; the Tweet says it came from the North-East, and that it what the provided sources say; for example, El Pais says "According to its analysis and three-dimensional projection, what hit the Al Ahli center came from the northeastern area".

In general, though, I still think it is WP:UNDUE for the lede. This is a tweet, by a highly partisan organization (the tweet uses "IOF", not "IDF"), that received a few brief mentions at the time. It warrants a mention in the body, but there is no justification to include it in the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The justification to include it in the lead is that it is a view that reliable sources have treated as significant and NPOV requires all significant views be included, including in the summary of the article. nableezy - 02:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

NPOV requires that all significant views be included in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. We've violated that in general, giving excessive emphasis to the minority view that PIJ was not responsible, but we've also violated it specifically, as we're giving excessive emphasis to a tweet that was given only a passing mention in coverage at the time. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It wasn’t passing coverage. And there is wide agreement among a range of users that the brief mention of FA's disputing the Israeli narrative in the lead is acceptable. nableezy - 03:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There are 59 words covering the majority of reliable sources which agree the PIJ was probably responsible. There are 73 words covering the minority position that Israel was probably responsible; that isn't brief or aligned with NPOV.

Regardless, this isn't going to be resolved by us arguing, so do you want to open the RfC or should I? BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The part of the lede that supports the failed rocket launch POV currently has 94 words. The other POV has 73 words.

Perhaps it can be balanced out by adding countries that blamed Israel for it to the list as well, but I don't see that worth making an RfC for myself. If you do propose one I would support that position. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE

NPOV doesn't mean we give equal weight to the two viewpoints; it means we give weight in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. As the viewpoint that PIJ is probably responsible is the one held by the vast majority of sources, our coverage should give that viewpoint significantly more coverage.

(Also, when you added the word count from the previous paragraph, you forgot to add the word count from it that aligns with the Palestinian POV, bring the total for that POV up to 85.) BilledMammal (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right, it's 94 to 85, so the other side still is more prominently presented.

We simply disagree about whether FA is a high quality RS. You evidently believe it is a biased fringe source that should not be given any weight at all, or at least very marginal weight, whereas I and many others, based on RS, believe that FA and its three separate expert investigations are high quality RS, and particularly valuable in this case as the other sources only did preliminary analyses shortly after the blast, while FA followed up with multiple detailed investigations, including one recently. Incidentally, this is why the word count is now closer to balance, as the recent investigation was also briefly added to the lede. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The original BBC report did accurately state FA's analysis that it came from the direction of Israel, as "northeast" refers to the direction from Israel. The New York Times also noted this: "Forensic Architecture, a London-based visual investigation group, disputed the Israeli account, saying that the munition had been fired from the direction of Israel." Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"From the direction of Israel" is not the same as "From Israel", and "From the Northeast" is even less similar. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The original report still accurately states that, it is only its later added update that is wrong. And other cited RS like the NYT and FA itself say it was from the direction of Israel.

I do agree that "from Israel" is problematic and does not match the language of the sources, so will fix that. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2024

I request an edit of the lead section which currently includes this statement: "Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel, and cast doubt on the errant rocket launch theory in a visual investigation published on 15 February 2024, saying that "what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive". The sentence is self-contradictorily, as it in the beginning states that "Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel" while it ends with a verbatim quote of Forensic Architecture that states "what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive". Either Forensic Architecture concluded that it was Israeli munition or they conclude that "what happened remains inconclusive". Both statements can't be true at the same time. Given that the primary source is still available (reference 15) and does not conclude that the blast was a result of munition fired from Israel but does indeed conclude with the statement, that what happened at Al-Ahli remains inconclusive, I request to change the sentence to: "Forensic Architecture casts doubt on the errant rocket launch theory in a visual investigation published on 15 February 2024, saying that "what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive". I also suggest the removal of references 14 and 16 as they add nothing to the sentence that isn't covered by the primary source (reference 15).

MiBerG (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The second FA investigation from February contested claims regarding a misfired Palestinian rocket but did not refute its initial finding that the blast originated from munitions fired from Israel. Instead, it concluded that the cause of the blast remains inconclusive, which the current sentence now clarifies. - Ïvana (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Ivana's current edit to the lead re FA is a good improvement as it is nicely concise and is also very clear that there were two different investigations (and indeed the second one doesn't supersede the first) so helps avoid misunderstandings.

I also agree it is very much due in the lead, and that we should keep the secondary sources which confirm it is due. However, I'm not comfortable with the definitiveness with which it's reported here in contrast to the caution in FA's own account. Their first report used the words "more consistent" rather than definitively concluding it was an Israeli munition, and their second report explicitly says that the origin remains inconclusive. So I worry that we give a false impression and do FA a disservice. But maybe the place to deal with that is in the body not the lead, so we keep the concision. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Tertiary coverage

@Scharb and Raskolnikov.Rev: regarding this content: The New York Times, Bloomberg News, Al Jazeera, BBC News, and El País also cited Forensic Architecture's analysis ...

It looks like Raskolnikov.Rev is right that the sources do mention FA. That said, they seem like fairly trivial mentions (and in the NYT case, only in a live blog). "Cited" might be a bit misleading, since it seems to imply some kind of corroboration.

Moreover, it's very unusual to list out tertiary coverage (of this trivial sort) like this. There are probably tons of other sources which mention the reports by AP, CNN, etc.; I don't think we should list those either. So I think we should remove this, partly to avoid giving special treatment to FA, and partly just because of its triviality. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times Live Blog reference is RS.

Having said that, this issue has been adjudicated before, and it was decided to include the references because the FA investigation was being challenged for not being RS or noteworthy, with some claiming it was WP:FRINGE, justifying the referencing of their investigation in these various RS outlets in-page.

See particularly the replies by Levivich here, Nableezy here and DFlhb here.

I agree with them and see no reason to change that. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.Rev What you labeled as "adjudication" is intended as a survey, only, and there is no clear decision. Scharb (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence. It doesn't reflect the FA source, and it was reported on, not cited. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I've restored, but without saying FA was cited by these outlets and just including what FA found. nableezy - 21:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

From the linked survey: Consensus has it that Forensic Architecture's position has been cited widely by reliable sources, and that it therefore is a matter of WP:NPOV to include it. Opposers focused on critiquing FA's reliability, credibility and neutrality, but these arguments were not very successful.

I take it to mean that FA, by itself, has been questioned and the coverage in RS was necessary to be included as a source. Hence, I have made the edit to keep the full references but changing "cited by" to "reported by". CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The close says FA should be included because it's cited by tertiary sources, not that we should cite those tertiary sources. I see how citing the tertiary sources could serve as a reminder to editors that it's significant and shouldn't be deleted, but we can accomplish the same thing in other ways, without distracting readers by listing tertiary sources in prose. For example, we could just have a MOS:COMMENT mentioning the consensus to include it. Or we can just keep all the tertiary coverage as sources, but not mention them in prose. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That’s what I did and I think my edit, as always, was perfect in every way. nableezy - 00:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe they should be kept as prose in-page for reasons mentioned before and by @CoolAndUniqueUsername. It is hardly distracting to name a few media outlets that reported on the FA analysis in the body of the page. If it is, then the same can be said for the various other outlets who reported the other POV, which can also be truncated by inclusion in sources and reference to "various media outlets reported".

I don't believe that's necessary either, and changing it from "cited" to "reported by" resolves the issue of implying agreement.

I see no reason to remove the long-standing text. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the point of including the prose? The points I see mentioned here are

1. It might be useful as a sort of reminder to editors that it's not WP:FRINGE. But including sources (without prose) already serves that purpose. If there's any remaining concern, we can add a comment too, as an extra reminder to editors without distracting readers.
2. What seems like a misinterpretation of the survey - I don't see any comments actually saying that tertiary sources should be covered, certainly not in the close.

It seems really superfluous and quite unusual. Most sources we cite have tertiary coverage, and many of them have had their inclusion challenged at one point. We almost never list tertiary coverage in prose; why should this be a special case? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the main difference is that you think the first version in the body of the page is somehow distracting to readers, but the second version isn't, and in fact that having a MOS:COMMENT added to the second clarifying the consensus to include is less distracting than just having the first version. I completely disagree with that estimation.

