Talk:Al-Shifa Hospital/Archive 1

Archive 1

HAMAS

The European Union condemned Hamas: "Using hospitals in Gaza as human shields" https://news.walla.co.il/item/3622176 — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 23:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Proper name of complex

As a note, the proper name of the hospital complex is actually 'dar al-shifaa", though obviously the common name is simply shifa. If proof is needed, I can take a picture of the plaque with the name at the administrative building next time I'm down there. Tarek (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Use as bunker is alleged

I looked at the sources regarding the use of Shifa as a hamas/militant bunker. Here are the direct quotes from the two sources: "Senior Hamas officials in Gaza are hiding out in a "bunker" built by Israel, intelligence officials suspect" [1] and "Some Hamas leaders are believed to be hiding in bunkers underneath the largest hospital in the Gaza Strip, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials" [http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/hamas-leaders-believed-hunkered-underneath-gaza-hospital/]. This is obviously a politically charged topic, and I expect people to fall on the side of their politic. However, I think unless there are more reliable sources, at this point we should report it as the articles have: an allegation. Tarek (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Shifa Hospital. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091021083834/http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=526&CategoryId=23 to http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=526&CategoryId=23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2023

Change "During the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, al-Shifa Hospital was overwhelmed with wounded and dying people, and was running short on fuel, beds, and medical supplies.[22]

On the 17th of October 2023, an explosion which was likely the result of an Islamic Jihad misfire damaged the hospital.[23][24] It has pushed the hospital beyond its capacity to treat wounded people and it is close to collapse.[25] The hospital is also housing thousands of displaced Palestinians seeking shelter from airstrikes during the war.[26] "

To "During the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, al-Shifa Hospital was overwhelmed with wounded and dying people, and was running short on fuel, beds, and medical supplies.[22]"

The 2nd paragraph needs to be removed as it has nothing to do with Al-Shifa hospital, but rather the Al-Ahli Hospital: المستشفى الأهلي العربي located ~3km from Al-Shifa. Jeromecort (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the second paragraph, it seems to be someone mixing up the hospitalsThe Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing use by Hamas for torture and command center as a discrete subject

I can’t see a rationale for removing the use of the facility by Hamas for torture and murder as a discrete subject. This it certainly not normal use of a hospital, or something that should be listed within normal history. Drsmoo (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal where precisely? You mean as a discrete section? The mentions are pretty scattered, and many of them a bit ropey - some are just Fatah accusations. The most concrete fragments are an HRW mention in 2006 and an AI mention in 2014. Overall, however, given the scattered nature of the mentions, the material is best contextualized within the conflicts to which they apply. The last mention was notably in 2014, so that's nearly a decade ago. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of potentially subjective language in introduction

The use of the words "de facto headquarters" could be considered hyperbole, and should not be taken literally. The inclusion of this phrase in the original Washington Post article could be interpreted as an exaggeration of the presence of Hamas military personnel in the hospital, and overall, the use of this particular Washington Post article as an objective source of information is questionable (see the 'Controversies' subsection of the Washington Post Wikipedia article). Moreover, considering its subjectiveness, the inclusion of the phrase "de facto headquarters of Hamas" in the introduction of this Wikipedia article unnecessarily devalues the hospital's primary purpose of providing medical care. In order to maintain the objectivity of the article and avoid misleading readers, this phrase should be removed from the introduction. Stockrbonk (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It is also already mentioned in the history section of the article, no need to have it in the lead The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the complete removal. The lede should summarise the article and now it contains nothing about its use by Hamas. I'll try to make it more concise. Alaexis_¿question? 20:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: This issue has been resolved. Stockrbonk (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually agree with you and TGMoE on this. I don't think something that can't be confirmed to be empirically true should be in the summary because no further context is provided for the claim in this section and it can be misleading to readers. And, as you said, it undermines the crucial role the hospital plays in providing shelter and medical care to Palestinian refugees.

Alaexis claims that the lead should summarize the article, but there's nothing in the lead about other information included in the History section like the Israeli occupation in 1967 or the hospital's current role in the conflict. Only including information about Hamas in the lead and nothing else presents a biased and potentially misleading message.

Additionally, these statements are not cited properly in the lead, and citations need to be included next to this information. Wormparty (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not *claiming* that the lead should summarise the article, this is the policy. Feel free to add the summary of the history, including the occupation in 1967. I've added the citations. Alaexis_¿question? 09:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Your insertion is not NPOV, as you mentioned that its used by Hamas, but nothing else. You're right that policy asks us to summarize the article, but that doesn't mean "cherrypick certain facts from the article and summarize those while ignoring the rest".VR _talk 15:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This is exactly what I meant in my comment about the summarization and why it may be misleading. I think you articulated this point better than I did. Wormparty (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

“something that can't be confirmed to be empirically true” what specifically are you referring to? Drsmoo (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

As Stockrbonk said, claiming that the hospital is the "de facto headquarters of Hamas" is hyperbolic, and the Washington Post article from which this claim is taken cannot and should not be used as an objective source of information. What I really meant by "empirically true" was "objectively true" and "can be proven".

Because of this, I do take issue with the claims about Hamas included in the History section (particularly with how it is written), but my main concern is the lead. Wormparty (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

“the Washington Post article from which this claim is taken cannot and should not be used as an objective source of information.”

It is, can, and should. Please research how reliable sources work on Wikipedia. The Washington Post has the highest level of reliability on Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we should be quoting its phrasing in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is the page's undue emphasis on quite a lot of essentially claims/rumour about the presence of Hamas at the hospital. Only the Amnesty report is really worth reading into. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Claims from primary sources reported on in journalism and analysis from highly reliable secondary sources Drsmoo (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

There are still a couple of grammatical errors, but I think the format we have now is appropriate, and on par with most Wikipedia descriptions of other hospitals. Stockrbonk (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Part of me is still worried about the potential misuse of this article, though. The IDF has used the presence of Hamas personnel to justify attacks on medical facilities in the past, which makes some of the claims made in the "Use by Hamas" section of this article a little dodgy. Just how much of it can we trust? Of course, most Wikipedia articles follow the principle of each person being responsible for their own fact-checking, but it might be a good idea to mention where each source comes from with more clarity. Still, these claims deserve to be present in the article. Like I said before, I think the structure we have right now is appropriate, though it could use a little refining. Stockrbonk (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Presence of Hamas fighters

Someone added "The medical staff are suffering from fear and terror, particularly of the Hamas fighters, who are in every corner of the hospital."

What is the context here? Are the Hamas fighters using the hospital to launch rockets? Are they there guarding certain patients (as across the world, certain patients are accompanied with police either because they need protection or because they are dangerous)? Are they there receiving treatment? Without context, its pointless to WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. If the intent here was to add this to make a point that Hamas uses this as a base, then that might be WP:OR.VR _talk 16:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The context is provided in the source and the sentence. They were murdering alleged collaborators. Drsmoo (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Most critically, this is first and foremost an article about a healthcare facility. If anything is missing in this article, it is details of the history of the building/organisation as a hospital, not its occasional, partial misuse. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Add Gaza Health Ministry press conference to the bottom of the article

The Gaza Health Ministry convened a press conference discussing the IDF's claims of the presence of a Hamas military base located beneath the hospital. Due to Wikipedia's blacklist, I'm unable to include a link to the conference here, but a live video of the conference was published by Al Jazeera and remains freely available on Youtube.

The conference appears to have been held in a crowded emergency unit of the Al-Shifa hospital. During the conference, Salama Marouf, the head of the government media office in Gaza, refuted the Israeli claims and presented plans for the hospital complex. Marouf accused the Israeli government of fabricating evidence in order to justify a strike on the hospital, where, according to Marouf, upwards of 40,000 civilians are taking shelter.

