Talk:Al-Shifa Hospital siege/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lede

@BilledMammal: Lede is a summary of article. Should we include in the lede how many steps were in the stairs? Or maybe the color of the stairs? Or how many sinks were in the tunnel? No one is interested in reading these details in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Did they use neon or LED bulbs in the tunnels? I see you just restored mentions of electrical wiring to the lede. This is not a summary, this is a collection of information that no one wants to read in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a question of whether it is WP:DUE; given the amount of coverage this tunnel has received I suspect it is.

My primary concern with your edit was that it downplayed the confirmation of the tunnels existence and nature by reliable sources; for example, you changed [CNN] concluded that this evidence of a significant tunnel was the most compelling so far that there may be a network of tunnels below the hospital to The IDF found a tunnel which it claimed it was the most compelling evidence so far that there may be a network of tunnels below the hospital. If you can remove extraneous detail without downplaying the confirmation by reliable sources that the tunnel exists and is substantial I will have no objections. BilledMammal (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I found 24 instances of WP:CLAIM referring to Israel "claiming" something and only 8 instances of their opponents "claiming" something. Maybe that relation should move towards 1:1? Or, better, 0:0. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Usually better not to use WP:CLAIM. Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed all the non-quote, non-link "claims", but some of them (and a typo) were unintentionally reintroduced in this revert by User:Drsmoo. I would like to repair that, but I fear it would be WP:1RR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, though I will self-revert if that was a 1RR Drsmoo (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No you just reverted everything I edited, without specifying what your objections were to. Since you have not provided any counterarguments for the other edits, they will be restored. As for the argument about the IDF; it is a claim, it cannot be stated in WP voice. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Not everything, and I thought I made my objections clear both in the edit summaries and in my comment here; your edits downplayed the confirmation of the tunnels existence and nature by reliable sources. If my objection is unclear, please explain what aspect is unclear and I'll clarify. BilledMammal (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The entire raison d'etre for the Israeli operations at al-Shifa was all the crap about a command center including a pretty 3D fake up of that with four sites presented not equal to the one actually found. For which there is no conclusive evidence, per all the sources. As for the tunnels, a separate and not entirely unsurprising thing, it is not even clear that the tunnels are Hamas tunnels, trying to play that up as evidence is just as bad as playing it down. Since the IDF has blown up what they found, no way to know until some much later time, if ever. Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

France24, has confirmed them as Hamas tunnels based on visual analysis, as has Haaretz. Have any reliable sources disputed that? Drsmoo (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Barak and other sources eg The Times ("One reason that the Israelis have good reason to suspect that there is an underground bunker is that they themselves built a secure operating room with some tunnels under the hospital in 1983 when they occupied the territory.") indicate that Israel built some tunnels. NYT on 22nd / AP on 23rd attribute claims to IDF. Hamas may have built more tunnels and linked them. Sources also say the whole thing needs an investigation, which it seems we are unlikely to get anytime soon. Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Have any sources that did a visual analysis of the tunnel footage disputed the conclusion by experts that they were consistent with Hamas tunnels? Drsmoo (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of ifs and buts in the F24 vid presentation and whether or not those "experts" (see eg Milshtein ) are good enough for their analysis is also unclear at this point. Haaretz does not cite any experts afaics but in any event, these opinions are not universally held so the best one can say is that the thesis that they are Hamas tunnels is disputed, the thesis that these tunnels were actually recently used by Hamas is not verifiable and in any case, is not really the important thing here, which is the complete absence of any evidence of a command center. Done answering questions, OK? Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If a reliable source can be provided that has a differing analysis on the tunnel footage indicating it was constructed by someone other than Hamas, then there can be a discussion over whether it’s disputed. Drsmoo (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Number of Israeli casualties on October 7

The article says "hundreds" of Israelis were killed by Hamas on Oct 7, citing an article that was published on the day of the attack. The number which has been widely reported, following recent assessments, is 1200. (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-revises-death-toll-oct-7-hamas-attack-around-1200-2023-11-10/) DanBareket (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

technically that is hundreds but yes will update to be more accurate LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Wrong citation placement

The 16th citation is a Guardian article, while it follows a claim about what the BBC says. The placement would make more sense with the previous sentence about the Guardian. I'd fix it myself, but the page is edit protected. Mincerafy1 (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It's right, the Guardian article cites the BBC analysis. Selfstudier (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that now, that's my bad. Although it would probably be more helpful to make that more clear. Otherwise, I'll take your expertise in this. Mincerafy1 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Lede