The long-standing version of the text obviates the need for a MOS:COMMENT, it is trimmed and short and not at all distracting to the reader, and serves the purpose of establishing the notability of FA's October 20 analysis by clarifying that it was reported by RS and hence is not some fringe view that was only posted in a social media Twitter/X thread.

That is an additional reason to include it, as that first FA analysis is limited to a Twitter/X thread which may give cause to question its RS nature if it were not however for it being reported on by these various RS outlets, establishing its notability even though its conclusion was at odds with these other RS. So it's important for NPOV to make explicit that it is a notable RS analysis, and again, I believe it's best and not at all distracting to do that in prose in the body of the page rather than by adding a MOS:COMMENT.

1. Forensic Architecture, in an analysis of footage of the blast site as reported by the New York Times, Bloomberg News, BBC News, and El País, disputed Israel's account that it was caused by a rocket from Gaza and concluding instead that it resulted from a munition fired from the northeast, the direction of Israel.
2. Forensic Architecture, in an analysis of footage of the blast site disputed Israel's account that it was caused by a rocket from Gaza and concluding instead that it resulted from a munition fired from the northeast, the direction of Israel. [MOS:COMMENT added mentioning consensus to include it].

Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say superfluous prose is inherently distracting, at least it goes against the succinctness that WP:MOS encourages.

I don't think a comment would even be needed if we're including the inline citations anyway. But if someone feels strongly about needing an extra reminder, a comment would be fine. Concision in user-visible prose is normally a much higher priority than concision in markup.

Re it being a tweet thread, I think you would have a good point if our prose mentioned that. As is, if the reader doesn't look at references, they won't know it's a tweet thread. If they do, they'll see the tertiary coverage anyway. We could aggregate the tweet thread and other sources in one footnote if you want to be sure it's all seen together. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that there continue to be efforts to remove the FA analysis altogether from the lede because it is deemed to be fringe justifies why the specification of it being notable should be explicitly kept in prose in the body, exactly to counteract such challenges. Perhaps if people on the other side had accepted the notability of the FA analysis and didn't keep trying to get it truncated or removed altogether, I would have agreed with you, not because it is distracting as I don't see that at all, but because there would be no reason for it given the general acceptability of FA as a high quality RS that is due. But unfortunately that's not the case.

Also I'm not sure why the prose having "in an analysis of the blast site posted on Twitter" justifies the inclusion of it in page without violating your readability standard, but if you think that's what can justify its inclusion I'm fine with adding that to the text to resolve the issue of its inclusion. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, looking at the earliest version of the text from October of last year, and how it was in-page for months before it was removed, it did explicitly include that the FA investigation was posted on Twitter, which as I noted and you agreed gives additional justification for the in-page citations. So I have gone ahead and restored that. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I concur with the views expressed by @CoolAndUniqueUsername and @Raskolnikov.Rev that any legitimate concerns regarding the text have been adequately addressed through clarification with the phrase "reported by." Therefore, the inclusion of this information on the page is justified, particularly in light of the ongoing challenges to Forensic Architecture's analysis as not meeting the criteria for being due and reliable, as evidenced by @Scharb's persistent efforts to have it removed on those grounds.

Furthermore, I believe that these sources should also be referenced in prose in the lead section for the same rationale, establishing that it is indeed due, and essential to include to ensure WP:BALANCE. Lf8u2 (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent me, I am seeking to have it reworded and deemphasized or moved to the body, on the grounds it doesn't match the sources. --Scharb (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx I put forth this exact same argument over at Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_46#'October 17' section. Putting these sources in prose for what you've accurately noted as rather trivial mentions is just not the way sources are cited on Wikipedia - and doing so is largely at odds with the guideline for in-text attribution.

However, I was outvoted in that discussion, and some personal stuff came up - with both of those factors, I determined the issue just wasn't worth my time pressing any longer.

There is currently an open case request to ArbCom, in which many editors express the same frustrations with this topic area as I've had in engaging in that discussion - primarily for me, finding "local consensus" among whichever editors decide to show up at a talk page to contravene "vulnerable" consensus established elsewhere, like in our Guidelines. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in feeling the pain here, and I hope something is done about it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

To be fair that discussion didn't exactly go as you're presenting it here: You initially argued that FA was a primary source and should therefore not be cited at all, then you moved to saying it might be cited, but without the RS being attributed in-page after you included the references to the other POV because you believe that that side is more reliable because it has Western intelligence agencies that confirm it. Consensus was reached that this was not persuasive. I think the issue is that you and others on "your side" so to say simply do not believe that FA is a credible high quality source, and is instead a fringe biased against Israel source that pales in comparison to the CIA and Pentagon. That is just a fundamental disagreement we have that has to be hashed out with reasoned arguments, and I have presented the best ones I have at my disposal for why I disagree with that. And again it is why I believe in-page citation of the RS that reported on FA's investigation is warranted. I actually wish it wouldn't be.

Right now you again made the argument in the RfC that you believe FA is fringe, it violates DUE to include its investigations to the extent they are both in the lede and body, and you want to have that trimmed significantly, again expressing how you feel about it as a source, and why it should be established that it is in fact a high quality RS in-page. Again, I wish it didn't have to be.

But I agree with you that there is a persistent problem in this topic area of finding local consensus among whichever editors happen to show up in contravention of consensus established elsewhere like in the guidelines, as is being done here at the moment and was being done in that discussion as well, though I'm sure we disagree about which side is primarily engaged in this. It is indeed incredibly frustrating, and I too hope something can be done about it. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't have to summarize the entire discussion from the beginning every time. Discussions evolve over time, and in a healthy discussion, positions change with the introduction of new information. Trying over and over again to play "gotcha" with me for things already hashed out is disruptive deflection, not to mention quite rude.

And in your long summation above, you again failed to engage with my current point here - that in-text attribution like this goes against Guidelines, and is thus uncommon everywhere on Wikipedia. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the bottom line here is that article prose is written for the reader, not for editors. There are may other ways of conveying a message like "before removing, be aware of X and Y" to editors without interfering with prose:

• MOS:COMMENTs
• Talk page notices
• Extra references (which I'm okay with keeping even if they're extraneous)
• Just watchlisting the page (as many of us have done) and reminding others if occasionally necessary

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx These tools clearly aren't working because of the constant efforts to remove Forensic Architecture's analysis from the page – even though we have regular Talk reminders that it is RS by those watching the page and the many sources establishing that it is RS. I agree with Rask et al that while I wish it wasn't something we needed to include in page (though I disagree about the impact on readability; the current lede lists multiple news outlets one after the other and nobody has raised a similar issue) the fact that it continues to be challenged justifies its inclusion.

Maybe we can revisit this after the RFC below is completed and it is firmly established that FA's investigation is worthy of inclusion in both body and lede, especially after a few stable months without additional challenges. (One can only hope.) On the other hand if the RFC results in removing the information from the lede, then that further bolsters the argument to keep the RS in-text to justify FA's inclusion there. (And likewise hopefully avoid another round of this same argument.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia - you'll never be able to completely stop people coming to new articles, and editing them as they see fit. What you can do is put up guardrails, all of which xDanielx mentioned above I think are good choices. And if they fail, you can have talk page discussion, or have the editor blocked for disruption if they won't collaborate, or whatever. That's just life here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

In addition to PhotogenicScientist's point, most of this hasn't even been tried. A comment would probably be even more effective than extraneous prose - editors tend to take them seriously since they're explicit messages to them. Feel free to propose a talk page notice as well.