Since this article has been locked, I thought it might be useful to suggest updates to the article here. Stockrbonk (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The lead already says that Hamas denied these accusations and that one of the doctors said it's an excuse to target the hospital. Alaexis_¿question? 12:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

amnesty report

Zanahary this is a change completely unsupported by the cited source, kindly self-revert. Drsmoo, the AI report is discussing violence against alleged collaborators with Israel, why did you change that to their Palestinian opposition? The AI report never says anything about the violence being directed against Hamas' Palestinian opposition. nableezy - 18:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Why would you not just revert me? Zanahary (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Because there is a 1RR in this topic area, and because I like to assume users will do the right thing when errors are brought to their attention rather than just revert them. nableezy - 18:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You got an attitude for no reason. Zanahary (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Are you not going to correct your source misrepresentation? nableezy - 18:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a misrepresentation. The accused collaborators are Palestinians who allegedly worked against Hamas. Sounds like alleged Palestinian resistance. It’s important to note that these detainees are Palestinians, as AI explicitly makes clear in their 5/27/2015 news item about the revelation. Report also names Fatah and PA. Zanahary (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

And later the article says:

” Amnesty International documented how the Hamas forces used the abandoned areas of the hospital to abduct, torture, and kill members of their Palestinian opposition under an operation codenamed “Strangling Necks””

is this not true? Because the change I made just reflects that. Zanahary (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not true, that is the change Drsmoo made that the Amnesty report does not support. The Amnesty report is about torturing and killing people Hamas accused of collaborating with Israel during the 2014 war. nableezy - 18:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

So, Palestinians who resisted Hamas? Zanahary (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

No, Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel during a war. Please dont substitute your judgment for the sources. That is what Amnesty reported. nableezy - 18:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@NableezyI did not make that change intentionally, I simply rolled back that section. When I originally wrote it, I think I wrote “alleged collaborators” And I agree that’s what it should say. Drsmoo (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind restoring it? nableezy - 19:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m under 1RR as well Drsmoo (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Would have been a self-revert for you though, but its been corrected regardless. nableezy - 01:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

lead edits

User Alaexis constantly edits the lead against consensus [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] All of these edits have been reverted by multiple editors. None of them have had wording proposed on the talk page. The editor’s edit summary often justifies reverts by instructing editors to use the talk page, yet here and here are two talk page discussions with no consensus for these edits. The editor’s edit summaries are sometimes factually mistaken. The editor has demonstrated incompetence, letting stand an egregious unsourced mangling of a source that is their main point of interest.[9] (“During and since”, “the de facto hq” etc.) This misinformation was the lead of the article for more than 24 hours. (This period was when I first encountered the article.)

It’s not acceptable to simply keep coming back to the article every couple of days and hope your edits stand this time.

I propose user Alaexis use talk and stop editing the lead entirely. 78.19.232.73 (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

My edits are based on the WP policies and I obviously I've been using the talk page to discuss contentious issues. Please note that WP:NPA is also a policy, so please refrain from personal attacks. At this stage I believe that we need outside feedback to resolve this. Alaexis_¿question? 19:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Critiques of your editing are not personal attacks. They are verifiable. 78.19.232.73 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Your rfc should link previous discussions on the topic. 78.19.232.73 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

These concerns about editing behavior belong at WP:AE, not this talk page. However, as an IP editor, you do not have sufficient standing to raise concerns about editors relating to Israel/Palestine per WP:ARBPIA’s extended-confirmed restriction for edits and project discussions relating to the conflict _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Citing Amnesty International for activity at the AL-Shifa hospital

The article doesn't adequately cite the claim that Amnesty International has confirmed torture at the hospital. I do not have editing privileges, so another Wikipedia editor needs to add an archived version of this link from Amnesty International's website to the first section of the article.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/ 47.145.107.214 (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes you're right, the present sources (Gdn and ToI) don't support the Amnesty claims, so I have used your link - although we generally prefer a secondary source (ie an account of what Amnesty reported). Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think AI is secondary, their report is the secondary source for what occurred. Sorry about the mixup of using the summary and not the actual report when I made that edit, my bad. nableezy - 18:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein's claims on the matter

Norman Finkelstein seems to make two claims about this matter in his book wrote in his book Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom, University of California Press:

• Professor Sara Roy "consulted a clutch of her own Gaza-based sources, whose personal and professional integrity she attested to. The consensus among them was that although rockets had been fired in the vicinity of al-Shifa (but not from hospital grounds), it was highly improbable that Hamas made military use of the hospital building."
• That the IDF itself did not accuse Hamas of using the hospital for anything more serious than "security service interrogations", at least not in its official postmortem of the conflict.
• Criticizes Amnesty report on Shifa hospital for being one-sided and not taking contrarian reports into account.

VR _talk 04:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, some serious scholarly secondary sources is the most obvious means of escape from the circular discussions that are currently being had about the largely dated news sources that presently exist on page. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Things in historical context

I disagree with this re-arrangement[10] by nableezy. Previously, the allegations of Hamas misconduct were made in their own respective historical sections. And that's how it should be. Hamas roaming around killing alleged collaborators in the hospital is very different from (allegedly) launching rockets from the hospital. Likewise, Mad Gilbert's denial should also be in its proper historical section. Gilbert worked extensively during the 2014 war, but AFAIK is not currently at the hospital. I'm restoring the longstanding version in which the allegations were made in their respective historical sections.VR _talk 02:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the chronological approach, and not having dedicated section. Per WP:CRITS it is best to avoid dedicated criticism sections (which is essentially the risk here) in favour of contextualising information. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV

""The hospital underwent a major Israeli renovation in the 1980s as part of a showcase project to improve the living conditions of Gaza residents"?

during the period of 1965-1980 Israeli government renovated and modernized the facility few times (1969, 1972, 1982, 1989). Both Israeli and Gaza medicine staff were employed there during this period. But instead of writing about the improvement of medical treatment, you decided to take one side: "showcase project". Like the fact that the renovations saved lives and improved the health is some "show".

Also, "When Israel occupied Gaza in the 1967 Six-Day War, the entire Egyptian administration and staff in the hospital were taken prisoner" missing some crucial info: the hospital used was used by Egyptian military during the war. 192.114.1.66 (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources? Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Updates To History of Hospital

There is a lot of good content on the Yediot website about the expansion of the hospital, it's takeover following the surrender of Egyptian forces etc. https://www.ynet.co.il/architecture/article/syyihpw76

Article though is protected. Is someone able to translate and expand a bit more on the history of the building, departments etc.? SpeechFreedom (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Some more content here too.

https://xnet.ynet.co.il/xo/articles/0,7340,L-3106522,00.html?utm_source=Taboola_internal&utm_medium=organic SpeechFreedom (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2023 (2)

"Evidence" in the first main paragraph needs citation. 2A00:23C7:B680:F901:3413:57C8:FFC9:D303 (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This wording is the result of the latest round of changes. I don't see this specific word in the sources, so maybe we could change it to "... was described as a refuge of Hamas leadership and Hamas headquarters." Alaexis_¿question? 13:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The sentence lists numerous events where this occurred, which each being a section of their own with the evidence cited there. It is not necessary to cite all the same evidence, as it is an opening summary sentence of the greater detail to follow. Pilotjc (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 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.. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Disinformation about "destroyed solar panels".

Currently, a paragraph in the article claims that "On 6 November, Israeli forces struck and destroyed the solar panels atop of Al-Shifa Hospital, leaving the facility totally reliant on back-up generators powered by rapidly dwindling fuel supplies." and gives an Al Jazeera article as source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/6/israeli-forces-target-solar-panels-at-gazas-al-shifa-hospital. This is presented as fact--however, in the same article the IDF Chief of Staff denies that they targeted these panels. There has also been no verification of this claim by an independent third party. I suggest changing the wording of this paragraph. Learnedtortoise (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The Al Jazeera reporter that reported this is an independent third party. It also comes in the context of multiple strikes on solar panels across Gaza. The IDF Chief of Staff is a belligerent and can in no way be trusted in the context. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not true. The Al Jazeera reporter did not perform verification. They are also clearly not an "independent third party". Learnedtortoise (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, "The IDF Chief of Staff is a belligerent and can in no way be trusted in the context." is not an argument. Wikipedia strives to be neutral. The IDF's side should be included. Learnedtortoise (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"Gershon Tzapor and Benjamin Edelson"

When I currently google shifa hospital Gershon Tzapor and Benjamin Edelson only this wikipedia article shows up. In fact, I also can't find anything when I google Gershon Tzapor architect. Maybe the spelling given in this article is unconventional? If these two architects expanded the hospital, there should be more sources.VR _talk 04:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

Per TeleSur, the Al-Shifa hospital courtyard was bombed yesterday by Israel, allegedly with the use of the AGM-1114 R9X Hellfire missile, killing six Palestinians and wounding six more.