Lede's current situation is highly misleading. It has given more attention to electrical wiring, specifications of the tunnel with a bathroom and sink, while not even mentioning the fact that premature babies were left to die and decay out of their incubators after Israel had forced the evacuation of medical staff (which has received widespread media coverage)! This needs to change immediately. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Too much WP:RECENT with these al Shifa articles, I agree. The article bodies need to be straightened out first. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily, the current lede does not reflect the body properly. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Because the body keeps changing. There are several ongoing discussion and back and forth edits going on atm. No rush, it will get straightened out, although I agree electrical wiring and such is undue. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

IDF evidence so far falls well short of al-Shifa hospital being Hamas HQ

The statement is sourced to the Guardian article published on November 17 before the latest batch of evidence with videos of tunnels was released. Possibly many sources still consider the evidence insufficient, but then we need a proper citation of a source which said it after November 23. Alaexis_¿question? 21:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The videos were actually released on Wednesday 22nd. Will these suffice?

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-war-gaza-shifa-tunnels-hamas-c71ebee136e018fd5a3572a54040f73e AP "Israel has not yet unveiled this purported center, but the military portrayed the underground hideout as its most significant discovery yet. Hamas and the hospital administration have denied Israel’s accusations."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/22/world/middleeast/hamas-tunnel-al-shifa-hospital-gaza.html NYT "The videos so far — including those released on Wednesday — have not shown conclusive evidence of a vast network of tunnels."

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/inside-israels-campaign-to-prove-a-gaza-hospital-was-a-hamas-command-center-65e655ee WSJ "While many security analysts agree the latest evidence Israel has released increasingly suggests a Hamas presence at the hospital, most say they have yet to see something that constitutes a smoking gun showing it was a command center for Hamas, as Israel has alleged."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/23/israels-army-arrests-gaza-hospital-director-and-bombs-300-targets-amid-truce-delay Guardian "Israel has repeatedly claimed that Hamas ran a command and control centre from tunnels running near and under the hospital, although so far the evidence presented has fallen short of that."

https://news.sky.com/story/secrets-of-the-tunnels-what-lies-beneath-al-shifa-hospital-13019619 "The Israeli army is continuing to search the site for evidence of Hamas's presence, including the alleged command and control centre."

Amnesty Crisis in Israel and the occupied PALESTINIAN territories 23 November 2023 "Amnesty International has no evidence to indicate that al-Shifa hospital has been used for anything other than treating patients during the current conflict in 2023. Amnesty International has so far not seen any credible evidence to support Israel’s claim that al-Shifa is housing a military command centre – and indeed Israel has repeatedly failed to produce any evidence to substantiate this claim, which it has promoted since at least the 2008-9 Operation Cast Lead".

Btw, it is clear to anyone actually following this that there is no evidence for a command center and there never was, Israeli/US propaganda notwithstanding. Selfstudier (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Haaretz reported that "The question of whether Al-Shifa's managers knew about the tunnels, the munitions and the military headquarters is answered the moment you go down into the tunnel with the IDF – one stretch is 170 meters long. There is no way the hospital administrators didn't know what was happening…The tunnels lead to well-lit, air-conditioned rooms that contain tables and beds. It's not clear if these rooms were prepared to receive hostages, but there is no doubt they were used by Hamas company, battalion and brigade commanders, and that fighting was directed from there in recent rounds, if not in the current war as well."

France 24, citing three experts, Michael Milshtein of Tel-Aviv University, Scott Savitz, an Engineer, and Daphne Richmond-Barak of Reichman University in Israel, found the Israeli-released footage of tunnels beneath Shifa hospital "do indicate that these tunnels have all the characteristics of tunnels that belong to the Hamas terrorist group." Drsmoo (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That does not say France24 they found it to be a Hamas HQ. The Haaretz article is written in the first person, and it is making an exceptional claim that international sources that have reviewed the same evidence have not found. It is not authoritative when other sources continue to question its conclusions. nableezy - 05:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Do they need to find a nameplate that says "Hamas Headquarters", otherwise it is just a wild claim? We just write what they found, not what that does not prove according to Wikipedia users. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