Sure there will probably continue to be disputes related to FA, but it's not because editors are unaware of tertiary coverage. E.g. BilledMammal was clearly aware of tertiary coverage, but sought to remove the sentence anyway for different reasons. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to remove this long-standing text, there is an ongoing Talk discussion on it with four editors expressing support for keeping it and four against, and again the very fact that there is an ongoing RfC to have FA's October 20 investigation removed entirely or trimmed significantly, with the support PhotogenicScientist, demonstrates why it should not be. In any case there is no reason to not wait for the conclusion of the ongoing RfC to remove long-standing text that has been there since October of last year. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to remove Using "no consensus" as your main opposition, or leading off with it, is profoundly unhelpful, and is discouraged.

remove this long-standing text age of article content is an incredibly weak reason to keep it. And article content only has such weak "presumed consensus" until it is disputed or reverted - which has happened.

the very fact that there is an ongoing RfC to have FA's October 20 investigation removed entirely... demonstrates why it should not be And though Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, we don't include material simply because "people want to exclude it" - all material in articles must be able to stand on their own merit and be P&G-compliant. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:DRNC is for edit messages regarding topics where the only thing someone has to say is that there's 'no consensus', when as you can clearly see from this talk page is not the case. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not only cite lack of consensus, I gave substantive reasoning; the "presumed consensus" is being established as active consensus in talk as of now in the ongoing RfC, in fact I cited that as the main reason to justify its inclusion. I also in line with Wiki guidelines made a compromise edit in line with Daniel's prior stated position on what could hopefully resolve the issue pending the RfC. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The RFC is specifically handling the question of whether FA should be mentioned in the lead at all. Here, we're discussing the decidedly odd prose formulation of citing RS in-text for routine coverage, in the article body. Nobody up here is looking to get FA removed from the article - if you want to discuss that point, head on down to that thread. Here, please try to stay on the topic xDanielx and I have brought up. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the article is written for the reader and not for editors. As a reader, I find it helpful to note that reputable news organizations have covered the analysis done by what seems like a non-descript research group. I see WP:MOS being cited for succinctness but also see that the MOS asks for succinctness in language, not in terms of removing material information. If anything, it improves readability to know that a Wikipedia article isn't relying on a tweet instead of having to open multiple tabs to learn about what FA is.

I also agree with the ideas put forward by planet and Raskolnikov in terms of how there's a constant effort to remove FA's analysis. Let's see how the RFC turns out, but perhaps a 3rd alternative is to center the article on FA's analysis while also using language that leaves no doubt about the authoritative investigative journalism that the organization engages in. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I find it helpful to note that reputable news organizations have covered the analysis this can be fully accomplished with WP:CITATIONS. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you support removing the listing of various media outlets from the lede by name because it's cumbersome to have it in prose, especially so since it's in the lede, and it serves no real purpose because it's already in the citations and no one is contesting them so there's no real reason to have them listed by name?

How about truncating the naming of each intelligence agency that concluded it was a misfired rocked in the lede and merely listing them in the citations?

Do you think we should include the Al Jazeera investigation to the lede that agreed with FA's analysis? Do you think Earshot should be mentioned separately as cited in the New Yorker? They're separate organizations with independent investigations, so why should the others all be named in-text, but not these? Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That's one hell of a false equivalence you've set up there, between organizations who have performed their own analyses and assessments of the situation (defense departments, other RS, etc), and organizations who have simply mentioned that an organization has performed an analysis and assessment of the situation (Bloomberg News, Al Jazeera, BBC News, and El País). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, many of your myriad of additional questions have been asked before, by you, and answered by me, in this not-too-old thread. Do you really think it's worth either of our times to WP:BLUDGEON each other with questions we should both know the answer to? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, Al Jazeera's investigative unit conducted its own independent investigation, as did Earshot as cited in the New Yorker. That's why I said: "They're separate organizations with independent investigations, so why should the others all be named in-text, but not these?"

To answer that question myself, the reason they're not all cited in the lede as of now is because we agreed to a compromise to only cite Channel 4 and FA so as to give both POV equal weight as determined by length (though the other POV is still longer).

The result of that has been that there's an ongoing attempt to minimize, truncate if not remove entirely FA's investigations from the lede with the argument that it is not due and fringe. That is how this connects to the ongoing RfC, which is exactly about establishing whether it is fringe or not.

You're right about avoiding asking repetitive questions as it serves no purpose, but I will ask one more that is I think pertinent here: Why have you not supported keeping the FA 20 October investigation in the lede as is? You said here that you don't believe it is a fringe source that is not due and have no desire to remove it from the body of the page, so why should it not be reflected in the lede given that it was reported by these various RS? The readability case, which as I have tried to show is not plausible, doesn't apply there. In fact you have argued that it should be truncated or removed from the lede because it is not due and fringe. Incidentally Daniel also has yet to express support for keeping it in the lede.

So again, this is how the two connect, as others have noted as well. If it was indeed firmly established and accepted that FA's investigations, including the October 20 one, are high quality RS, both by the record of its own work as well as backed by the fact that it is deemed notable enough to receive RS coverage, there would be no ongoing attempt to remove it from the lede with the argument that it is actually fringe and not due. There is no readability case for the lede. In fact this is why I am sympathetic to @Lf8u2's argument that the lede should also include the in-page references to the various high quality RS that reported on FA's October 20 investigation, but hopefully the RfC can settle the matter. And I agree with @CoolAndUniqueUsername and others that if the RfC establishes consensus for its inclusion in the lede, thereby establishing that it is a high quality RS that is due and not fringe, and there are no further challenges to it for some time, it might make sense to revisit this, although with the recent compromise to clarify that it was a Twitter thread it still makes sense to keep it on those grounds. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lf8u2: can you explain your revert? Do you have an argument for a reminder to Wikipedia editors needs to be in reader-facing article prose, and not a comment or what not? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.Rev: I see you also reverted, but I'm still not seeing any argument for why a comment wouldn't suffice and let us remove the superfluous prose. Certainly not by "by multiple editors"; I only see a single reply of yours with the word "comment". That reply said that "the text obviates the need" for a comment, but likewise a comment obviates the need for the superfluous prose. We normally prioritize concision in reader-facing prose over concision in markup; why should we do the opposite here? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There are four editors, including myself, who have opposed its removal and have given arguments for it, as you can read here, here, here, here, and here.

Moreover, as can be read in those posts, two compromises have been made since this talk was started. "Cited by" was replaced with "reported by", as the former may imply agreement. And "posted on Twitter" was re-added as a further compromise which you said was a good reason to keep the in-page prose: Re it being a tweet thread, I think you would have a good point if our prose mentioned that. As is, if the reader doesn't look at references, they won't know it's a tweet thread.

But if we simply can't agree on this then it's best to go ahead and start an RFC to resolve it. I was hoping to avoid that until at least the ongoing RFC on including FA's October analysis in the lede was resolved, but if we can't wait for that and editors insist on trying to remove it, it's best to proceed with that. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a vote, and there has been nowhere near the strength of argument required to override the prior consensus established by WP:CITATION to not do exactly this. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no established consensus under WP:CITATION that prohibits the inclusion of such content. It is a matter of style contingent upon context. In this case, considering the ongoing and persistent efforts to challenge the credibility of the Forensic Architecture's analysis from October 20, it is entirely reasonable to retain this. Lf8u2 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It's right there at WP:INTEXT

Here's a shockingly similar example to this of what not to do:

N According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening.

Y The sun sets in the west each evening.

PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the guidance found in WP:INTEXT.

The example you reference is discouraged not due to any readability concerns raised regarding its inclusion, but because it is deemed "misleading", as is stated above the example you provided: "The sentence below suggests The New York Times has alone made this important discovery".

This reasoning does not apply to the current situation. The content here consists of reliable sources reporting on Forensic Architecture's analysis published on Twitter/X. That by itself is good grounds for inclusion.

In fact, the opposite to your claim regarding WP:INTEXT is the case: It recommends that including in-line references "may also be used when loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words." WP:INTEXT further states that it is "preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references."

This establishes a stylistic guideline, rather than a rigid requirement, and it is conditional on the determination of whether the information is indeed better suited for citation rather than inclusion in the article text. This clearly establishes that there are valid grounds for using in-line references contingent on specific context, and these have been provided here by myself and others in this discussion.

To reiterate: There is no established consensus under WP:CITATION that prohibits the inclusion of such content. It is a matter of style contingent upon context. In this case, considering the ongoing and persistent efforts to challenge the credibility of the Forensic Architecture's analysis from October 20, it is entirely reasonable to retain this.

Your reversion and its accompanying edit summary were based on a misrepresentation of WP:INTEXT. There is no such "prior consensus established" by it. I urge you and others to avoid engaging in Wikipedia:Edit warring and to await consensus on this matter. Lf8u2 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT further states that it is "preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references." How you can quote this yourself, without realizing you're trying to do the opposite of what this recommends, is just beyond me.