Link:

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Israel-Bombs-Hospitals-in-Gaza-20231110-0001.html

Archived link: https://web.archive.org/web/20231110131814/https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Israel-Bombs-Hospitals-in-Gaza-20231110-0001.html RavioliChamp (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you perhaps have other sources? TeleSur seems quite biased in this war, all their articles support one side in one way or another 78.157.164.59 (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Wrong picture

The picture used in the article is of Dar Al-Shifa hospital in Kuwait, not Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza.

The media entry clearly calls it “Dar Al-Shifa Hospital” which is a different name.

The picture is unfortunately linked to erroneously in several Wikipedia pages in several languages & is now being used in news accounts when referring to the hospital in Gaza. Ahmad Alhashemi (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@AhmadH: you are correct[11]. I'll remove it.VR _talk 17:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Siege of Al-Shifa Hospital

There's a page called Draft:Siege of Al-Shifa Hospital that talk page watchers may be interested in. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas military use is disputed

I added the sentence to the lead before all the claims and counter-claims: "Whether Hamas has militarily used the hospital is disputed". To me, this summarizes the paragraph, and further it avoids the question on whose side should we present first? This was we are giving reader an accurate one sentence summary of the dispute before jumping into the details. Yet this was removed.

There are enough sources in the article to show that this is disputed.VR _talk 04:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Restored Drsmoo (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"de facto headquarters"

Alaexis, the Washington Post said "which has become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices." Please correct the source misrepresentation you returned. nableezy - 17:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

And now we are saying "During and since the 2014 Gaza War The Washington Post called it "the de facto headquarters" of Hamas." when that is simply untrue. nableezy - 19:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If that's the problem, I'm happy to use the wording used by the source, or even a direct quote. Alaexis_¿question? 21:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats what I did in the body. Im not sure why a report on some leaders being at al-Shifaa in 2014 belongs in the lead of the article now though. nableezy - 21:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Because it's quite notable for a hospital to be described as a headquarters of a militant group. I've fixed the wording in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 21:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If that were true it would be more than one line in one news article in 2014. How are you giving one line in a news article from 9 years ago that much weight? You also have not fixed the quote. nableezy - 22:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

just seeing this now, but per my other edit to this talk, I concur with nableezy. The lead is now deliberately slanted editorializing. Also the context for the hq comment was surely the PA seeming to lose power locally to Hamas, with the PA minister being turned away on his way to the hospital. Was it then previously PA hq? :) A very fluid temporal situation which is hard to justify having in the lead. 78.18.95.194 (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Where does it say “during and since” in the source? Has another source called it a de facto headquarters? Also note the difference been “a” and “the”. Also please don’t use scare quotes around collaborators. Alleged collaborators is sufficient. Drsmoo (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It does not. nableezy - 01:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there are plenty of sources that support the de facto Hamas headquarters point. I'm not sure why there is such opposition to a neutral (non effectively pro-Hamas) POV in this article. Nogburt (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Ive again removed this line from the lead as having UNDUE weight, but it remains in the section on misuse, just properly quoted so as not to appear that WaPo supports something they do not. nableezy - 02:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• As explained here[12], the who "de-facto" headquarters is problematic. The WaPo article doesn't cite any sources for its claim and doesn't give much reason either besides that unspecified Hamas leaders were spotted at the hospital. Its claims are WP:EXCEPTIONAL and would be more widely reported if they were true.VR _talk 03:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not exceptional, covered by multiple reliable sources. Please read up on reliable and secondary sources Drsmoo (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  It is absolutely WP:EXCEPTIONAL because there is no agreement among RS on where Hamas' headquarters are, whether they are even inside Gaza (some say they are in Qatar[13]). The Economist recently published that Hamas' headquarters are in Gaza City Center[14]. Even in 2014, other sources were speculating if Hamas headquarters were actually in Turkey[15].

  Secondly, there are not multiple sources, only sources that simply reprint each other, or sources that don't cite any sources at all. We don't blindly quote RS as RS too can sometimes make mistake. And WP:DUE-ness (which is required if you want this in the lead) is established only with high-quality scholarship.VR _talk 04:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Differences between sources is why we present both sides. But no, it’s not exceptional. Those links have no bearing on Shifa hospital, and the contention that they do is Original Research. Please research how reliable sources and secondary (preferred) sources work on Wikipedia, along with WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT Drsmoo (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm flabbergasted. If tomorrow a source claims the capital of UK is Manchester, we need to only show them other sources that say capital of UK is London to show that the claim is quite WP:EXCEPTIONAL. We don't need a source to directly say "no the capital of UK is not Manchester".VR _talk 05:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm, I don’t see the relevance of your example, and none of the criteria for WP:Exceptional apply here. Drsmoo (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  The claim that Hamas' headquarters is at Al-Shifa is contradicted by many sources above, which argue that Hamas' headquarters is somewhere else.VR _talk 06:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Another issue is that none of the sources you've quoted so far give any references or indicate how they know Al-Shifa is Hamas' headquarters. Policy says "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint". Yet the authors you cite simply mention Al-Shifa in passing. By contrast you have Mads Gilbert who was a doctor who worked at Shifa Hospital for a long period, and has published several[16][17] peer-reviewed articles dedicated entirely to the hospital refuting claims of military usage of the hospital. The quality of the source, with respect to the exact subject matter at hand, matters. The sources you present may certainly be experts in their relevant field, but we have no indication how they'd know anything about Shifa.VR _talk 10:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  That is why Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. No offense, but it doesn’t seem you’re familiar with how that works on Wikipedia. Secondary sources like Washington Post, Lawfare, and Amnesty are MORE trustworthy and reliable than primary sources. Not going to argue one of the pillars of wikipolicy. Please read WP:PST for clarification. Drsmoo (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  This seems like an overly technical argument. It seems like most every source heavily relies on either the IDF or Hamas. These arguments could be made as to a lot of the content of this article but seem to be advanced only against a single POV. Nogburt (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Drsmoo: please respect WP:BRD. You boldly added this info to the lead on Oct 9[18] Prior to that the WP:STABLE version of the article didn't contain this in the lead. It has since been subject of edit-warring by multiple parties[19][20] etc (including by you[21]). As this discussion shows and as the RfC below shows, consensus has not yet been reached on whether this should be in the lead or not. Please respect that process.VR _talk 04:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Sara[h] Roy

The reference to “Professor Sarah Roy” should probably be “Professor Sara Roy”. 2001:4644:13BE:0:BA2E:EDEF:EEC1:10F2 (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 17:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Israeli POV Issues

This article seems to suffer from pervasive Anti-Israeli POV Issues. A look at the talk pages and a lot of edits seems to show that efforts at presenting a more neutral POV are being repeatedly suppressed. Much of what's going on now ultimately goes back to either the IDF or Hamas. In particular, if the same level of scrutiny were applied to similar claims of both sides, this article would either look much different or would be gutted of most conflict related content.

The alleged use of Al Shifa as a military base is extremely notable. Most folks looking at this article today are probably just looking for it in relation to its involvement in the conflicts there. So the military base stuff belongs in the opening paragraph. A POV flag is also appropriate. Nogburt (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The article also has contested statements presented as fact, even misrepresenting the source material (see the 'Disinformation about "destroyed solar panels"' topic above). Learnedtortoise (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I’ve never seen an argument that we can’t use Washington Post, or numerous other reliable sources, BECAUSE they’re secondary sources Drsmoo (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

American Intelligence + Command Center built over 16 years

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/12/world/middleeast/gaza-hospitals-shifa.html

“The militants, Israeli security officials say, have spent the better part of 16 years building a vast command complex under the hospital, and setting up similar bases underneath other medical facilities in the enclave. American officials agree, citing their own intelligence.”

…

“American officials, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose sensitive intelligence, said they are confident that Hamas has used tunnel networks under hospitals, in particular Al Shifa, for command and control areas as well as for weapons storage. The practice by Hamas has been longstanding, they said, adding that the United States and Israel have independently developed intelligence about Hamas’ use of the tunnel network under Al Shifa Hospital.” Drsmoo (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Key detail: "None of it provides conclusive proof that a sprawling complex exists under Al Shifa." Iskandar323 (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Attribution is fine Drsmoo (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added it with attribution. Alaexis_¿question? 09:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

CNN saying similar Sounds very vague, unnamed officials, etc etc. An "official" leak, methinks. Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Include Israel's history of spreading fake news about Gaza's hospitals?