They need to convince RS and they haven't. Top quality sources are clear that what was found is not sufficient evidence for a Hamas HQ, also take a look back at the presentation that was made by Israel in late October for their initial claims, any "wild" claims are right there. Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replaced the November 16 article with the ones you've added. Alaexis_¿question? 20:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

No need, all the above sources are already in the article in the Israeli media campaign section, although the article does need a general clean up for a more logical flow. The Guardian/BBC source was useful at the time as a response to the Israeli drip feed of "discoveries". Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Hospital head admits to it

Just came out. Medical staff head was a Hamas brigadier general. I think all the comments about Israel’s credibility can be re-examined now. 2601:644:8100:44D0:957A:D12:DD1B:B99C (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Assume this is referring to the Director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, which is already included in that article.Ilenart626 (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes because the Israelis have never lied or tortured so we should absolutely believe everything they say about their "interrogations". nableezy - 22:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

[1] Ahmad Kahalot, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in Jabaliya, tells Shin Bet about staff members affiliated with terror group, how Hamas uses hospital to conceal forces and about transporting bodies and hostages in ambulances; ‘They believe they won't be harmed while they are inside a hospital’ Remind me, is this a reliable source? I saw that Free Beacon and National Review and NY Post are picking this up, but they are decidedly not reliable. Any CNN or NYT or Guardian etc, on this yet? Andre🚐 22:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel has absolutely released what they said is the head of a different hospital saying in what they say is an interrogation that he was a Hamas member and a number of others employed at that hospital are Hamas members. That is a, not about Al-Shifa, and b, based purely on what Israel has released from what they call an interrogation. There has been zero independent confirmation of any of that. nableezy - 22:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

But yes Yedioth Aharonat is a reliable source, though it like any news source from a country involved in an armed conflict reports with a distinct bias. nableezy - 23:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2023

• Former US State Department legal advisor Brian Finucane, said "These arms by themselves hardly seem to justify the military fixation on al-Shifa, even setting the law aside".
  • Can this sentence be reworded? or at least remove the comma
• Should the page be moved to 2023 Al-Shifa Hospital Siege? SorghumBean (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done For a move to be made, an extended-confirmed user needs to start a move discussion. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

is Jeremy Scahill a reliable source

on the one hand he seems to be, at least by his own account a well known journalist On the other hand, his account of the al shifra hospital/gaza war https://theintercept.com/2023/11/21/al-shifa-hospital-hamas-israel/ seems so one sided and written in such inflammatory language that I don't think he can be considered a neutral objective source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes he is. So is The Intercept. No source is neutral. nableezy - 16:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

They are a biased source. Additionally, Scahill confuses the basement built by Israel with the tunnels built by Hamas under the Qatari building, which was only constructed after Israel left the strip. Drsmoo (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You think Times of Israel isnt biased? Bias has nothing to do with reliability. nableezy - 18:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

How did you reply to my comment within minutes of my posting? Drsmoo (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I refreshed my watchlist and saw a new comment? There something youre trying to imply? Oh no, he did it again! But somehow you replied to mine in even less time than I replied to yours! nableezy - 18:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Media Bias Fact Check has Times of Israel as less biased and more factual than The Intercept. Drsmoo (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Media Bias Fact Check isnt a reliable source though. nableezy - 18:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that states the Intercept is less biased than Times of Israel? Drsmoo (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I dont know why that would matter, my point is all sources have a bias. Which is not related to their reliability. nableezy - 19:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, at the moment, the intercept is certainly not a source currently given over to wartime propaganda. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that the intercept article conflated different buildings to create a false impression, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Drsmoo (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Does the intercept’s acceptance of the death tolls in Gaza claimed by Hamas’s health ministry but uncorroborated by neutral parties, speak against the article’s reliability? 2601:644:8100:44D0:D10F:5A34:386:779E (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

no - regardless the intercept is regarded as reliable under WP:RS. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Does the Lancets? nableezy - 13:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's use better sources than The Intercept. There is an abundance of RS from which to select the most widely respected sources that will be acceptable for contentious content. Intercept has lots of problems, and from a once respected niche it's steadily slid to its current marginal standing. SPECIFICO talk 13:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsupported assertion, it’s a totally fine source to use. nableezy - 13:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You may not be familiar with its history of problems, but if you care to review the several discussions at RSN and in the general media, you will see how it is currently regarded. We are better off using a more respected source for this content so as not to distract from the content with the weak reference. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

lol, WP:RSP: There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept. So it appears that it is you who is not familiar with how it is currently regarded. The Intercept is a fine source, and by established consensus is generally reliable. If you would like to start a new discussion on it, WP:RSN is that way. nableezy - 15:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

