Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

Lede concerns

@Nableezy: The investigation belongs - but in the body, not the lede. The issue is that we are providing a minority position with excessive weight, in violation of MOS:LEADREL and WP:BALASP. In addition, I believe we are misrepresenting the source; the implication is that they are casting doubt on the entire theory, when they are only casting doubt on whether a specific launch of rockets was related. BilledMammal (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems like either that, or a summary along those lines is desperately needed in the lead for balance ... Otherwise the lead would just be POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Without it, the lede matches the consensus of reliable sources - that a misfired rocket was probably, though not conclusively, to blame. WP:NPOV doesn't mean presenting all POV's with equal weight and as having equal validity, it means giving POV's prominence in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Dozens and dozens of RS have repeated the FA findings, so it's due. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you link those "dozens and dozens" of reliable sources that have repeated the FA findings? I'm only finding a couple of reliable sources that have reported on them - and reporting on a finding is not the same as repeating and endorsing a finding. BilledMammal (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

No, reporting something is not the same as endorsing it. Reporting it can still make it due, however (it's already attributed). Endorsement world be relevant only for Wikivoice. Prominent RS examples of coverage: [1], [2], [3]. Also repeated in this pertinent Mondo critique of the HRW report. And here it appears that FA did a further follow up report in February that re-confirmed some of their earlier findings. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Reporting on a viewpoint doesn't make it WP:DUE; DUE talks about how widely a view is held, not how widely it is reported.

The sentence we are discussing refers to the 15 February 2024 report referenced in the New Arab article; the other sources that you mention are about a different report. Do you have "dozens and dozens" of reliable sources discussing the 15 February 2024 report? BilledMammal (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

If it's just Qatari-financed The New Arab, it might not be due. Alaexis_¿question? 09:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

If it belongs in the body then a summary of it belongs in the lead. Only including the conclusions of one set of sources is a NPOV violation. nableezy - 10:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Also FA source holds greater weight since it is the most recent investigation. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

and it's an actual investigation, involving evidence; as opposed to news sources just repeating either the lines of governments or the opinions of random guest commentators. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Many news sources did their own investigations - and it's worth noting that even Forensic Architecture changed their initial report, from alleging it was an artillery striking to agreeing that it was probably a rocket. BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Good. They have internal fact-checking, verification and reassessment processes in place. Sounds reliable. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The question here isn't reliability, it's significance. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Not everything that is in the body needs to be mentioned in the lede, and the notion that we need to present two points of view with equal prominence is WP:FALSEBALANCE; FA's position is the view of a very small minority, and by included it in the lede we are giving it undue prominence. BilledMammal (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Forensic Architecture is a highly esteemed organization whose findings cannot be dismissed as the view of a "very small minority." WP:DUE: pages should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints," FA is certainly such viewpoint. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty significant viewpoint in the context. Tbh, I think we could cite FA directly with attribution given the volume of citation/esteem the organisation has generally received over the years in both news and journal sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

One source isn't sufficient to establish a viewpoint as "significant" - and Forensic Architecture's methods have their critics. BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Art news ...? That's the bar? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

One highly esteemed source, yes, is enough to establish a significant viewpoint. FA's art news critics are irrelevant. Meanwhile, NYT's numerous critics, including RS such as the intercept, are plentiful. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

There's also WP:DATED. The line about the "currently likeliest scenario" is referenced to a source from 23 October. That's pretty immediate to events, and now stale and old (and yes dated) from an analytical standpoint. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, so why are we mentioning the intelligence assessments of Israel and three other countries aligned with Israel – that's like the POV motherlode. The intelligence outlets of Israeli allies are hardly independent sources in a conflict they're supporting, and, per the above, just because media report on them, doesn't mean they're endorsed or necessarily due. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest for the same reason we are mentioning the claims of Hamas and PIJ - but that isn't the topic of this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the source

I'm opening a separate section, as the above section has become focused on whether inclusion is WP:DUE, and overlooked the other concern, that we aren't accurately representing the source. We say they "cast doubt on the errant rocket launch theory", but the source is limited to casting doubt on two specific claims, making no statement about the overall theory. In addition, Forensic Architecture has previously said they believe the most likely cause of the explosion is a rocket. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

They may have conceded that a video image they had relied on probably showed a rocket in early January but for the later investigation they are saying not a rocket. They also allege that Israeli evidence was part of a disinfo campaign. Since we do not have conclusive proof, only probabilistic conclusions, I see no reason why an outlier from a reputable source should not be included in the lead, it's a bit like "Israel disputes this...", we always put that in, don't we? Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat OR on my part but when one considers Israel's 14 October demand for the evacuation of 22 hospitals in the northern Gaza Strip and an earlier small strike on al-Ahli and then what happened at al-Shifa and all the other hospitals, I think some sources that are alleging a "pattern" and "intent" around the hospital network are possibly on the right track, time will tell. Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with BilledMammal the source is drastically represented. The lead, as it existed, vaguely claimed that FA "cast doubt" on the findings. But the actual FA report is essentially a nothingburger - it says that:

1) The Israeli military claims about which specific rockets caused the incident were not correct.