Israel destroyed a hospital in 2014 and then published fake audio and misrepresented evidence to justify the deed: https://truthout.org/articles/israels-video-justifying-destruction-of-a-hospital-was-from-2009/ Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Best not, just stick to Al-Shifa, there is plenty of it going around right now, someone or everybody is lying. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Revert

This revert reintroduces an Easter egg with no basis in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Duplication

This edit introduces unneeded duplication by an editor who hasn't taken the trouble to read the article, which now reads as follows: (someone fix this please, I used my 1 revert already).

On 3 November, amid the 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, an Israeli airstrike hit an ambulance convoy, which Israel claimed was being used to transport Hamas fighters and weapons. resulting in dozens of wounded and several deaths. According to Israel, the ambulances were being used to transport Hamas fighters and weapons, a charge Hamas denied. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Alaexis_¿question? 21:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2023

Change citation 22 source to: https://news.sky.com/story/israel-accuses-hamas-of-commanding-attacks-from-inside-gaza-hospital-12994074 Jako81624 (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Already done. Pabsoluterince (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2023

According to Hamas appointed Gaza officials, the ambulances were transporting critical injured patients from the hospital to the Rafah crossing with Egypt.[52] TomMichaelColeman (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Source refers to them as Gaza officials, so should we. Pabsoluterince (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel releases videos of captured Hamas fighters admitting that they have a hideout under Al-Shifa Hospital

Source, which includes the videos of said admissions: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/in-interrogation-video-hamas-fighters-confirm-terror-groups-hideout-under-gaza-hospital/

This should be added to the article, as part of Israel's claims that Hamas has a command center beneath the hospital. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

We have an obligation, as a free and objective encyclopedia, to present the evidence to the claims made by all sides in the conflict. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, there are too many dismissals in this article of Hamas's control and usage of the hospital as a human shield. Such as using Dr. Ghassan Abu-Sittah's statements as suggested fact and a neutral humanitarian party, when he is a career-long supporter of Palestine. Pilotjc (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Nah, Israel has spread fake news about Gaza basically every day for the last one month. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Object to adding these claims as confirmed details. The sourse added (up mentioned) is an israeli resource that is biased, and not neutral. moreover, nothing has really been proven to be true, all are fake news and many professionals refuted the fake news and videos that israeli's published. Mervat (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2023

Mark or remove questionable source [24] for recent addition regarding an alleged bunker built in 1983.

> In particular, in 1983, the Israelis built "a secure underground operating room and tunnel network" beneath Building 2 of the hospital.[24]

The only source is an article form Tablet Magazine. The article does not provide any sources for this claim. Moreover, Tablet magazine has a history of being controversial and biased. Considering the current political climate it would be irresponsible to leave it as this. I suggest removing it until a reliable source is provided, or at least marking this as an unreliable source. SiljeNormann (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Biased does not mean unreliable. Here Newsweek says that Multiple sources have corroborated that a bunker or basement was built at Israel's discretion in the 1980s. Why do you doubt this? Are there RS that contradict any of these claims (that the underground structure exists, that it was built by the Israelis in 1982, and that it contains an operating room)? Alaexis_¿question? 19:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't notice this discussion till now; I've switched it to saying that Israel built a basement in the 90's, based on the sources provided by Newsweek and in this article. I don't think we have the reliable sources needed for any claim beyond that. BilledMammal (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I actually added that, but I've realised since that there appears to be no independent corroboration of the specifics of the tablet mag claims, so they could reasonably be deemed undue, if not extraordinary. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Tablet is a very dodgy source. Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2023

Assertions made by the Israeli government during wartime are being printed as fact in the first paragraph. Using words such as "revealed" rather than claimed or asserted. Other organisations have refuted the allegations and these have not been cited at all. In example, Al Jazeera who has a media base in Gaza have refuted these allegations as has Hamas, who has only as much reason to lie as the Israeli government. The claim is not independently verified and should not be reported as fact.

https://news.sky.com/story/israel-accuses-hamas-of-commanding-attacks-from-inside-gaza-hospital-12994074 2A00:23C7:B680:F901:3413:57C8:FFC9:D303 (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't the the word "revealed" any more, so someone must have fixed it already. The lede also mentions the denial by Hamas and the claims are worded carefully and attributed. Alaexis_¿question? 13:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 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. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@ARandomName123:, simpley change "revealed" to "claimed", because these are one-side narrative that is NOT proven, all claims are just stories that the biased media keep publishing, even the resource that is added is an israeili one, so where is nurality here? Mervat (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mervat: I'm not finding "revealed" anywhere in the article. Can you please clarify? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Implication of citing US Officials beside conflicting claims

Seriously, we need to talk about quoting US officials immediately after sentences on claims from IDF vs. Hamas vs. Hospital-Staff etc. Sure, it's technically just quoting officials with open declaration as to who they are but it very, very strongly implies that they are some neutral third party to help the reader contextualize or verify conflicting claims and allegations to some degree.

Not only has there been mounting talk for years across the world of the US increasingly not being seen as a neutral arbiter in the conflict, in this case, we have ample and outright insistent claims, in words and in deeds, from US leadership itself that they are fully behind Israel. They've been beyond emphatic about it.

Seriously, this should not be controversial. Citing the US like this is deeply, deeply problematic; not just here but across all the articles on these latest hostilities. How can this problem be addressed? Are there any guidelines? Nandofan (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:BIASED sources require in-text attribution. But we would typically use them to "[support] information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."[22] What we need to know is whether the consensus is that US intelligence, or other US officials' statements are biased in the context of Israel and this war. If that is the case, then by including both we would be creating an unbalanced article, with 2 statements pro-Israel vs 1 anti-Israel (to simplify the sides). In that case it should also not be used to substantiate the different claims, given, to WP:SUBSTANTIATE we give only "those details that actually are factual." I think a RFC could be used to solve this, or a general discussion. Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

edit request

Please add a hatnote to Shifa Hospital (disambiguation) indicating other hospitals named "al-Shifa"

Please add:

For other hospitals, see Shifa Hospital (disambiguation).

{{for|other hospitals|Shifa Hospital (disambiguation)}}

-- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Photos of Israel built basement

Yediot Ahronot has an article showing images of the basement as built by Israel.

https://images1.ynet.co.il/xnet//PicServer2/pic/072014/547060/11_36.jpg

https://www.ynet.co.il/architecture/article/syyihpw76

The source is from the Gershon Tzpoor Collection, Israel Architecture Archive. Would this archive be considered fair use?Drsmoo (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

What would be useful to know is where these rooms are in relation to the hospital complex so that we can compare with the IDF discoveries. Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Idk why you would bother asking if it is fair use if you were going to add them anyway? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

? Drsmoo (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Moving the goalposts on hospital tunnels

After claiming Hamas had built an underground city under the hospital, they’re now performing a victory lap over a tunnel with a single bathroom and one sink. I know Israel is a very small country, but I believe their cities should have more bathrooms than that. And after claiming the tunnels were in or under the hospital, they’re now pretending to be vindicated by the fact that a tunnel was found in a street neighboring the compound. How does that justify laying siege to a hospital and killing babies now, especially as the tunnel seems unconnected to the hospital and has no passage into it? We already know Hamas conducts urban warfare, so that it has built tunnels under streets is unsurprising. But that's not all what Israel claimed. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggest we make the main editing at Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital and eventually summarize here. Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Multiple tunnels have been found under the hospital. [23]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/22/world/middleeast/hamas-tunnel-al-shifa-hospital-gaza.html

Also not a forum Drsmoo (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Which were possibly built by Israel originally. No-one was denying there were tunnels afaik. Still no "command center". A disused room don't count. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

There are images of what was built by Israel. They were not Hamas tunnels. Drsmoo (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Barak confirmed that Israel built tunnels. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

He is quoted in the below section. he said there were tunnels but did not say who built them. Newsweek says Israel built some tunnels and it seems logical that they would connect the underground spaces somehow. Hamas probably added some more but we need to look into this more. Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, Hamas and the Gaza health ministry denied there were tunnels. Drsmoo (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. It seems like that's where the "goalposts are moving," no tunnels to unimportant tunnels or something. This article still has almost absurd anti-Israeli POV issues. Nogburt (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

What nonsense, you are placing in the article Israeli claims as fact, removing sourced material questioning these claims, and saying it is an anti-Israeli POV. Sorry, but NPOV does not mean taking your favored narrative and running with it like it is established fact. Sources are saying there has been no evidence of military use, and you put in to the first paragraph that it is as a fact. nableezy - 18:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You remember that the Israeli military promised a command center, yeah? Not just a fridge and an AC. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Per AP "The living quarters, located at the end of the tunnel, had an air conditioner, kitchen, bathroom and a pair of metal cots in a room fashioned from rusty white tile. They appeared to be out of use." Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

There is indeed no evidence of a full-fledged command centre atm. I don't know if all the tunnels under the hospital have been examined already, maybe we'll have more evidence in future.