We are all aware of what the quick look at RSNP shows. I said that editors who wish to deepen their understanding should look at the RSN threads that discuss it in detail. When more credible sources with more detailed substance are available, it weakens our articles to use borderline citations for contentious topics. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There isnt anything borderline about this source, and if you know consensus is against your position then you probably should not pretend like your position is how it is currently regarded. As it stands, this is a generally reliable source and we are attributing it. See no reason to continue this thread, so feel free to argue against consensus without me. The article however will reflect Wikipedia consensus though. nableezy - 15:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The use isn’t really news though. More of a biased analysis that is factually wrong in that it claims the Qatari tunnels were built by Israel Drsmoo (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

What source says what he says is wrong? nableezy - 04:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

France24 - https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/truth-or-fake/20231130-al-shifa-hospital-where-the-tunnels-discovered-by-israel-built-by-israel Drsmoo (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Uh no, Scahill doesnt say anything about who built tunnels underneath the Qatari built building. And his report pre-dates the Israeli tweet referenced in the France 24 video. And even if there were a dispute among two single sources, we wouldnt claim one was right because we agreed with it, and the other one must then be wrong. We would describe the dispute among the sources. nableezy - 04:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect, Scahill writes: "Al-Shifa’s Tunnels Were Built by Israel", he then goes into detail about how Ehud Barak discussed Israel building a basement under Al-Shifa. He does this in reference to the video footage showing the tunnel leading to the blast proof door. However, this footage is from under the Qatari building. It is completely different from what Barak was describing. This is not a dispute between sources, these are simply facts. France 24 directly states that the bit about Barak's description of an Israeli-built basement under Al-Shifa is irrelevant to the video footage. Haaretz also does a breakdown [2]https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2023-11-23/ty-article-magazine/gaza-israel-war-videos-path-hamas-tunnels-al-shifa-hospital/0000018b-fc69-d330-a9bb-ffff49790000 noting that the tunnel began under the Qatari building. Scahill conflates these two things incorrectly. Drsmoo (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit: I've removed that section from the Scahill paragraph. The rest is attributed as his opinion, which I think is fine as he is notable. Drsmoo (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Scahill discusses Barak's interview, but he does it before the tweet by Israel which France24 is discussing. That he does not bring up another set of tunnels does not mean he is talking about them, that makes no sense at all. The video footage came out after Scahill's report. He is talking about tunnels that were already known to exist prior to any other Israeli releases. nableezy - 05:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not correct. There were two sets of videos. The first was the video that lead up to the blast door. "On Sunday, Israel released two new videos that it claimed document a 55-meter fortified tunnel 10 meters below Al-Shifa." - Scahill

This is what Scahill discusses. The next is of the same tunnel but past the blast door.

Both videos are of the same tunnel below the Qatari building, which is the tunnel that France24 notes has no relevance to Barak's statement. Drsmoo (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

On Sunday Israel had said they had not gone past the blast door that your Haaretz article has a diagram of. There was no indication of where anything would go past that, and Scahill did not say anything about all possible tunnels in the complex. He said that it is not a secret that there are tunnels at al-Shifa because Israel built them. And that is completely true. Israel later said it discovered tunnels that it did not build, that does not make false that still true statement by Scahill. nableezy - 05:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

We’re discussing the Israeli media campaign. The Israeli media campaign showed the tunnel built under the Qatari building. Scahill’s statement about Ehud Barak has no relevance to the Israeli Media Campaign’s released footage that he was describing. Drsmoo (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Well youre also saying Scahill is factually wrong. nableezy - 06:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

He is based on all video footage of tunnels under Al-Shifa, all of which are noted by experts to be consistent with Hamas tunnels. “Al-Shifa’s Tunnels Were Built by Israel” - Scahill. That is wrong. Drsmoo (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

No, based on what was released at the time. That is an absurd claim to make, Scahill was wrong about tunnels that the IDF supposedly discovered after his column lol. nableezy - 13:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

That’s incorrect. Scahill is directly writing about the tunnel under the Qatari building. He is describing the footage of that tunnel leading up to the blast gate. Drsmoo (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it was not known where that tunnel went to after that point then, and he was making a general remark about the known tunnels beneath al-Shifa. Anyways, as the Washington Post laid out, the evidence for any military usage here remains unconvincing to most reliable sources. nableezy - 22:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