This establishes a stylistic guideline No, WP:CITATION is, in fact, not simply MOS. It's a content guideline. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we mention it's a tweet thread; for the reader that just adds more noise. I meant that hypothetically if we had to for some reason, then it might be an argument for mentioning tertiary coverage. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I already explained my reasoning here, but happy to repeat: "I concur with the views expressed by @CoolAndUniqueUsername and @Raskolnikov.Rev that any legitimate concerns regarding the text have been adequately addressed through clarification with the phrase "reported by." Therefore, the inclusion of this information on the page is justified, particularly in light of the ongoing challenges to Forensic Architecture's analysis as not meeting the criteria for being due and reliable, as evidenced by @Scharb's persistent efforts to have it removed on those grounds.

Furthermore, I believe that these sources should also be referenced in prose in the lead section for the same rationale, establishing that it is indeed due, and essential to include to ensure WP:BALANCE."

In addition to that, since I made my comment a compromise was added to the text - "posted on Twitter" - further justifying its inclusion in prose, which you also conceded. Lf8u2 (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a single argument for why a comment in the markup wouldn't be at least as effective for conveying a message to editors. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There are several well-reasoned arguments.

Regarding the statement, "I wasn't suggesting that we mention it's a tweet thread; for the reader that just adds more noise. I meant that hypothetically if we had to for some reason, then it might be an argument for mentioning tertiary coverage"

This is not a hypothetical situation, as the Twitter specification is present on the page per compromise. Therefore, there is an additional, valid rationale for the in-line inclusion of these references. Lf8u2 (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems circular - you seem to be arguing that we need to list tertiary coverage to balance out the mention of Twitter, and vice versa. Why not remove both?

The non-circular part of the argument seemed to be that listing tertiary sources was useful as a hint to editors, but I have yet to hear an argument for why a comment wouldn't serve the same purpose. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The argument is not circular, as it represents one of several well-reasoned and valid justifications for inclusion put forward by various editors, as evidenced in the discussion.

Furthermore, your characterization of these arguments is incorrect; they do not solely rely on being a "hint to editors."

However, no well-reasoned argument has been provided for its removal. Lf8u2 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

So, what is the argument for expanding the prose to include both (tertiary coverage + Twitter) rather than neither?

You wrote inclusion of this information on the page is justified, particularly in light of the ongoing challenges to Forensic Architecture's analysis .... I thought you were saying that listing secondary coverage would hint to editors that the report is significant and probably shouldn't be removed. If not, what did you mean? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Once more, there are several well-reasoned and valid justifications for inclusion, as put forward by various editors, as reflected in the discussion.

Here is an overview of these justifications (1,2,3,4,5).

Your point concerning readability has been effectively countered by these arguments, which offer compelling reasons for inclusion.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that Forensic Architecture's analysis was published on Twitter/X, supporting its inclusion, and by extension, the inclusion of the associated references. Lf8u2 (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You're not addressing my point that even noting the tweet is outdated and misrepresents sources (aside from being undue weight and puffery of a non-RS) as Forensic Architecture's February piece stated the cause of the blast was inconclusive and the October 2024 interview didn't include any relevant "analysis."

An up-to-date and accurate summary of FA's position would note FA's continued criticism of the Israeli government's PR defense on the night of the blast. No RS has stated it might have been a mortar in a very long time, especially not anyone who knows what a mortar looks like and has seen the video coverage from all four angles.

There is no RS that currently stands by the view that Israel was responsible, and even the non-RS Forensic Architecture doesn't hold by this. Every analysis that placed the projectile focused on in the AJ video as originating in Israeli territory also ruled it out as the cause of the blast.

(The Wall Street Journal's dissenting analysis also concluded the rocket had a final trajectory that was westbound, or "from the East" even though it was launched from Gaza. They presented their own 3D trajectory showing the rocket's path, like many home-made rockets, chaotically looped back towards its origin instead of following a clean parabola predictable by Goddard's equations.)

FA not an RS

Forensic Architecture's inadequate retraction of its earlier statements and assumptions is on account of being held to the standards of artists and activists, whose pieces are displayed in museums, not a scientific or journalistic organization.

Their "analyses" are absolutely self-published and not peer-reviewed.

They're actually just art pieces, approximate recreations made in Blender by people without relevant (e.g. physics, engineering) qualifications.

FA is not RS, it's a biased source and should be noted as such, and its importance and qualifications should not be overstated or made prominent in the lead.

Proposed change

I'm not proposing removing it.

I propose instead that the entire FA part in the lead should be moved to the body, under its own subsection under "Analysis" and summarized in the lead as:

Some groups, such as the pro-Palestinian NGO Forensic Architecture, have continued to dispute the IDF's account.

This is an accurate summary of all three pieces.

(FA's latter two pieces primarily focus on Israel's PR response.)

The body text should then accurately summarize all three pieces, prioritizing the latter findings as characterizing its current position. It should also include either the BBC's note of the deleted tweet OR the tweet, if it's still live.

--Scharb (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

FA is absolutely an RS, and your claim that it is not is based on nothing. Their analysis on past attacks have been widely cited and they have an excellent reputation. And your proposed framing of them as a pro-Palestinian NGO is absurd, besides the fact that we don't preface United States with "Israel-ally", we dont attempt to poison the well with labels when we have articles on what we are labeling. Your personal opinions on the value of their work are just that, personal, and as such they have zero bearing on whether or not FA is reliable. nableezy - 23:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Misstatement of Forensic Architecture findings.

In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from the direction of Israel, and in subsequent visual investigations published on 15 February 2024 and 17 October 2024, with the latter including situated testimony from doctors, it cast further doubt on the errant rocket launch theory. -disputed wiki text.

Our analysis shows that the explosion captured in the Al Jazeera footage, and referenced by Lerner, took place at an altitude of 5km, and 5.7km from the hospital, outside of Gaza. From an altitude of 5km, any fragments from this explosion would have reached the ground 31s later in freefall. The hospital blast occurred only 8s later, meaning that this missile cannot have been responsible. Independent investigations by the New York Timesand the Washington Post corroborate our analysis (...) what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive |Forensic Architecture, February 2024

The current text does not match its source, Forensic Architecture's claims. The current text gives both a faulty summary of FA and gives it undue weight, but certain editors keep reverting it to preserve the false information. It doesn't match the sources and is at best outdated.

Right now the text reads: In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel, and in a subsequent visual investigation published on 15 February 2024 and 17 October 2024, with the latter including situated testimony from doctors, it cast further doubt on the errant rocket launch theory.

This is just plain falsifying sources. It does not match the source text, nor secondary sources:

2024.07.22 New Yorker, covering Forensic Architecture's new analysis: "Four months later, Forensic Architecture published its full investigation, demonstrating that all seventeen Palestinian rockets had finished burning their propellant while in flight. The investigation was not meant to prove that Israel had destroyed Al-Ahli Arab Hospital. It is still unclear what caused the explosion. What the investigation did was show that the I.D.F. had fostered an environment of uncertainty by putting out misinformation about a misfired Palestinian rocket."

The information is not new. It is corroborated by the NYT, FA says. Here is the matching text:

The Associated Press, CNN and The Wall Street Journal each analyzed one set of footage and concluded that a malfunctioning rocket from Gaza — presumably from Palestinian fighters — caused the explosion. Israeli and U.S. intelligence officials have made the same argument. But an examination by The New York Times’s Visual Investigations team exposed flaws in the footage analysis. Times reporters used additional cameras to conclude that the projectile actually came from Israel — and did not land near the hospital, which means it couldn’t have caused the explosion. At least two independent analysts, as well as The Washington Post, agree. CNN, similarly, has since published a new article withdrawing and updating its original finding.
––2023.11.02 NYT [1]

As we can see, multiple sources before FA concluded that projectile #3 in the video originated on the Israeli side of the border, but was not responsible for the blast. This matches what FA concluded, FA saying: The hospital blast occurred only 8s later, meaning that this missile cannot have been responsible. Independent investigations by the New York Times and the Washington Post corroborate our analysis.

This is one of many pressing issues about factuality in this article, which has a "C" for a reason. --Scharb (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything you have said is either mistaken or your own personal view of which RS is due or not. The latter isn't determinative of what should be included in the page, and your insistence on removing it is WP:EDITWARRING and violates WP:NPOV.

With regard to your claim about the FA analysis, the New Yorker is referring to the February 2024 FA visual investigation, not the October 20 one. The latter is accurately described per cited RS that say FA concluded that the munition came from the direction of Israel. The term "concluded" is literally used, and yet you removed it yet again. It should be restored as it matches cited RS language.