However we know now that there are tunnels under the hospital which are similar to other tunnels built by Hamas ([24]) and we know about the hostages dragged into the hospital, so there clearly was some military use.

The reality ended up being somewhere between the claims of the two sides (a headquarters/no military use of hospitals), so this is what the article should reflect now. Alaexis_¿question? 20:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Why did you remove what abc said about the lack of public evidence. Why are placing Israeli claims that international sources continue to attribute to the idf as fact in the first paragraph? If this is how this article is edited fine but I’ll be adding the war crime allegations and sources on the Israeli propaganda campaign regarding shifa to the lead as well in that case. nableezy - 20:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Started, will add additional material. Along with sources disputing the view that any of the evidence released by Israel constitutes proof of military usage. nableezy - 21:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

We know that there is a tunnel somewhere near the hospital - how close is unclear because the information is crap and the IDF cagey as usual about it. And we know that some hostages were briefly taken there, quite plausibly for medical treatment. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Which incidentally has nothing to do with military usage of the hospital. Or with tunnels. Or with a command center, node, module, or toilet. But yet, our article now has the claim in the first paragraph, previously entered as an unattributed fact. It should be removed from that paragraph, and the final paragraph should be substantially cut down. nableezy - 22:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the first paragraph mention is 100% undue and the final paragraph indeed needs cutting down into a summary, not just a cherrypicked repeat. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This is simply incompatible with the video evidence. Have you seen the video in the BBC article? People are not dragged to hospitals to get medical treatment (unless it's a psychiatric hospital, sometimes). Alaexis_¿question? 07:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Barak

Two editors have now added a source from The Hill which misrepresents Barak, claiming he said Israel built the tunnels. which he did not.

See Wikipedia:When sources are wrong, users can not cherry pick an incorrect source, that is contradicted by multiple other sources. Drsmoo (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

In an interview with CNN "On 20 November 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, referring to Israeli built bunkers from decades ago, told CNN "It’s already [been] known for many years that they [Hamas] have the bunkers that originally [were] built by Israeli constructors underneath Shifa [which] were used as a command post of Hamas. And, a kind of junction of several tunnels are part of this system." Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't exactly say that Israel built the tunnels but it doesn't say that Hamas built them either. We need to see some historical material about this to see just what is "known". Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I’ve added images of the basement built by Israel before. Barak does not say Israel built the tunnels, and as far as I’ve seen other reliable sources correctly attribute Baraks comments to describing the basement/bunker. Not the tunnels built around it. Drsmoo (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, CNN is quoting him, it was their interview.Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

CNN doesn’t misrepresent him though, The Hill does. Drsmoo (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Still something to learn about this, I think. I would like to know exactly what was built by Israel and where in relation to the hospital complex. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we can start with Newsweek and see where that might lead. "The bunker, reportedly constructed decades ago, includes a secure underground operating room and tunnel network. Reports by left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz and other outlets have specifically mentioned the hospital's Building No. 2, which it says was built as an add-on in the mid-1980s and contains a large cement basement initially intended for laundry and administrative tasks. The excavation of the underground concrete floor was corroborated by online English-language Israeli publication Ynetnews." Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

helpful maps/layout here showing the discovered locations, "lie underneath the northeastern part of the Al-Shifa compound. The underground network begins under the southeastern part of the Qatari building, which houses the internal medicine wards. The tunnel is blocked from the side leading to the Shifa – Ezz Aldine Al-Qassam Street." Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

“ the underground routes Hamas has constructed in the compound.“ Drsmoo (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

"includes a secure underground operating room and tunnel network" built by Israel, according to Newsweek. Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Israel built some and so did Hamas? Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:When sources are wrong elaborates that If it is actually unclear what the correct answer is, but there is strong reason to think many or most sources are wrong or there is nothing approaching a consensus of sources, explain the conflict in prose.Ghazaalch (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

References

"Light munitions" in lede

"Munition" is a rather technical term and I don't really know what a "light munition" would encompass. The source does not use that phrase. I think it would be better to use these descriptions in the lede: "automatic weapons" or "assault rifles", "ammunition", and "grenades". This aligns with the description of the IDF's claims provided by al-Jazeera [25]. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The page incorrectly says the US National Security adviser confirmed its use by Hamas

He did not quite confirm in the CNN source cited any particular hospital was used:

 “You can see even from open-source reporting that Hamas does use hospitals, along with a lot of other civilian facilities, for command-and-control, for storing weapons, for housing its fighters,” National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said on CNN’s State of the Union. “Without getting into this specific hospital or that specific claim, this is Hamas’ track record, both historically and in this conflict.” 2A02:2F0C:7006:D200:5850:8B6E:D6:F25 (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand

 National Security spokesman John Kirby said the group stored arms there and were prepared for an Israeli attack.

 This is the first time the US has independently backed claims by close ally Israel that Hamas uses hospitals to hide its bases. Hamas denies this.

 Previously the US administration had only cited open-source intelligence and would not confirm that it had its own sources for this.

 "Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad members operate a command and control node from Al-Shifa in Gaza City," he said.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0C:7006:D200:5850:8B6E:D6:F25 (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC) 

In a recent BBC article. Note that that's a different person and job title though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0C:7006:D200:5850:8B6E:D6:F25 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 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. In particular I can't find the claim you are disputing in the article as it stands. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2023 (2)

Remove line including citation [11] [12] citing Ynet. Delivery of incubators and formula by the IDF during siege of the Hospital has been denied by staff at Al-Shifa and is likely Israeli propaganda. 216.165.127.65 (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

What's the source for the denial? I have seen the picture of an Israeli soldier standing next to a bunch of boxes (with English labels on them) and Reuters confirmed that the location of that ("medical supplies" and "baby food") was within Al-Shifa. The incubators don't make a lot of sense though, the hospital has incubators, just no fuel/oxygen to use them, so the babies had to be removed from them. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Stale, contested request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The New Arab claim that Israel did not provide fuel to Al Shifa is demonstrably false

The Jerusalem Post published an article showing that the IDF tried to deliver fuel to the Al Shifa hospital and that Hamas refused to allow the hospital staff take the fuel delivery. So I'll remove The New Arab paragraph in the Israel Media Campaign section for now. Or another possibility if others think the paragraph should remain would be to add The Jerusalem Post's counter to that paragraph. src: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-772918 Dionyseus (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Also the claim that Israel caused the death of the premature babies is unfairly biased against Israel. Here's an article from TimesOfIndia showing the IDF saving the remaining premature babies. Had Hamas allowed the IDF to evacuate the babies all of them could have been saved, instead IDF had to physically remove Hamas from the hospital in order to save the remaining babies. src: TimesOfIndia Dionyseus (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Poppycock. Fuel and supplies were cut off by the IDF, resulting in no oxygen or fuel for the incubators and leading to the death of babies. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/babies-die-gaza-al-shifa-hospital-idf-evacuation-routes-rcna124786 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/11/1143497 The babies were not saved by the IDF, a UN led joint mission with WHO saved the babies. Selfstudier (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That is demonstrably false. See this video provided by TimesOfIndia showing the IDF working with UN and WHO to save the babies. The IDF also escorted the ambulances. Dionyseus (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You said that already, I don't need a TimesofIndia vid when I have the UN, NBC and others saying the opposite. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The IDF might as well have not bothered. Per NBC (and others) "As for the 300 liters of fuel Israel left at the hospital entrance, a doctor there said on Sunday that Al-Shifa staff had not retrieved it because the amount was virtually a drop in the bucket. At least 10,000 liters per day (2,640 gallons) would be needed to run vital parts of the hospital, according to Dr. Marwan Abusada, a surgeon at the hospital who is also the head of international cooperation at the health ministry."