It was known that the tunnel Scahill was describing wasn’t built by Israel. “Al-Shifa’s Tunnels Were Built by Israel” - this statement was and is factually wrong. You can have Wikipedia:The Last Word if you wish. Drsmoo (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It was not known at the time, as Israel had said they hadn’t gone past that door. You can keep blustering as though you have proved Scahill wrong but you haven’t and he remains a reliable source. nableezy - 03:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

WaPo

With the WaPo article out, we need to abandon the false-balancing approach. It is increasingly evident that Israel's claims do not stand scrutiny. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-23/ty-article-magazine/.premium/did-hamas-operate-under-al-shifa-a-tour-of-the-tunnels-leaves-no-room-for-doubt/0000018b-f8c7-d783-a3df-f8df15600000

”Did Hamas Operate Under Gaza's Al-Shifa Hospital? A Tour of the Tunnels Leaves No Room for Doubt” Drsmoo (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Haaretz is a partisan — but not unreliable — source in the conflict. Additionally, the WaPo report post-dates this report. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Haaretz is also alone, whereas NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, Amnesty International all agree that Israel has not shown that Hamas used Shifa as a command center or node or whatever other bogus claim that’s been made and then abandoned as attention shifted from this once it became apparent there was no human shielding occurring here. But yes, needs rebalancing to reflect the balance of sources here. nableezy - 03:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with TrangaBellam and Nableezy. The WaPo report is more recent, more comprehensive, and more unbiased than a month-old article in Haaretz. Loki (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

here is the Haaretz analysis. In what way is the Haaretz report biased? In what way is the Washington Post article more comprehensive? Drsmoo (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Lede

The lede is absolutely farcical, contradicting every single WP guideline possible. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Much better now. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: You do realize that the lede is a summary of the body, and not the body in itself, is that correct? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes? BilledMammal (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't realized you did extensive revisions before you pinged me here, but this is not an improvement. You've removed most of the coverage of reliable sources endorsing claims by Israel while keeping most of the criticism of Israel's claims; it isn't aligned with NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted it for now. I think it is best to create a draft on the talk page that we can then discuss, and ensure that it both includes the aspects that reliable sources verified and the aspects that reliable sources criticized. BilledMammal (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The lede has now been turned from well-composed four paragraph summarizations of the body, to a collection of non-related 9 paragraphs, in complete contradiction of the manual of style. Please do not indiscriminately revert everything and choose exactly what you are opposed to, or balance the previous version if you think it is not neutral. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It's more important to comply with NPOV than it is to comply with the MOS. I agree that the lede needs shortening, and I'll try to draft something NPOV-compliant in the next couple of days. BilledMammal (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Current lede is unacceptable neither NPOV nor MOS wise, both equally important guidelines and will be reverted. You are better off editing the version you have removed to make it more balanced, in your opinion. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead seems messy, been here once before, methinks. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The "new" US stuff isn't really new at all, just a rewash of the old stuff and RS are not buying it, Neither Israel nor the US have published evidence that fully matches up with the claims, While U.S. officials say the intelligence community has “high confidence” in its assessment of al-Shifa’s use by Hamas, they have not publicly released visual or audio evidence. The IDF’s claims have also been challenged by a lack of conclusive proof. Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

{{ping|Selfstudier}} I agree that the current lede is messy and thus will restore the version I had enacted, neatly four well-composed paragraphs that were indiscriminately reverted for no good reason. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

We need to include, in line with the coverage of the event, both sides in the lede; the fact that Israel has presented evidence, including proving the existence of a significant tunnel network beneath the hospital and the presence of hostages within the hospital, the fact that Israel's position has been independently supported by the United States, and the fact that reliable sources have cast doubts on some of the claims that Israel has made and on the veracity of that support.