The February and October 2024 investigations were solely concerned with the IDF's claims about the cause of the blast, namely it being a misfired rocket, and the text on page accurately notes that it "cast further doubt on the errant rocket launch theory".

So whatever changes you are planning to make in 24 hours, which you have announced you will do without seeking consensus, are simply not reflected in the cited RS. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel" is the current wording in the article, and it is 100% false, and this was your wording. You are the one pushing a personal view that does not match the sources. --Scharb (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that instead of focusing 100% of your time on "disputing" what FA says as soon as you reach 500 edits, a better use of your time would be to reread the multiple discussions we've had that address most of your concerns. The onus is on you to find consensus for your changes, rather than giving everyone an ultimatum if we refuse to rehash the same old arguments we've covered months ago. - Ïvana (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not disputing what Forensic Architecture has written, I'm disputing an inaccurate description in a wikipedia article. Neither the October nor February FA analysis claims that "the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel," that is simply false and poor wording. You could disprove that with a quote from the article, which is proper wikipedia procedure, and you aren't. --Scharb (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

NYT: Forensic Architecture, a London-based visual investigation group, disputed the Israeli account, saying that the munition had been fired from the direction of Israel.

El País: Finally, the forensic analysis of the crater through graphic material has allowed one of the best projects of verification through open sources, the London-based Forensic Architecture — which has done brilliant work in the region, such as the reconstruction of the death of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in Jenin by Israeli fire — to trace the possible direction from which the projectile arrived at the parking lot of the Gaza hospital. According to its analysis and three-dimensional projection, what hit the Al Ahli center came from the northeastern area, not from the southwest, as the Israeli army explained through its statements in the first hours after the massacre.

BBC: 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. - Ïvana (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that's more like what I was asking for, but please next time add links. The relevant quote from the primary source would also be appreciated.

But still, these don't match the current text. The information is presented very misleadingly and misrepresents the sources at best.

This is a topic where recency matters.

FA published two fact-finding pieces. (The October 2024 interview with the doctor is not relevant or lead-notable). In October 2023 FA conjectured the blast might have been from an artillery shell, not a missile, but this was disputed by RS including the very articles you have cited. The RS analyses, which contradicted early reports and exonerated Israel, were published in November. In February 2024, Forensic Architecture said what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive.Architecture

NYT 2023.10.22: |Hamas Fails to Make Case That Israel Struck Hospital

Cherrypicked quote.

NYT gently notes Forensic Architecture's bias against Israel and groups it with Al Jazeera, which is not RS on I/P.

El País: 2023.10.20 This is the first instance endorsing FA's credibility. It is outdated, though. Most of the conclusive analyses were done in November, and this story is from October. El País didn't follow the story as it developed, unlike most RS, and this was its only story on it. If there were discussions of País as a paper of record, I couldn't find them.

BBC : Cherrypicked quote.

(On 14 November, Forensic Architecture removed a tweet and changed its analysis to say the projectile was probably a rocket although the group stood by its conclusion on the direction it had come from.)

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

It is deceptive to cite these articles without mentioning these claims were directly contradicted within them and the group's biases and unreliability noted, and the content should match the most recent view of the facts. There is no reason for a non-household name like FA to dominate the "last word" of the lead based on an outdated, retracted claim, overshadowing the very significant analyses by other sources --Scharb (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC on inclusion of Forensic Architecture in lede

Should the following sentence be added to the lede?

In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from the direction of Israel

04:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. Reliable sources are in broad agreement that PIJ is probably responsible for the explosion, and including details of this tweet would worsen the NPOV problem currently present in the lede, where we are already giving excess emphasis to the view that PIJ is probably not responsible - it is important to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE.

In addition, it would result in us having excessive coverage of a the views of a single partisan organization (demonstrated by the tweet chain, which uses "IOF", a pejorative term for the IDF) in the lede. Currently, the lede includes details of two of their investigations; we don't need to include a third saying much the same thing.

Finally, the proposed wording isn't aligned with the majority of provided sources, or the tweet itself, which says that the munition was fired from the north-east without specifying Israel. BilledMammal (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support Forensic Architecture is a high quality RS, its October 20 analysis was cited in other high quality RS including the New York Times twice (1 and 2), BBC, Bloomberg News, El Pais and Al Jazeera, establishing its notability. And the sentence in the lede accurately matches the cited sources for FA's analysis and conclusion:

BBC: 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.

New York Times: Forensic Architecture, a London-based visual investigation group, disputed the Israeli account, saying that the munition had been fired from the direction of Israel.

It is also simply not true that FA itself did not mention the direction of Israel. @BilledMammal cited the wrong tweet, the correct one in the chain does explicitly say that the munition came from "the direction of the Israeli-controlled side of the Gaza perimeter—and not from the west."

It would be a violation of NPOV to arbitrarily remove a high quality RS cited by other high quality RS merely because some disagree with its conclusion. That would actually be in violation of WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It's not about the reliability of the sources, it's about the weight of the view. If three reliable sources say X, and ten reliable sources say Y, then to comply with WP:DUE and WP:BALASP we give Y three times the weight of X.

This can be seen not just looking across sources, but at individual sources. For example, your El Pais source dedicates about 80% of its coverage to the theory that PIJ was responsible. We need to do the same, and to do otherwise is WP:FALSEBALANCE. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. You have already stated that you believe Forensic Architecture to be a biased, fringe source unfair to Israel, and that is why you want to have its analysis removed from the lede even though it is a high quality RS specifically on the question of analyzing events such as these with high quality experts. To dismiss its investigation and conclusion even though it was notable enough to be reported by high quality RS merely because you do not believe they are a high quality RS, is I think a fundamentally mistaken view of WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE.

It should be added that there are other RS that dispute the Israeli account which are not included in the lede, such as Al Jazeera's investigation and Earshot as cited in the New Yorker. It is simply not true that FA is by itself on one side, and every other RS is on the other. Both are significant views, and must be given their due weight to satisfy WP:NPOV. And it should be added that the other side remains overrepresented both in the lede and body, and removing this high quality RS analysis unduly exacerbates that.

Here are some other RS that cites FA's October 20 analysis:

1. https://www.dw.com/en/gaza-hospital-blast-what-investigations-have-revealed-so-far/a-67237447
2. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/10/israel-hamas-war-everything-we-know-about-the-gaza-hospital-blast.html
3. https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/1354611/une-semaine-apres-ce-que-lon-sait-de-la-frappe-sur-lhopital-al-ahli-arab.html
4. https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israel-palestine-war-gaza-hospital-bombing-truth-important-distraction

Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand my intention, but that's my fault, I should have been clear about my proposed fixes. I don't want FA entirely removed, I do agree it's notable and verifiable, but I want that the content should reflect the sources and not be given undue weight. As I mentioned, even biased sources are RS for their own opinion.

The discussion at hand isn't whether to include or exclude FA, but rather to make the wikitext match FA's claims and then to reassess its notability and place in the article. The content occupying so much "last word" real estate in the lede gives the false impression FA's analysis contradicts or overrides the pithily summarized RS analyses. (And FA isn't a "high quality" RS, previous consensus to 'include' FA largely depended on users who said it should be included despite its biases, and I expect there will be another discussion of its reliability at another time.)

---

Once again, keeping in mind that nearly all up-to-date RS agree that rocket #3 in the AJ video turned out to be unrelated to the blast:

DW: Channel 4 concluded in its report that the image analysis of the crater done by Forensic Architecture, a research agency based at the University of London, matched the audio analysis of the missile track. According to them, the rocket that was used had been fired from the northeast and not from the southwest of Gaza, as the IDF says.

NYM: The OSINT group Forensic Architecture has suggested the munition originated from the direction of Israel and may have been an Israeli artillery shell."

MEE (op-ed): Next, Forensic Architecture and Al-Haq dug in, finding the projectile likely came from the north.

Since the discussion at hand is the misrepresentation of sources, it would have behooved you to drop quotes instead of more sources, expecting me to dig through the articles and find the quotations that support your argument. Instead, not a single one made the claim you stated.

These are outdated sources and they do not match your claim, the closest they come is saying "FA suggested it may have been an Israeli artillery shell", a claim subsequently disproven by engineers, physicists, and military analysts who noted that artillery shells don't move like that, and the artillery shell theory was quietly dropped from the current version of FA's October analysis. FA is an artistic project, but if it were scientific, surely it would have been transparent about these changes.

