Jump to content

Talk:Al-Shifa Hospital siege

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV tag

[edit]

The lede is written in such a way to distract, overwhelm and obscure straightforward facts about the siege; that it was committed with an Israeli propaganda campaign on the existence of a vast command center below the hospital, which has never been found. This news media says this; Israel says that; this website says this; it is a mess that blurs the distinction between propaganda (as reported by RS) with facts. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the non paywalled sources used in the lead. 5 say “propaganda” but attribute it to Hamas accusing Israel of propaganda. The only source that actually accuses Israel of propaganda is Jeremy Scahill, which I have appropriately attributed and avoided wikivoice. The previous lead used wiki voice where not appropriate and editorializing words identified by Wikipedia’s Manual of Style. Reliable sources do not call it propaganda. They just say the evidence provided by Israel fall short it’s original claims of there being a vast command center, for example:
“The evidence produced so far falls well short of that. IDF videos have shown only modest collections of small arms, mostly assault rifles, recovered from the extensive medical complex.
That suggests an armed presence, but not the sort of elaborate nerve centre depicted in animated graphics presented to the media before al-Shifa was seized, portraying a network of well-equipped subterranean chambers.”[1] Wafflefrites (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the section Israel media campaign? The whole thing was predicated on Israeli (and US) propaganda, start to finish. Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will check the sources in that section and get back to you. I actually didn’t change the lead much, if you look through my edit history. I fixed the MOS:EDITORIAL, issues and moved a sentence that was in the third paragraph to the second paragraph.
If editors would like the 2023 military siege to be about propaganda, than maybe more sources saying that it was propaganda needs to be placed in the lead. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did a quick source check in that section. From the non paywalled sources that I able to check, only 3 use the word “propaganda”: The Nation, Democracy Now, and The New Arab. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and then there all the sources saying that it was basically lies and misrepresentation (whether they used those words or not), that's what propaganda is. Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This just further proves the point how the WP article is written in a misleading way; the article (seems to have been) published by the Intercept and should be attributed to the Intercept; not to a random investigative journalist named Scahill. Also we don't need to exactly use the word propaganda; many RS have said that Israel is outright lying, so this is another issue of semantics. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I am not opposed to others putting a sentence summarizing the body in the lead about lies and misrepresentation. It would make things more organized. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Intercept article was written by Jeremy Scahill. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in that case then the attribution would be to the Intercept, which readers would take more seriously than a person named Scahill, so this is just one example how there are problems of neutrality here. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, also that sentence is not following MOS:ACCUSED. Since you are the one who put up the neutrality tag, please feel free to make changes. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "vast command center" wasn't found but the presence of Hamas fighters in and of tunnels under the hospitals in supported by multiple RS and should not be obscured in the lede. Alaexis¿question? 11:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was not clear to me. I didn’t know that. I think most English RS just mostly focused on how there wasn’t a vast command center. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't know because it isn't precisely true, there was a tunnel that might have been built by Israel and no Hamas fighters (or show me sources saying the contrary). At any rate, nothing approaching sufficient evidence of a military use to justify attacking a hospital and killing civilians in the process. Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wafflefrites I just realised I didn't respond to your comment in April. This France24 report discusses the tunnels under the hospital and who likely built them. It's present in the article already. Alaexis¿question? 11:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposed

[edit]
No consensus to split. Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many sources are reporting that the March "siege" was a massacre, with hundreds of civilians killed by israeli forces. This is clearly significant enough to warrant a separate article. Dylanvt (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples:
  1. Israel/Gaza: UN experts deplore attacks on Al-Shifa Hospital, urge States to stop the massacre
  2. Al-Shifa Medical Complex witnesses one of the largest massacres in Palestinian history
  3. Gaza: Al-Shifa Medical Complex massacre provides proof that the Israeli army engaged in full-fledged crimes
  4. ‘Come out, you animals’: how the massacre at al-Shifa Hospital happened
  5. Israel’s Horrific Massacre at Gaza’s Largest Hospital
  6. Israel’s Brutality Is Increasing—and So Is Its Denialism
  7. White House defends Shifa hospital massacre that killed over 400
  8. Al-Shifa Hospital in ruins
  9. Israel destroyed al-Shifa Hospital to accelerate social collapse in Gaza
  10. Israel’s massacre at Al-Shifa hospital and targeting of aid providers are emblematic of its campaign of systematic destruction of life in Gaza
  11. Gaza : Horrific scenes from the Al-Shifa Hospital Massacre (cw)
Dylanvt (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You have Euro-Med Monitor via ReliefWeb up there twice, as well as Mondoweiss twice. One of your sources is The Electronic Intifada, which is not a reliable source per Wikipedia. Personally, I do not think the English sources you provided are very mainstream. If more mainstream sources like CNN, The New York Times, AP News, Reuters, WSJ are naming it "massacre", then I would agree per WP:COMMONNAME, but it seems the mainstream sources are still calling it a "seige" or a "raid. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet is anybody denying the fact that hundreds of civilians were killed by an occupying military force? Is that not a massacre? Besides, the crux of this is not the specific wording, but the fact that the March event was significant and distinct from the November one and should have its own article. Dylanvt (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn't notice the section above that already had discussion on this, as there wasn't a tag in the article itself before I added one. Dylanvt (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::Sulport a split, the article is getting very long, and the recent obliteration was independently notable. MWQs (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Sock[reply]

Best to split. This seems to have stemmed from a "continuation" or "renewal" of the November operation, which was a siege and was initally the only one covered by the article The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support split and Oppose name “Al-Shifa Hospital massacre” per WP:COMMONNAME and lack of its use in mainstream reliable sources. I would support a name like “Al Shifa Hospital March 2024 siege” or “2024 Al-Shifa Hospital siege”.
Wafflefrites (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with siege is the implication that all the Israeli forces surrounded but did not enter the hospital, which they did initially but not for the entirety of the episode. Attack is better and I think that is in fact what it was, Israel claimed the presence of enemy forces in the hospital as justification for it. Whether that actually holds up as an excuse I cannot say until I have looked at the sourcing a bit more closely but on past performance I doubt it.Selfstudier (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right about the siege definition. This probably means that the current COMMONNAME is not accurate. The reliable sources really need to get better at naming. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al Shifa massacre is a very common name. MWQs (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could argue it's not neutral, but it's very common. MWQs (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Siege" here does accurately refer to the first operation, where israeli forces circled the hospital in november for four days before raiding it. In the march operation, the hospital was immediately raided and because of the time gap and different type of operation which led to the hispital's destruction, it is distinct enough to warrant its own article The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier other hospital articles are called that, maybe they should be changed to invasion or attack? I can't think of a word that sounds like the right scale. MWQs (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"raid" maybe works? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/after-2-weeks-of-raids-at-shifa-hospital-gazas-largest-israeli-troops-withdraw MWQs (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The majority of reliable sources use words like "battle" or "fighting" SCMP France24 NYT AFP. Alaexis¿question? 09:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Al-Shifa Hospital witnesses reveal bloodshed of Israeli raids Today from the New Arab. Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The New Arab uses “raids” in its headlines and “second siege” in the body. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Split and Oppose Name There were two separate raids on the hospital so the article should be branched off into two articles, each covering one particular raid. I strongly oppose the term "massacre", since there is no mainstream consensus that it was a massacre rather than a battle. Many of the sources provided here to back up the "massacre" claim are blatantly partisan, such as Electronic Intifada, Jacobin, Mondoweiss, and ICJPalestine. It should be "First Raid on Al-Shifa" and "Second Raid on Al-Shifa" or "First Battle of Al-Shifa" and "Second Battle of Al-Shifa". The massacre allegations can be covered within the articles but they should not be presented as indisputable fact.--RM (Be my friend) 09:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second attack involves at least 200 dead militants according to the IDF but the reports from the other side speak of 381 bodies and another 15 a week later. This whole affair probably needs a complete investigation to uncover what occurred. The name of the second should not be merely number 2 or anything like that because it is at least clear that the death and destruction are on a completely different level and idk, massacre may in fact be appropriate. There should definitely be a split and the sources rounded up and examined further. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, massacre is not appropriate. It was an extended battle. If you want to call it a "massacre" prove that it's widely acknowledged as being such in the mainstream. RM (Be my friend) 06:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind about splitting the article. I don’t think it should be split due to continuity and context reasons. One example is the mass grave that was dug in the courtyard during the 2023 siege. Later in the 2024 siege, the IDF bulldozed the courtyard, according to the AJ liveblog source (which doesn’t provide context other than the courtyard was bulldozed). A better source may be needed but this is a continuity and context issue because only this Wikipedia article with the combined sieges provided the context that there was a mass grave in the courtyard that was bulldozed. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After some time to reflect, I think you are right, mainly because of the continuity argument, we would lose something of that in the process of a split. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continuity can be woven in with interlinks. That's not a reason to keep two separate, discrete events four months apart bound together. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that's true in theory but even tho I have been around here for a while now, I still sometimes find the discontinuity in certain articles a little bit jarring, I sort of feel all the info should be together in one place. In this particular instance I am also more interested in the legal issues than the precise details of the attacks but that's just me. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think both events should be in the article and the article should be renamed “Sieges on Al-Shifa Hospital in the Israel-Hamas War” or similar. Also, there more than two sieges. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can no longer find the source but I believe I read somewhere that the hospital had been raided multiple times. Now the more recent sources just focus on the two raids. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This material was originally clustered as events unfolded because it was unclear how significantly subsequent events would build upon the initial events. As it turns out they build upon it significantly and the page is now of a length that is more than some pretty in-depth topics. As the material has expanded, the splicing together of events four months apart as if they are one event has become more untenable and artificial. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of stuff should be (or is) in Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital. At some point, that article needs to cleaned up and put in proper order (on my list of stuff I really should be doing). Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page title should perhaps disambiguate to the two sieges. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The term massacre is frequently defined as primarily civilian death, and as Selfstudier says, many of those who were killed were militants according to IDF: see https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/09/middleeast/israel-gaza-mass-graves-al-shifa-hospital-intl. There needs to be consensus to use this term. As multiple others are saying, siege is not an agreed upon term for the second IDF operation performed at the Al-Shifa hospital either, considering it is used more infrequently than "raid" among other news sources. A title rework would be in order if the page is split out. I oppose the page being split given the reasons provided by Wafflefrites and Selfstudier; primarily due to lost context. This section also needs rework before ever considering a migration: it is unclear whether content for each date was added because the relevant content added is bona fide, or just in order to have a news item that happens on every day, no matter its level of significance. The timeline of the Gaza-War has similar event density. This timeline style is not wiki-prose and should probably only be used in pages titled "Timeline of ..." Relspas (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Strong support - article is getting too long as the March events warrant their own page. Both should refer to each other in a hat note. FourPi (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Sock[reply]