The issue with Makeandtoss' edit was that it removed most of Israel's side. BilledMammal (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Needs to be due, most RS had problems with the US/Israel position and still have. Atm, we have three articles covering the contentious subject matter and there needs to be consistency over all three. Perhaps editing Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital first and then this one, followed by the main hospital article would be the way to go. Selfstudier (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I hadn’t realised we had Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital; I think that article and this one need a complete rewrite. I’ll try to find time to do one tomorrow, but I’ll avoid directly implementing anything that I think is remotely contentious and instead propose it on the talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Lede

Restoring better version of lede per MOS which states lede should summarize body in four well-composed paragraphs. If any editor has any concerns about neutrality, they are more than welcome to address the specific issues, or to place a POV tag. However, another indiscriminate reversion that restores the messy and incomprehensible lede can be hardly considered in good faith. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

POV tag in "Alleged military use"

Section "Alleged military use" has a POV tag since Nov 2023 [3]. I tracked the developments and found Military use section is incredibly POV. Pinging the involved parties to know if the tag should stay there; Drsmoo, Nableezy, and Alaexis. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that the sectioned should be trimmed somewhat considering that we have a whole article about the military use of the hospital. Alaexis_¿question? 12:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

"Alleged" military use. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Still willing to see the POV issues in the section give the 4 months old tag. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Mass revert

@BilledMammal: Care to explain your mass reversions? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Pinging one more time. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

In his edit summary, it said “Revert; MOS:CLAIM issues and serious NPOV issues, including significantly downplaying major aspects. There may be some good aspects in these edits, but there is far too much bad - please discuss on talk”

MOS:CLAIM can easily be fixed. I think maybe he should have kept the good edits and just reverted the ones that had NPOV issues. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

NPOV issues, partly but not fully related to CLAIM issues; for example, you replaced "Israel said there was a major command center under the building" with "Israel claimed there was a major command center under the building".

Elsewhere, you switch from "international criticism" to "international condemnation" - despite the sources, including the sources you added, preferring "criticism".

There are numerous examples like this; I'm hoping you can explain your changes so we can understand why you have done them and which are appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 NPOV

As it stands, the section cites very little Israeli reporting on the siege besides official death tolls, and it almost reads like a newspaper article where claims from civilians are cited with little elaboration. It should probably, if possible, be expanded to include more discourse around the occurences from the witness accounts, especially to stick to the secondary source principle. — Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 16:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of RS coming out now that the siege/attack is concluded. Example. Perhaps could make some summaries in the article rather than the daily event thing. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like lot of that section is using the Al Jazeera liveblog, which updates daily and multiple times per day, which could also be a contributing factor to the news-like reporting. May need to use better sources per WP:NEWSBLOG since it’s possible the blog info may not be as stringently fact checked. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think Al Jazeera wouldn't generally post any random, unverified tidbits. They tend to be rated pretty reliable. It would just be good to have more than their snippets of statements, and have more of a complete overview of those events. Ideally some sort of "civilian claims—authority 1 claim—authority 2 claim—news article analysis" structure. — Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 20:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan, but it also sounds like a lot of work if you can even find supporting/supplemental information and analysis for the civilian/authority claims. There probably are competing claims as well. It’s probably easier to start over and focus on secondary reporting rather than primary claims as you originally posted. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hijerovit: Unfortunately, that's not true - see, for example, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Al Jazeera reliability where we discuss a case of them posting a random, unverified tidbits. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal Ah, thanks for the heads-up. I see the news blog note for AJ on WP:RSPSS as well now. — Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 09:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

AJ is generally reliable until it isn't, that's what the green color at WP:RSP means. Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This from CNN, late on into the attack. I'll just put a few more here, remind myself if someone else doesn't want to do it:

BBC:Gaza's al-Shifa hospital in ruins after two-week Israeli raid

NYT:Israeli Army Withdraws From Major Gaza Hospital, Leaving Behind a Wasteland

Reuters:Israeli troops leave Gaza's Shifa Hospital a wreck in sea of rubble

Haaretz:Israel Army Withdraws From Gaza's Al-Shifa Hospital, Palestinians Report Vast Destruction in Operation's Aftermath

Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding WSJ on MSN, usually WSJ is paywalled:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-s-campaign-at-gaza-s-al-shifa-hospital-reveals-gaps-in-effort-to-subdue-hamas/ar-BB1kTsfQ Wafflefrites (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2024

It’s the al shifaa hospital massacres 37.39.250.55 (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Edit request policy states: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". You may submit a new request in the appropriate WP:ER format. Please also include relevant sources. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Split article