The February FA analysis explicitly states in its text that it doesn't contradict the NYT and other analyses–– and its supposedly notable viewpoint is the reason for the lengthy description of it in the lede instead of the body, while RS presenting the majority view (Palestinian origin or inconclusive) are relegated to a single sentence–– and both the FA text and secondary sources such as the New Yorker profile explicitly state that FA did not find that Israel was responsible for the blast. See above quotes.

But the lede not only misrepresents FA's findings, but engages in puffery thereof.

1. FA's analysis should be accurately characterized. The source does not claim that Israel is responsible for the blast, which directly contradicts the text in the wiki.

2. FA's analysis, which directly states it corroborates the analyses of NYT and WaPo, should not be given undue weight as though it is a fresh and different perspective. Currently, all other RS' analyses are pithily summarized in a single sentence, and FA's analysis are given undue weight and peacocking.

3. FA currently occupies much valuable real estate at the end of the lede, as though it is the "final word" and disproves the previous RS in-depth analyses.

3a. Why is the interview with the doctor being emphasized? Move it down to the body.

4. FA should not be given great weight or treated as a "high quality RS." I note that previous consensuses for 'include' depended on votes who noted it was a biased source. I am prepared to dispute its value as an RS for anything except its opinions, but that's not for this time.

In a while, I'll concretely propose a change that fits these. Scharb (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The bottom line on this shouldn't leave so much up for grabs. When most of the reliable sources agree that something is the case, and a minority viewpoint has limited support, we should also limit weight for the minority view. If reliable sources broadly agree that the source of the blast didn't originate from Israel, giving so much credence to the "alternative fact" that it may have is problematic at best. While it may be that there is enough of a controversy to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV the views of Forensic Architecture, simply because they are an academic source doesn't make their weight override all of the other reliable sources that don't doubt the ultimate attribution of the rocket attack is unlikely to be Israeli. If I thought that there were a wide variety of other sources that agreed with Forensic Architecture, I would change my view. I also think Forensic Architecture should really be considered something like a primary source investigation, and not a review or a summarization, being close to the events in time, and changing over time. We should favor the more recent summaries over the at-the-time innovative journalism. Andre🚐 05:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support. For the reasons @Raskolnikov.Rev mentions, and because I think in addition to WP:DUE, it's important to remember that we're looking at an article lede here, where content inclusion is subject to relative importance to the subject (MOS:LEADREL). In this case this information provided by FA is crucial to the subject, clearly cited and used by many and varied other RS, and gives the reader important information about the possible causes of the blast. The lede is not the right place to consider simply the most recent (MOS:NOTLEDE) information, unless of course that information brings new things to light that are also covered in the body of the article itself. Remember, we aren't here to decide what caused the blast. Removing this line would deprive a reader of important context, regardless of what individual editors personally think happened here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I do not find this matter to be even remotely controversial. The investigation conducted by Forensic Architecture is, in itself, deserving of inclusion in the lead section, regardless of whether it has been reported by other reputable sources, given the organization's prominence and expertise. Furthermore, the fact that this investigation has been covered by reliable sources as a significant perspective underscores the necessity of its inclusion in the lead.

Indeed, as I have noted regarding its description within the body of the text, the lead should explicitly reference the various reliable sources that have reported on Forensic Architecture's investigation, thereby establishing its notability.Lf8u2 (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Prominence and expertise? It has had fleeting mentions in RS, sure, but its contributors have their qualifications in Architectural Design or Fine Arts, yet their work would be better suited to physicists, engineers, and military experts. Scharb (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

regardless of whether it has been reported by other reputable sources Yeah, I disagree with this part. Their being cited by established RS like The New Yorker is fundamental in establishing any sort of reliability for them. I had not heard of them before, and I too have reservations giving too much credibility to a group otherwise referred to as "the artists bringing activism into and beyond gallery spaces." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The problem is not just that FA is a biased source, not just that its "experts" are architects, artists and activists working outside their fields on questions that should be for engineers, physicists and military analysts; not just that its analyses are not science, and not accountable or peer-reviewed; and has been given undue weight across ARBPIA on Wikipedia so much that it risks turning this site into "Forensic Archipedia";

The more glaring problem is that the content does not match the source. In the current versions of FA's October analysis and February analysis, at absolutely no point does FA claim that the blast was caused by Israel. Not one supporter has found a quote that proves as much. In a New Yorker profile, the February project was summarized as: {The investigation was not meant to prove that Israel had destroyed Al-Ahli Arab Hospital. It is still unclear what caused the explosion. Not one single user has provided any quoted text from RS that supports the currently inaccurate text on the Wiki.

The October 2024 article doesn't make this claim either. It just interviews the Palestinian doctor who immediately rearranged corpses in front of a podium, rolled cameras, and blamed it on Israel within a few minutes of the blast. This doesn't tell us anything new, either, it was literally the first thing anyone outside the hospital heard of this whole thing. An interview with a doctor is not lede-worthy and should be moved to the body.

On 17 October 2023, a devastating explosion took place in the courtyard of al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza City. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, 471 people were killed and 342 injured. In the hours after the explosion, doctors who treated the wounded held a news conference at nearby al-Shifa Hospital, among the bodies of some of those killed in the blast. There, the British-Palestinian surgeon Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah spoke, flanked by colleagues. ‘This is a massacre’, said Dr Abu-Sittah, before predicting that ‘more hospitals will be targeted’. The only thing this proves is that the doctor who held that press conference still blames Israel. In the rest of the article, they digitally recreate his route that day and compile some statistics about the war's toll on hospitals. They do continue to editorialize about Israel's role in the information war that day, ignoring the (overwhelming) falsehoods by other actors that day and Hamas' likely coverup of physical evidence. There is no visual analysis of the rocket in the October 2024 article. The only thing the October 2024 interview proves is that the doctor who held that press conference still blames Israel. And once it is correctly described, it won't be notable enough for the lede, barely enough for the body. does not match sources

 --Scharb (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Forensic Architecture is affiliated with the PFLP-linked NGO Al-Haq; this is a fringe viewpoint rejected by most reliable sources. Whizkin (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  "PFLP-linked" by Israel. Should we disregard the UN too since they are, according to Israel, a terror organization that collaborates with Hamas? - Ïvana (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - this has already been discussed before and it was determined that it was due for inclusion when they had a single investigation; now they have three. FA is also not a primary source (that was, again, discussed before so I won't repeat the same arguments again). I'm not sure how it can be up for discussion that they said the munition came from Israel; that has been reported by other RS and themselves. Their findings are pretty clear. The NPOV issue would arise if we removed an investigation (which is also not the only one putting doubt into the rocket claim, Channel 4 does as well, plus AJ and Earshot per Raskolnikov; these are not in the lead) that has been cited by multiple RS, showing it clearly has WP:WEIGHT and it is WP:DUE for inclusion. I also don't think WP:FRINGE applies. It is not unusual for it to be a dominant view (based on independent reporting, government agencies are not independent) but when the "minority" is consistently covered by RS, we should do it as well. I also don't know why you're framing it as a tweet when it is a full report. Three, in fact. And regarding them being a WP:PARTISAN source: they are not required to be unbiased. I'm also not sure why multiple comments disregard their expertise. I'm gonna simply quote Nableezy from the previous RfC since he's way more articulated than me: "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". Their website lists all of their awards and their about page says Our team includes architects, software developers, filmmakers, investigative journalists, scientists, and lawyers so I'm not sure why they are simply referred to as an "artistic project". - Ïvana (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support - and all the complaints about FA being fringe have already been proven false, a noteworthy viewpoint widely covered in reliable sources by an organization that has an established expertise in the topic of violence in the Arab-Israeli conflict is definitionally not fringe. BilledMammal's claim that Reliable sources are in broad agreement that PIJ is probably responsible for the explosion is not true, and FA being a widely cited source about it is proof that it is not true. That is an attempt to claim one contested POV is the correct one and only allow that POV to be included. That is antithetical to the entire point of NPOV, which says contested claims should not be treated as fact and all significant views must be included. FA's analysis is significant by dint of it's coverage in other reliable sources. As such it must be included. nableezy - 22:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support - We have discussed this before. What exactly has changed since then? Here's the closer's comments: Consensus has it that Forensic Architecture's position has been cited widely by reliable sources, and that it therefore is a matter of WP:NPOV to include it. Opposers focused on critiquing FA's reliability, credibility and neutrality, but these arguments were not very successful.. A lot of the arguments being made in opposition seem to be dwelling into WP:NOR territory. The fact remains that FA has been deemed a high quality secondary source and, additionally, has gotten coverage in WP:RS (the number of which has only increased since the original RFC). CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with Nableezy's reasoning honestly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lacks weight and reputation, and contradicted by reputable sources. FA is a pro-Palestinian advocacy group with no real expertise in warfare. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Strong support The False Balance argument does not hold any weight, since the policy states that: "unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." This is not an analogous situation; this is actually entirely the other way around. Forensic Architecture is the academic assessment, while the other assessments are by governments who have a conflict of interest considering their geopolitical status such as the United States. Furthermore, no source so far has explicitly debunked FA's findings, to the best of my knowledge. So the policy does not apply here at all. There is no reason why this should not be included in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm also in support for this reason. Arguments about FA's reliability have largely been rebutted but there has been comparatively little analysis of the fact that the RS who contradict FA's analysis are all uncritically reporting government intelligence by Western nations with conflicts of interest. These reports are less verifiable and accountable than FA's since they don't "show their work." Western RS are reporting Western intelligence agencies' claims on the basis of their authority and have no or a limited ability to verify their accuracy. I would think that not just notability but verifiability should play a role in our determination of weight. Unbandito (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. In their reports published in 2024 FA do not say that the blast was due to a munition that came from Israel. Instead they said that what happened was inconclusive. We should prefer more up-to-date sources. Also, we know that FA changed their mind in November and edited their previous tweet [2] so this is another indication that their initial findings might have been inaccurate. Alaexis_¿question? 20:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  That analysis says "[The Israeli military claims that] Footage of a mid-air explosion before the blast shows the misfired Palestinian rocket that allegedly struck al-Ahli. According to our analysis, this footage in fact shows an exploding Israeli interceptor." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Says "an Israeli interceptor, unrelated to the al-Ahli blast," doesn't it?