Obvious hasbara play. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

In the article you quoted IDF gave an explanation: The IDF alleged that Hamas had told hospital staff not to collect the fuel. It said Tuesday that the delivery was just meant to “gain more time” to save the lives of people in the hospital — specifically babies and children — and not run the entire hospital." 14:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

30 minutes fuel? Give me a break. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

30 minutes of fuel for what? If it were to be used just to power the incubators for the premature babies how much time would it have given them? Dionyseus (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Which excuse is it? Hamas told them not to take it or it was enough to just power the incubators? Really. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You think the incubators run on gas or something? This isnt a forum anyway, you can add that Israel says it offered fuel and left 300 liters, which a doctor described as a drop in the bucket to the 10,000 litres needed a day. nableezy - 15:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The incubators are battery-powered and can be plugged into ambulances. I have added text for this with reliable sources, as well as the statement from the IDF that it was up to hospital doctors to decide how to transport the babies. You're welcome. =) Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, I think the incubators were left at the front gate, and this is also corroborated by the NBC News source (below is the full quote from WSJ):

"The Israeli military said that it had delivered incubators, baby food and medical supplies to the hospital, and that its medical teams and Arabic-speaking soldiers were there to help distribute the items. It released photos and videos of soldiers unloading the supplies from military vehicles outside Al-Shifa.

A senior Israeli military official said aid was left at the front gate of the hospital and the staff was informed that they could take it. The official added that the incubators were for use in ambulances that could take the newborns either to safer hospitals in southern Gaza or potentially to Egypt or Israel for medical care. He said it was up to the doctors at the hospital to decide what to do."

Al-Shifa Hospital: Israeli Troops Raid Gaza Hospital in Search of Hamas Militants - WSJ

Also on MSN: www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-says-it-found-evidence-of-hamas-activity-at-gaza-hospital/ar-AA1jXLwG Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, when you read that entire paragraph now, especially with the sentence about Hamas telling staff not to collect fuel that was meant to gain more time for the babies, the IDF offering to evacuate the premature babies, and Hamas preventing it, and the fact that the battery-operated incubators were left at the front gate with its use up to the doctors (who by the way are taking orders from Hamas), it makes it look like Hamas is also complicit in the death of premature babies (as well as Israel of course, since they are the ones raiding the hospital in the first place). Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Our article cites the BBC for the statement "The IDF also said that they delivered incubators, baby food and medical supplies to the hospital." The BBC article says, right at the end of it, "The IDF said it was providing incubators, baby food and medical supplies." and nothing else so that is source misrepresentation.

The Reuters source (as of 14th) says "An Israeli official involved in those efforts, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said three available incubators had been provided by Israeli hospitals."The intention is to enable the safe evacuation of newborn babies. To our understanding, Shifa does not have the necessary transport incubators for that," the official said, adding the incubators were on standby outside Gaza for any agreed handover."

ie if incubators were going to be delivered, there were not more than three.

Then it refers to an IDF provided audio and "In it, the official talks about depositing an incubator at the hospital gate, without giving details of how or when that would happen."

ie if incubators were going to be delivered, it was not more than one.

NBC confirms the essentials reported by Reuters. "NBC News was also unable to verify when the incubators might be delivered or how the Israeli army would get them to Al-Shifa amid the violence in the area, which hospital staff said left them afraid of venturing outside." So the statement that this is also corroborated by NBC News source is false. Nor does the WSJ say that incubators were delivered.

In a live al-Jazeera youtube video and phone interview on 14th with al-Shifa hospital director Muhammed Abu Salmiya, "...added that many newborn premature babies died as the incubators ran out of oxygen. The Israeli army said earlier this week that it would be providing incubators to al-Shifa Hospital but Salmiya says this is a lie." Salmiya said "The Israeli occupation forces claim to have provided incubators to the hospital, but this is not true; this is false. In addition, we are not in need of incubators; we have already incubators in the hospital, yet we are out of fuel to generate electricity [for the incubators]".

Time reported on 22nd, "by Nov. 11, the lives of 39 premature babies hung in the balance after they could no longer receive critical care from incubators" and "Within a week, eight babies had died. But help finally arrived on Sunday, Nov. 19, as 31 babies, all critically ill, were evacuated from Al-Shifa.." Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I see, I misread the sentence from the Wiki article and thought it was saying incubators were at the front gate:

The IDF released a video showing them depositing at the front gate of al-Shifa 300 litres of fuel and a photo of a soldier loading mobile incubators, with an IDF spokesman saying "We are trying to bring in incubators that can help transfer babies out of Shifa Hospital to other places down south, which will help safeguard the babies in the hospital".

If they only delivered three incubators that isn’t significant and makes sense why the hospital director thought that none were delivered and was crying about fuel (Al Jazeera’s words) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/11/17/israel-hamas-war-live-thousands-in-danger-of-death-amid-hospital-siege?update=2494252

“The Israeli occupation forces claim to have provided incubators to the hospital, but this is not true; this is false. In addition, we are not in need of incubators; we have already incubators in the hospital, yet we are out of fuel to generate electricity [for the incubators],” he cried. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not, I am restoring the well sourced material. A. it is an Israeli claim they offered fuel, b. the electricity had been cut for weeks by that point, c. you cannot just remove things you do not like. Restoring the well sourced material. nableezy - 15:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Well I have to wait, but it will be restored. Welcome any other editor to do it now. nableezy - 15:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I would advise against that, especially the way it was written, it sounded extremely biased, and as I shown here the claims were demonstrably false. Being that the claims were false I see no reason for the paragraph the way it was written to be included. Dionyseus (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have restored it, add contradictory sourcing if desired. Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

They are not demonstrably false, they are false according to claims made by the IDF. Who incidentally have demonstrably lied repeatedly here, so no, definitely not demonstrably false. Ill add the bit on the offer for fuel. nableezy - 15:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Added NBC source as well. nableezy - 15:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

As for the Israeli incubators, see Reuters Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems more neutral now. I'll add the TimesOfIndia video showing IDF helping the UN and WHO evacuate the premature babies as a reference soon. Dionyseus (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Information added to the article by @Dionyseus: states that the evacuation of 28 babies was carried out on the 20th (the source provided is just a repost of This JNS (Jewish news Syndicate) article) when it was actually carried out on the 19th and included 31 babies, proper ref given.Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Neither Times of India nor The New Arab are reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The New Arab is certainly a WP:NEWSORG source. Thats just a claim without any basis for it. nableezy - 21:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The bit on clearing Hamas fights has to go, its a garbage source that has published IDF press releases without attribution, and no other source says anything of the sort. That is an exceptional claim, and there is no exceptional sourcing. nableezy - 18:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

Typo in Israeli media campaign section: filmedl -> filmed Quasipoise (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

propaganda campaign

François Robere why did you remove the propaganda campaign from the lead? Why did you remove the accusation that Israeli forces are directly responsible for civilian deaths, including premature babies? Why is the France 24 bit due for the lead but not the killing babies bit? nableezy - 16:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Im going to be reverting the mass removal of well cited material and restoring to the lead the propaganda war. You cannot simply just remove anything that does not follow the Israeli line, that is POV pushing, along with the addition of whatever evidence you think supports that view to the lead. nableezy - 16:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Youre supposed to engage on the talk page, not continue removing whatever material does not fit with the Israeli propaganda campaign. nableezy - 16:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier Can you clarify why the restoration of material from Scahill that has no relevance to the tunnel footage shown by Israel? The footage shown by Israel is from the Qatari building, which was not built by Israel. The article incorrectly stated that the tunnels were built by Israel, this is factually incorrect and doing a disservice to readers. Drsmoo (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The article is in keeping with other sources that refer to tunnels beneath the hospital complex built by Israel. Merely because a building was not built by Israel does not mean that underground tunnels were not built by Israel, even possibly under the Qatari building, although the intercept does not say that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources explicitly say the tunnels were built by Hamas. The Intercept conflates tunnels built as part of the basement of the main complex with Hamas tunnels built under the Qatari building. Multiple reliable sources have confirmed the tunnels to be from Hamas. There is already too much content from a source listed as biased on WP:RS, and no justification to include incorrect/confused material. Drsmoo (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The intercept did not conflate anything, you are doing that. Reliable sources say tunnels were built by Hamas. Reliable sources also say that tunnels were built by Israel. Reliable sources also say that no evidence was given for a vast network of tunnels and all this is in our article with due weight. Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources explicitly say that the tunnels presented by Israel were built by Hamas. The intercept source presents it as ambiguous, which is wrong. Drsmoo (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say, both Scahill and the Intercept are reliable sources, biased or not and what they say is corroborated by other reliable sources. Their report is on 21st before Israel release on 22nd so not relevant to it. Nor is the Intercept/Scahill used to contradict the Israeli report of 22nd, there are plenty of other sources for that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Drsmoo you misrepresenting the cited sources. I am going to take this to AE, this is bullshit, you cannot invent a topic of a media campaign with 0 sources for a media campaign and include material not about a media campaign, and then misrepresent the sources on a propaganda war. nableezy - 20:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Bri who would you like me to attribute this to? The Intercept, The Nation, or The New Arab? And why did you not just add the attribution if that was your concern? And what about "may need to be attributed" translates to "revert entirely if not attributed" to you? nableezy - 02:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Intercept piece is written by a notable author, Jeremy Scahill. It would be fine to cite that one to him. I haven't looked at the others. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