Split November 2023 and March 2024 sieges into separate articles titled “2023 Al-Shifa Hospital siege” and “Destruction of the Al-Shifa Hospital” respectively. MountainDew20 (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking about this, and it would make sense for two standalone articles given the significant coverage. I would support. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If we split it should be to "2024 Al-Shifa Hospital raid"; "Destruction of the Al-Shifa Hospital" would be too narrow a topic. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there should be two separate articles on the two sieges, differentiated by their separate dates: November 2023 and March 2024. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Destruction of the Al-Shifa Hospital is not a NPOV name. The sources are quite clear that there was fighting between the IDF and Hamas militants [4], so the name should reflect it (e.g., 2024 Al-Shifa Hospital clashes). Alaexis_¿question? 12:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

What we really need is an article on how Israel has destroyed every hospital in Gaza, per sources such as How Gaza’s hospitals became battlegrounds, How Gaza’s hospitals, schools and places of worship have been destroyed and Destroying Gaza’s Health Care System Is a War Crime.

As for al-Shifa, Here's what we found after Israel's raid on Al-Shifa, Gaza's biggest hospital and Gaza's al-Shifa hospital in ruins after two-week Israeli raid are as good as any place to begin, evidently the euphemistic clashes is not the right description. Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There is Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war Wafflefrites (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware, a title that needs changing. Selfstudier (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

"Clashes" as euphemism for destroying and burning the largest hospital in Gaza would be next-level POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Alaexis that Destruction of the Al-Shifa Hospital is not a NPOV name. Clashes did occur around Al Shifa as well as battles. This has been confirmed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants. Hamas said they were fighting in the areas around the hospital but denied presence inside the hospital, the sources are in the Wikipedia article and also this one [5] Wafflefrites (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Look at sources I gave in the section above, "ruins", "Wasteland", "sea of rubble", and there are more in similar vein or worse, how would you suggest we title this destruction? Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You only gave sources but you haven’t even written any part of the March siege article yet, while there actually is a section within this article titled “March 2024 siege” that details the days leading to the destruction. I think a better name would be “Al Shifa Hospital March 2024 siege”. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact, there are more sources about the days leading up to the destruction that the handful of sources you provided about the destruction so the article should be more about the siege per WP:WEIGHT and also your comment about the sources you provided were relying on WP:HEADLINES Wafflefrites (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

about the days leading up to the destruction At least we agree on that part. The sources for what occurred during the two weeks are of course valid content but we should prefer the latest sources looking back for the title. Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with BilledMammal that the destruction is too narrow a topic. Plus Al Shifa is largely destroyed but not completely. We don’t know the future plans, and this article https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2024/04/07/3064958/basic-functions-at-gaza-s-al-shifa-hospital-cannot-be-restored-in-short-term-who talks about minimal functionality, so I don’t know if they will try to rebuild it, and it will be confusing if it’s rebuilt and renamed Al Shifa again if we have an article titled “Destruction of Al Shifa” Wafflefrites (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if it is rebuilt, it will still have been destroyed, anyway, they who write the article must decide a title and then submit to RM, RFC and the rest. There is no need for any consensus at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with Iskandar323 that “clashes” is euphemistic; there are sources calling this a two week long battle and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades was also involved [6] Wafflefrites (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious to know if there are any sources that testify that there were clashes within the hospital itself that do not rely solely on IDF or Israeli testimony. I'm aware of there being clashes around and in the vicinity of the hospital, but the only claims about fighting within the hospital appear to be Israeli. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

No the only thing I could find was this https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/al-shifa-hospital-under-siege-hamas-opens-fire-watch-emergency-room-encounter-idf-hits-terror-den/ar-BB1kJm4K but I didnt put it in the Wikipedia article since there was no secondary analysis. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Wait, this is from Al Jazeera :[7] "Intense battles have been ongoing for days inside and in the vicinity of the hospital." Wafflefrites (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a running blog and no actors (or any real context) are mentioned, so that doesn't really give us much. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The majority of AJ sources in this article is the AJ liveblog. And in this case, they even put it in their own voice rather than attributing. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

There are now plenty of RS on the subject, I put some of them up above. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

If we want a couple of attributable sources referring to it as a massacre, then https://mondoweiss.net/2024/04/come-out-you-animals-how-the-massacre-at-al-shifa-hospital-happened/ and https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6254/Gaza:-Shifa-Medical-Complex-witnesses-one-of-the-largest-massacres-in-Palestinian-history Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Mondoweiss is interesting, it mentions police inside the hospital firing at Israeli forces. Maybe that’s why the AJ liveblog referred to it as intense battles inside the hospital. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)