  In addition to saying "what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Full quote: "While what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive, it is clear that in the aftermath of the explosion, the Israeli military launched an aggressive disinformation campaign. As it stands, Israel has yet to provide any conclusive visual evidence to support the claim that the source of the deadly blast at al-Ahli hospital was a Hamas or PIJ rocket." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Also, Raskolnikov.Rev, since you support the inclusion, why do you think there is no mention of the blast being a result of a munition coming from Israel's direction in the February report? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• The lead currently says "The cause of the explosion is contested" before going into the analyses, and I think this is rightly done. In most cases, articles should "describe disputes, but not engage in them" - it's not typically up to us to decide which side in a dispute is right and needs to be promoted, and which side is wrong and needs to be discounted. Even our guideline on WP:FRINGE opens up with guidance like "...reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner". It's not that non-mainstream ideas should be excluded, but that they should be included in a way that doesn't give them UNDUE weight.

That said, the current emphasis on FA in the lead and the body is plainly UNDUE. In the lead, the in-depth analyses from the Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal are all bundled into a single sentence, cited to a single source, briefly summarizing the conclusion they all came to; the single analysis of FA gets a sentence just as long, cited to 3 sources. In the body, the weighting is a little better - but in the sections of Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#Origin_and_trajectory_of_munition and Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#Rocket_vs_airstrike, the FA analyses still gets 3 paragraphs to itself, where most other source analyses only get 1.

Lead content is a summary of the body, so of course a body filled with UNDUE content allows for a strong-looking case to make the lead UNDUE as well. If we're really honest with ourselves, we'd condense the body content on FA closer to the amount that every other serious, RS-reported analysis receives, and then we'd reflect that weighting in the lead. Perhaps that would result in a single-sentence mention of the FA report and conclusion in the lead. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Forensic Architecture, February 2024: Our analysis shows that the explosion captured in the Al Jazeera footage, and referenced by Lerner, took place at an altitude of 5km, and 5.7km from the hospital, outside of Gaza. From an altitude of 5km, any fragments from this explosion would have reached the ground 31s later in freefall. The hospital blast occurred only 8s later, meaning that this missile cannot have been responsible. Independent investigations by the New York Times and the Washington Post corroborate our analysis. Scharb (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What's your meaning in quoting that passage? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• BilledMammal, WP:RFCOPEN requires the opening message to be neutral. Given that this matter was covered in WP:SECONDARY sources, can we remove "tweet" from the section title? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 10:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I also thought the inclusion of "tweet" was odd. I went ahead and changed it, per WP:TALKHEADPOV PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I will !Vote in the RfC once I’ve had time to read the sources more carefully. It may be that this amount of words isn’t due. But for now I want to comment on the arguments based on FA’s unreliability and bias. Yes they’re biased, even partisan, but they are also one of the most reliable sources on this topic. Their work is really thorough, and conducted at a more careful pace than many outlets. I have followed their work on Syria, the UK and Palestine closely, and I’ve never seen a single reliable source showing them to be sloppy or dishonest. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

References

RFC opener

I am confused to why this RFC doesn't have a signature. Who opened it? Is removing the signature in-line with WP's guidelines? If so, which exactly? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

A BilledMammal idiosyncrasy, permitted by the RFC information page and which virtually no-one else follows, "Sign the statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date)". There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 15#Signature vs date stamp. Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I have opened a new discussion there. [3] Makeandtoss (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request - Forensic Architecture

The sentence In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from the direction of Israel was WP:BOLDLY added to the lede on September 11 and disputed immediately, and has continued to be contentious since.

There is now an RFC on the question above, and while it is open the article should be reverted to the status quo. However, to avoid edit warring I am making an edit request to ask an uninvolved editor to do. BilledMammal (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not what happened. It was disputed initially, and then consensus was formed for its inclusion in Talk, as also noted by @Nableezy in response to you here.

Then that consensus was challenged over the past week, and now there's an ongoing RfC on the matter.

The onus is on you to challenge the prior established consensus with the RfC, and the page should remain per prior consensus as that is ongoing. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus in that informal discussion for its inclusion. Further, as an involved editor, you can’t assess that there is a consensus - if you believe there is, you may make a request at WP:RFCL, but they are likely to suggest waiting for the RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It is evident from this Talk discussion that consensus was established, that it held for quite some time (nearly two months now), and that only over the past week was it contested. In any case as the RfC is ongoing it should redound to keeping the version that has been up for nearly two months now until the RfC is settled. Furthermore, you are also an involved editor and cannot assess this, so I'm hoping an uninvolved editor can do so. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The timeline is as follows:

1. 17:38, 11 September 2024 - you added the content and, in the same edit, removed others
2. 12:42, 12 September 2024 - SPECIFICO reverted
3. 13:08, 12 September 2024 - You reverted SPECIFICO, likely violating WP:1RR
4. 13:33, 12 September 2024 - William M. Connolley reverted
5. 20:09, 27 September 2024 - You reverted William M. Connolley, claiming consensus
6. 02:36, 18 October 2024 - I reverted
7. 03:20, 18 October 2024 - Ïvana reverted

While it was first added almost two months ago, it hasn’t been up for anywhere near that long, and has been consistently contested - the only reason it was in the article when I reverted is because you inserted it on three seperate occasions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The timeline is actually as follows:

1. 17:38, 11 September 2024 The content was added to ensure NPOV.
2. It was challenged on 12 September.
3. Per Wikipedia procedure, a Talk page was made on the same day by myself, a discussion ensued, there was no violation of 1RR.
4. Consensus was formed in the talk over the next period, and the content was added back to the lede per Talk consensus on September 27.William M. Connolley incidentally never participated in this discussion and disappeared after that revert, so I'll leave it up to others to decide what exactly was going on here.
5. This version remained stable, and then you ignored consensus and over two weeks later, on October 18, you removed it.
6. You were reverted on the same day for removing consensus content.
7. Five days ago, on October 25, Scharb, an editor who rushed through 500 edits to get extended protected immediately enters into this page to challenge it.
8. You jump in to back up Scharb over the past few days, and then start a RfC to challenge the established consensus after failing to get it removed on spurious grounds wrongly claiming the information was false, and are now seeking to remove it pending the RfC.