But it isnt the only source saying Israel has waged a propaganda war on this topic. Why would we only attribute it to him? And why would not summarize the sum of the accusations in the lead? nableezy - 03:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous with an admin removing well sourced material as biased propaganda. Graeme Bartlett kindly justify your edit here. A number of sources have accused Israel of carrying out a propaganda campaign here, why are you removing it as biased propaganda? How is that not you engaging in biased propaganda? Again, The Intercept, The Nation, or The New Arab all support that material. Why was it removed without you deigning to comment here? nableezy - 21:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

One reason is that the statement was not attributed to any one just left in the passive. Whereas for POV statements like the one I removed, it should state who, or what kind of publication says it. And then we have to decide is it WP:DUE to include in the lead. I did the removal in response to Bri's concern. On the topic of Arbitration enforcement, unless someone is breaking the rules set for this, there is not need. Instead a discussion here can decide what to include and in what words. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Then state who. Your edit summary accused an editor, namely me, of inserting biased propaganda for including what multiple sources say. Bri has declined to answer the very basic question asked of him to justify his revert, as have you. Do you want explicit attribution to the Intercept, the Nation, and the New Arab all in the lead? Why would we not just summarize it as accusations? If neither of you answer these questions I am going to restore the material removed and ask that you both stop stonewalling and actually justify your reverts. You are both claiming a lack of attribution as reason to completely remove material rather than add attribution. You have both declined to answer how I should attribute something that is coming from three separate sources. Please answer the question as to how this should be attributed, otherwise this is stonewalling, not consensus building. And per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, repeatedly disregard[ing] other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits is disruptive editing. Ive asked you both to answer how those three sources should be attributed as you are claiming that as the cause for the removal. Please answer. nableezy - 15:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Given the complete lack of response here by both users removing the sentence, I am restoring it. nableezy - 15:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy you have reintroduced exactly the same wording that caused this discussion to begin. Aren't you planning to add attribution to the statement as requested or required by Graeme Bartlett? Or to address the concerns whether it is WP:DUE for the lede? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You still havent told me how you want me to attribute to three different sources. Notable controversies belong in the lead. I asked both you and Graeme how, and why, something cited to three sources should be attributed in the summary section of the lead. How would you like to summarize that multiple parties have accused Israel of a propaganda war and actions that killed multiple premature babies in the NICU? Nobody has given a reason for it not being DUE in the lead. If you tell me how you would like to attribute to all three cited sources then sure I can add that. I asked you above the same questions. You seemingly ignored me. Graemes ignored the questions asked of him as well. So did Francois. I dont know if you all expect me to read your minds here, but actually answering my questions would help me understand what you actually want, because right now it just seems like any excuse to remove this material is being used and then questions asked being stonewalled. nableezy - 17:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is moot now that your text has been removed again. I think it was pretty clear what Graeme Bartlett said as far as what's required, so I won't restate it. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett does not get to require a thing here. I repeat my question. How would you like to summarize that multiple parties have accused Israel of a propaganda war and actions that killed multiple premature babies in the NICU? And I repeate WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: repeatedly disregard[ing] other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits. Please actually answer the question. The number of people making patently bogus edits and stonewalling when asked for their reasons is absurd. nableezy - 23:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Can also watch Israeli claims about a Hamas headquarters beneath the Al-Shifa hospital is the latest battleground in a disinformation war being waged online I assume we can agree that disinformation and propaganda are essentially the same thing. Both sides are at it of course but Israel has excelled itself on this occasion.Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That intense pressure exists on the mainstream press to manage the news in certain directions is attested by protests by journalists themselves from that mainstream, and when you have this, 'properganda (gander means 'look' in dialect and proper means 'correct') propaganda is an appropriate term if reasonably sourced. Journalists from the Australian Broadcasting Commission's newsroom, from the Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, and the Age, joined their American colleagues in calling for, in an open letter, closer scrutiny of the way the 'mainstream' was reporting the war, its use of Israeli reports without attribution to shape coverage. They were told in no uncertain terms by the ABC to shut up, and that signing such a letter only suggested the journalists invcolved could not be trusted to be impartial (and therefore not be accessed) See Calum Jaspan,

'Journos call for 'improved' Gaza reports,' The Age 25 November 2023

We probably however need an article Reportage on the 2023 Hamas-Israel war when sources slowly begin to assume critical mass.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

And surprise surprise, another revert without justification. Im still waiting for anybody to explain exactly what they want here. Alaexis, no consensus is not a reason to revert material. Please provide an actual reason. nableezy - 20:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The sourced do not support this statement. The Guardian only attributes it to Hamas. The Nation article does call it a propaganda fiasco but does not support the second half of the statement in question. Alaexis_¿question? 20:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The New Arab: The crisis in question, however, is unrelated to incubators, but to fuel. Israel has cut off fuel supplies in Gaza, cutting off power to incubators and putting hospitals out of service. It has therefore placed the lives of babies and patients in danger. ... At least six premature babies have died in the past four days as doctors had no choice but to remove them from incubators which had shut down due to the lack of fuel. The Intercept: The staff at Al-Shifa have directly accused Israel of causing the deaths of civilians at the hospital, including several babies in the neonatal intensive care unit whose incubators were rendered useless after electricity was severely restricted as a result of the Israeli siege. It just not true that the sources do not support the line on Israel was directly accused of being responsible for the deaths of patients including premature babies. And if that is your justification you should self-revert as it is just baldly untrue. nableezy - 20:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources say that Israel has been accused of waging a propaganda war to detract from accusations that its actions at al-Shifa constitute violations of international law

The Guardian only attributes the existence of propaganda to Hamas, so this citation should be removed.

The New Arab and The Intercept are clearly biased, and so should be attributed. Alaexis_¿question? 12:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The Nation "But in the case of Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza—nominally against Hamas but actually devastating to the civilian population of the besieged territory—propaganda has taken a bizarre turn. This is propaganda that barely makes any effort to convince, instead offering ludicrous arguments in implausible forms. To pay attention to Israeli propaganda in recent weeks is like watching a magic trick done by an inept conjurer who constantly lets the audience see the mirrors and wires that are supposed to create optical illusions." and

"The biggest ongoing propaganda fiasco involves Al-Shifa hospital—one that deeply implicates not just the Israeli government but also the Biden administration...." At best one can only argue about the precise wording, not the principal issue. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

And later Israel’s poor propaganda is another indication of Israeli incompetence. Yet all these failures count for little as long as Israel benefits from the soft bigotry of low expectations by its supporters, including the president of the United States. Joe Biden is clearly willing to back whatever Israel does, including indiscriminate bombing and other war crimes. The American media is also complicit. As HuffPost has documented, CNN has a habit of airing IDF videos with false information (including the calendar fiasco). Then, when the errors are pointed out, these same videos are carefully edited to delete the falsehood when placed online, without an editorial note explaining or acknowledging what was cut. In effect, CNN is the IDF’s partner in propaganda. nableezy - 13:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Still, in none of this quotes this claim (Israel has been accused of waging a propaganda war to detract from accusations that its actions at al-Shifa constitute violations of international law) is made. This is important, if a claim is not made directly then it's WP:SYNTH. I'll try to re-write it summarising the sources, including the Sky article linked below. Alaexis_¿question? 19:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

already did. nableezy - 16:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I am minded to revert the removal. This looks a bit like a blockade to me atm. Btw @Alaexis:, I have provided the sources showing that there was and is no evidence for a command center, US and Israeli propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding, at the siege article as you requested. Selfstudier (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It 100% is, we have either complete silence, refusing to answer questions, or just making false statements as justifications for the removal. nableezy - 00:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