I said above I would prefer a split, it's not critical however and I don't think much is lost leaving it as is, so unless someone has some strong objection and even tho I am involved, I intend to close this as nocon after a week or so.Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request - clarify casualties in the info box

[edit]

Please add to the casualties section in the info box that the listed casualties are from the second raid. Currently the info box creates wrong impression as these casualties are from the entire siege / 2 raids, and not only from the second one.

Justification: Both sources (17, 18) clearly reference only the second raid, and not the entire siege / both raids. Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

200+ Militants Killed?

[edit]

This articles makes the claim that 200+ militants were killed by the IDF, using the IDF as a source. This has not been confirmed via independent investigation and therefore should not be taken as fact. The IDF has proven itself to be a completely unreliable source in relation to Al-Shifa given, frankly, its lies and propaganda surrounding the hospital’s status as a part of Hamas’ military infrastructure. Suggest changing this and other aspects of the article which seems to intentionally give the misleading impression that this was a setpiece battle between Hamas and the IDF. 24.229.111.34 (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In both instances, in the infobox and the text, the information about 200 militants is attributed to the Israeli military. That is how it works in Wikipedia. People can decide for themselves what to make of that. If there are alternative numbers from other sources, those can be included with attribution too. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2024

[edit]

Under Section Initial clashes and siege: Later a Palestinian doctor stated that 7 people had died following the strikes.[90] On the same day, it was reported that Israeli forces were at the gates of the hospital.[76] to Later a Palestinian doctor stated that 7 people had died following the strikes.[90] On the next day, it was reported that Israeli forces were at the gates of the hospital.[76]

(It was reported that the IDF brought the war to the gates on Saturday not Friday) Reallygreatoaktree (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Shifa_Hospital_siege&oldid=1260986169"