So it's pretty clear that procedure was followed to establish consensus after the content was initially challenged, once that consensus was established in Talk it was added to the lede, and then, not satisfied with the result, you and Scharb began to challenge it yet again, and now want to have the consensus version removed as the RfC is ongoing.

I think this is a pretty clear case of WP:EDITWARRING to challenge established consensus. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: See this comment by Valereee at WP:AE for context; this request is an experiment of their proposal for how the status quo should be restored while an RFC is proceeding in the topic area. BilledMammal (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Noted, but most edit request responders are going to give the same answer. EC edit requests are specifically for people who can't edit the article for technical reasons. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, it's actually cannot or should not. Valereee (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, can we get a response on this? The idea is being discussed at AE. Valereee (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking my opinion on this specific edit request as the "answerer", or on the concept more broadly? Because I have no opinion on the former (impartiality being a benefit of edit requests). For the latter, I have a few thoughts. First, there seem to be just enough people answering edit requests to maintain a precarious balance with the current volume, so it depends on how frequently these requests would come up. Second, there would probably need to be a standard procedure to denote it as something separate from a regular EC request (sort of like how we have separate COI requests). This is especially the case here since from an outside perspective it looks like asking to continue an edit war to circumvent 3RR. Third, the amount of sub-par editing that's coming out of the PIA area suggests to me that most requests will be to push a POV. The immense amount of WP:CPUSH in this topic area already wastes community time on various noticeboards, and I fear that it would extend the issue to edit requests as well. That's not to say there aren't strengths to the idea, but those are the main obstacles I'd be looking at. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Lede

Proposal to summarize the second lede paragraph from:

Reports of the number of deaths vary widely. Many English-language media outlets initially reported the Gaza Health Ministry had concluded that over 500 were killed. Journalist David Zweig reported that this figure appears to have originated from a mistranslation of an Al Jazeera Arabic tweet, which is correctly translated as reporting over 500 total victims, including injuries, not 500 killed. The Gaza Health Ministry later reported a more precise figure of 471 killed and 342 wounded. A report by Human Rights Watch questioned the Health Ministry's casualty figures. The Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem, which manages the hospital, reported 200 people killed. US intelligence agencies assessed a death toll between 100 and 300.

To:

International media initially reported that over 500 Palestinians were killed according to the Gaza Health Ministry, but this was a mistranslation of a report that had mentioned over 500 total victims, including injuries. The Gaza Health Ministry later reported a more precise figure of 471 killed and 342 wounded. A report by Human Rights Watch questioned the Health Ministry's casualty figures. The Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem, which manages the hospital, reported 200 people killed, while the US assessed a figure between 100 and 300.

Makeandtoss (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. But I would change "including injuries" to "including injured".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Description of rocket barrage from Gaza

@Raskolnikov.Rev this reversion of yours is out of line, for a couple of reasons:

• "Long standing" is not a good reason to keep content

• RS-backed I removed no RS; what exactly are you trying to say?

• seek consensus for it first I've told you before that using "no consensus" in opposition to an edit is is profoundly unhelpful to other editors, and is discouraged.

• blatant POV-pushing Really?

You've offered no substantial argument against the inclusion of reliably sourced, factual information from the timeline of the event, with its relevance to the explosion demonstrated in RS. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to refer you to this essay on "status quo stonewalling", which is what you're doing here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not at all misguided, and I provided good reasoning for why I restored the long-standing RS version of the text. Your POV-pushing by adding that is incredibly misguided.

What was a neutral description of the explosion in line with WP:NPOV was turned into a "it was definitely an errant rocket from the rocket barrage" description by your addition:

Long-standing RS-backed version that I restored: The explosion occurred in a parking lot in the courtyard at 6:59 p.m. local time on Tuesday 17 October, creating orange plumes in the sky.

Your edited version: At 6:59 p.m. on 17 October, several rockets were launched from 2 positions within Gaza, one northwest and one southwest of the hospital. Within seconds, Israel issued alerts to several cities and towns about the barrage. Less than a minute later, an explosion occurred in a parking lot in the courtyard, creating orange plumes in the sky.

The other side can also write an RS-backed introduction to that section that pushes the Israeli munition theory instead of the errant rocket one that you're pushing there. That would also be a violation of NPOV. The neutral description of the explosion happening, followed by the analysis of both perspectives of what caused it, is how it ought to be introduced.

Now you can argue that your new version of the introductory paragraph is superior to the long-standing consensus one, but I strongly disagree, and I suspect others will too, and it is good practice to seek consensus before pushing ahead with controversial POV-pushing edits like these that violate NPOV. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with PhotogenicScientist, at least in terms of this being a pertinent fact that needs to be covered in some manner. Simply removing the information doesn't seem like an acceptable solution.

In terms the way we frame it, I'm not sure it's a problem to imply that the rocket launches were probably connected to the hospital blast. It seems overwhelmingly likely that there's a connection, and both the mainstream PIJ rocket theory and FA's interceptor theory fit into that. But if you think the framing is problematic, you should propose some alternative way of conveying the factual information. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist - Isn't the WP:ONUS on you for inclusion? "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

It's not like @Raskolnikov.Rev didn't give a reason, NPOV is a valid reason for exclusion if they believe the material to be non-neutral. (Also, WP:DRNC is an essay about reverting with no explanation other then "no consensus", not a policy & non applicable here)

Due to this article mainly focusing on the intricacies of what did/didn't happen, I'd say that changing the original neutral description to something that specifically favors one perspective at the beginning of the "Explosion" section was always going to be controversial. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I never said DRNC is a policy or a guideline - I cite it to deeper explain why simply reverting someone saying "no consensus for this" is deeply unhelpful. Much more conducive to building consensus would be to specify actual reasons for exclusion "based in policy, sources, and common sense."

And since you're rather new around here, I'll mention - simply citing "WP:NPOV violation" is generally considered a poor argument - again, editors are recommended to expand upon why they think something violates a particular policy. It's also an unsettlingly common argument to see in CTOP areas. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but again, they did explain their issues with your edit, they were against what they said was "blatant POV-pushing to push the errant rocket theory" and that "If you want to add that seek consensus for it first, it's highly controversial". You may not agree with their analysis, but that's for discussion here.

You wanted to include something, @Raskolnikov.Rev was against it, as such, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion" falls to you. From my understanding of policy then, I believe it would've been best for you to discuss here before reverting them.

_{Also, being pedantic here, but WP:VAGUEWAVE is an essay about arguments to avoid for deletion & "!votes", not edit summaries, but that's somewhat irrelevant as I understand your point.} Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No, saying "there is no consensus" isn't a valid "analysis" of the content in my proposed edit. Neither is the uncivil way of merely reiterating the vague wave to "NPOV violations," by calling me a POV-pusher. These are unhelpful and low-quality edit summaries.

You're right that the onus is usually on people proposing content to get consensus for it. But any bold edit has presumed consensus unless challenged - again, on reasonable, specifiable grounds. If someone has such a challenge, then onus can be satisfied through talk page discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted", which it was. That you felt unsatisfied by the initial explanation is inconsequential & your continued focus on the phrasing of the revert rather then on the actual disputed content has drawn this out into pointless squabble.

If you wanted a more detailed explanation, @Raskolnikov.Rev gave a rather extensive one above, of which you've yet to reply to, instead taking the issue to WP:NPOVN, twice. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I concur with the position expressed by @Raskolnikov.Rev and @Butterscotch Beluga. @PhotogenicScientist introduced contentious text that violates WP:NPOV without seeking prior consensus on the talk page. This action appears to be an attempt to promote a particular point of view, which has been repeatedly advanced on this (1, 2) and another page.

There is established consensus regarding the reliability of Forensic Architecture and other reputable sources that support an Israeli munition being implicated in the blast, while questioning the theory of an errant Hamas/PIJ rocket. Despite this, you continue to make attempts to diminish, challenge, and present the latter as the sole or primary legitimate perspective.

The original text is concise, neutral, supported by reliable sources, as required by WP:NPOV. Lf8u2 (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

How exactly does the introduction of this factual, sourced information constitute an NPOV violation? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll find out? Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

And the other one Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

FA's Israeli interceptor theory would also support the pertinence of this fact; it still implies that the explosion was connected to rockets being launched from Gaza. I haven't seen any particular theory that would imply that it was a coincidence. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)