2) An anonymous aerospace expert (?) says the rockets ran out of fuel and thus could not have caused the damage to the hospital.

3) "What happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive"

4) The Israeli military has attacked other hospitals and runs propoganda

In other words - they have no idea what happened, but they think Israel in generals sus. I'm not actually sure why we're even citing this given how little this source actually offers - it honestly feels like an attempt to inject false balance against an overwhelming and contrary consensus from reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Naftali

I think the tweet of Hananya Naftali, an aide to Israeli PM Netnyahu, belongs. The tweet says: “Israeli Air Force struck a Hamas terrorist base inside a hospital in Gaza. A multiple number of terrorists are dead. It’s heartbreaking that Hamas is launching rockets from hospitals, Mosques, schools, and using civilians as human shields.”

It has been discussed in an article in a peer-reviewed journal, co-authored by Israeli professor Neve Gordon. It has been discussed in other sources too[4][5][6][7][8][9].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The journal article is a highly partisan source, stating as fact claims that reliable sources generally reject, such as that this explosion was caused by Israel bombing the hospital. A single highly partisan journal article doesn't establish that inclusion is WP:DUE, and given that including this has been discussed and rejected in the past I don't believe it is appropriate to make - and restore - a WP:BOLD edit on the basis of such a source. BilledMammal (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe this particular source has ever been discussed, which was only published on Jan 19. And WP:POVSOURCE doesn't affect reliability, it remains reliable and scholarly. Plus, I did provide 6 other sources here.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t say it did; I was referring to WP:NPOV#Bias in sources and WP:DUE - although taking as fact, despite no expertise in the field, a position that Is extremely marginal at best, does raise questions about reliability.

This source hasn’t, but the content has. The source may warrant reopening the discussion, but not ignoring the previous consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

As demonstrated by VR this quote was discussed in multiple sources, so the claim of undue doesn't hold, especially when considering that this is an aide to the Israeli PM. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

He wasn't an aide - he was some sort of social media manager - and those sources around last time this was discussed. BilledMammal (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Still means he has a very close professional connection to the premier and one of his "arms". Also, quote still widely reported in RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't the source being used to highlight the tweet as an incidence of the presumptive use of the "human shields" defense/excuse before the IDF has muddled its way towards whatever its ultimate story? It wasn't establishing facts about the event, but commenting on reactions (one specifically). Iskandar323 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The journal article outweighs all the news articles combined here. The claim that it is not due is based on nothing. nableezy - 18:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

The David Zweig line doesn't match the citation at all

This sentence in the lead is wrong:

-> Reports of the number of deaths vary widely. Many English-language media outlets reported the Gaza Health Ministry as claiming 342 injured and 471 killed. Journalist David Zweig reported that these claims appear to have originated from a mistranslation of an Al-Jazeera Arabic tweet, which correctly translated claimed over 500 total victims or casualties, not 500 or near 500 killed.

The David Zweig article is about the English-language media reporting that the Gaza Health Ministry reported "over 500 killed" or similar (when it was 500 victims total). The David Zweig article and its mention in the CJR is not about the 471 killed / 342 wounded figure. Those numbers are not mentioned in the sources at all. This is either an incorrect WP:SYNTH or just a misunderstanding of what the David Zweig article is about. The paragraph should be changed to:

-> Reports of the number of deaths vary widely. Many English-language media outlets initial reported the Gaza Health Ministry as claiming 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.

And if we include the David Zweig source, the end of this sentence in the Casualties section should be deleted:

-> As of 19 October 2023, the death toll reported by the Hamas-led Gaza Health Ministry was 471, revised from their initial estimate of 500.

I would also delete this line in the infobox:

-> ~500 total casualties (killed and wounded) (Gaza Health Ministry) [5][6]

This is redundant if the same source provides a more precise figure. Bitspectator (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Andre🚐 22:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Unclear sentence in lead

I think this sentence from the article is unclear. I've included the context and bolded the sentence I think is unclear:

-> The Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem, which manages the hospital, reported 200 people killed. US intelligence agencies assessed a death toll between 100 and 300. A report by Human Rights Watch also questioned the Health Ministry's casualty figures.

The previous two sentences don't directly talk about questioning the Gaza Health Ministry figures, and without reading properly a reader may think "Health Ministry" refers to the Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem managing the hospital. It's also not immediately clear in which direction HRW are questioning the figures. I think the last sentence should be changed to:

-> A report by Human Rights Watch similarly found that the casualty figures of 471 killed and 342 injured provided by the Gaza Health Ministry were probably inaccurate, with evidence from the site indicating a lower death toll.

Bitspectator (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right, the sentence doesn't follow from the prior, but there's a straightforward fix to that by simply reordering, as I have done now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)