No one here is obliged to provide answers within minutes. I'll respond to Nableezy's arguments shortly. Alaexis_¿question? 12:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is Sky "It [al-Shifa] has undoubtedly been used as a propaganda pawn by both sides in this conflict and that has intensified in the last week as Israeli forces encircled it. Hospitals have protection from attack under the rules of war. But that immunity is forfeited if they are used as military bases. Israel will need to prove its claims after it captures al Shifa. Otherwise this assault on a medical complex will be seen as a war crime when the reckoning comes for this conflict. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If anything remove the portion of the sentence, specious though the objection is, and attribute it to several media outlets. And people who are not engaging in this discussion or offering answers to basic questions should either stop reverting or start productively discussing. nableezy - 16:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Nableezy for your good contribution. Reportage on the 2023 Hamas-Israel war may be a good topic for a new article, if there are enough sources to cover it. Ghazaalch (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing a new source, I'll try to come up with a summary of what all the sources say. Alaexis_¿question? 19:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Unknow Israeli official in the lead

The lead currently reads "A former Israeli official also said Hamas leaders were hiding in the hospital." Is a comment by an unknown Israeli official suitable for inclusion in the lead? It seems to be WP:UNDUE. Aside from that, the sources for this, WaPost and Times of Israel, seem to not be impartial. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

What would you say the problem is with the Washington Post? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

WAPo cites ToI and does not use the word "hiding" anywhere, only ToI does, so this is not two sources, it is one.

WAPO does say about their reporter (the quote is in the ref), "He also reported that Shifa Hospital in Gaza City had “become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices." but that is not what the text says, one would only need the ToI source for that.

ToI sets out by saying "Gen. Eliezer Marom, the former head of the Israel Navy, tells Channel 2 that Hamas leaders in Gaza are again hiding from Israel under the wards of Gaza’s main Shifa hospital." and then later "Israeli military officials, including Chief of the General Staff Benny Gantz, have said repeatedly in recent days that Hamas terrorists are hiding out "in tunnels." (this is all the same stuff they said in 2012 and just recently again in 2023, none of it proven).

I have removed the sentence, it does not add anything of consequence, and added instead the better material sourced to WAPO. Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC: summary of Hamas activity in Al-Shifa hospital

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion came down to a choice between two options: option 2 and option 4 as proposed by Novem Linguae. There was a rough consensus against including the allegation that the hospital was a "de facto headquarters" for Hamas. However, there was no consensus between options 2 and 4.

Editors against including the allegation contended that it would be undue (which I also take to mean unbalanced) to include that fact in the lead because it was almost 10 years old and included a quote from a single source reporting a single allegation that is later discussed in one sentence of the article. (Some editors questioned the veracity of that source and compared it to other sources. I have discounted those points because we can attribute claims in non-wikivoice to the Washington Post, which is an RS, and because source comparison is OR.)

Proponents responded that including that allegation was due per MOS:LEAD because it adequately summarized the body of the article, which has in-depth discussion of alleged misuse of the hospital by Hamas. Thus, they argued that it would not be undue to include such information in the lead, and would in fact best comport with WP:BALASP.

The former are correct that it would be undue to include the Washington Post quote in the lead because, per WP:BALASP, it would give undue weight to minor aspects of [the] subject and give disproportionate weight to a single source from the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

However, option 4 included more than just that quote, and there was roughly equal numerical consensus for options 2 and 4 overall. Since much of this discussion focused on argument over a single sentence, consensus grounded in MOS:LEAD did not develop for either option.

In general, I think the lead needs quite a bit of work to adequately summarize the entire article, rather than select sections. I think time might be better spent working on crafting a good lead rather than disputing small portions thereof. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

---

How should we mention past Hamas presence in the hospital in the lede?

Option 1: Senior members of Hamas were seen in the hospital and Israel has accused Hamas of using the hospital to shield it from attack (like here)

Option 2: Israel has accused Hamas of using the hospital to shield it from attack, ... (like here)

Option 3: Other, please propose another wording that summarises the section Accusations of misuse by Hamas.

For the avoidance of doubt, this RfC is only about the first sentence of the paragraph. Alaexis_¿question? 19:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 4 (see below) or Option 1. Several non-Israeli reliable sources mention the presence of senior Hamas militants in the hospital during the previous conflicts, so saying that it's only an Israeli claim would mislead the reader.

• The Guardian (2023), Guardian journalists in 2014 encountered armed men inside one hospital, and sightings of senior Hamas leaders inside the Shifa hospital have been documented.
• Washington Post (2014), At the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, crowds gathered to throw shoes and eggs at the Palestinian Authority’s health minister, who represents the crumbling “unity government” in the West Bank city of Ramallah. The minister was turned away before he reached the hospital, which has become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices.
• PBS (2009) WIDE ANGLE reached a doctor in Gaza who believes Hamas officials are hiding either in the basement or in a separate underground area underneath the hospital and said that they moved there recently because other locations have been destroyed by Israel— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaexis (talk • contribs)

• Option 2 - sure, there are sources that say in 2014 senior Hamas members were seen at al-Shifa and there is one source that says it had become "a [not the] de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders", but this isnt an article on al-Shifa during the 2014 war. What has been true for a period of time to make note of in the lead are the accusations by Israel that Hamas has used al-Shifa to shield it from attack. But does that mean we should include that some leaders were seen at the hospital 9 years ago in the lead of the article? Of course not, and it is an absurd WEIGHT violation to do so. We dont include the multiple times the area around the hospital has been bombed (including today when an ambulance outside was hit by an Israeli missile Reuters report). But we should include one sentence from an article 9 years ago in the lead? How does that make any sense, how is that a proper summary of the accusations? nableezy - 19:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Nableezy, it is a serious WEIGHT violation to include in the lead activity that was observed at the hospital nine years ago. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: Dated claims should not be given undue prominence and featured (suddenly undated) in the lead in wikivoice. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: is concise and accurate. Option 1 would only be acceptable WEIGHT-wise if the, relatively limited, and clearly dated context were expanded and attributed fully. The Gdn source is simply documenting that earlier accounts exist, it endorses nothing in itself. Pincrete (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback, could you suggest specific wording? Alaexis_¿question? 12:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4. The current two sentences that are in the article, plus add a sentence about the hospital being a Hamas headquarters during the 2014 conflict, since The Washington Post is a very reliable source and this is an important piece of information. Israel has accused Hamas of using the hospital to shield it from attack,[3][4] and human rights organization Amnesty International accused Hamas of using areas of the hospital grounds in 2014 to interrogate, torture and execute Palestinians accused of having collaborated with Israel.[5] Hamas, along with al-Shifa's medical leadership, have denied the claims, but captured Hamas militants have supported them.[6] In 2014, the Washington Post stated that the hospital was a "de facto headquarters" for Hamas.[20] These three lead sentences are a decent and proportional summary of the article body. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  That nine years ago WaPO said something, will not make us use this old allegation in this article. Btw, WaPo is not the best source in the world for adding such a challenging claim. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4, per Novem Linguae. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 is the best—essential info included and dated. Zanahary (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 Detailing current Israeli accusations of Hamas activity in the lead is more relevant than 10-year-old reports of same, taking up a quarter or more of the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 is the best—essential info included and dated. Parham wiki (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 as provided by Novem Linguae is the most sensible option that satisfies WP:BALASP. I don't accept Nableezy's point about WEIGHT being an issue in this case. The subject's notability is heavily tied to the discussion of use/abuse by Hamas, and that is precisely what is reflected in the article body. In fact, the inverse is true: diminishing the significance of the allegations by excluding their substance from the lead would be an egregious WP:WEIGHT violation. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  The subjects notability comes from it being the largest hospital in Gaza - this page would not exist were it not that. As the largest hospital in Gaza it has been the long-running target of allegations of misuse for obvious political and military reasons. Take it from Mads Gilbert, the Norwegian doctor who's actually worked at the hospital for 16 years. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's surely relevant, but a large proportion of the RS coverage regarding this hospital is about use/abuse by Hamas and activity during the various periods of conflict. There's more than enough of such coverage to meet GNG, even if the hospital were not the largest in Gaza. If you feel that such coverage is granted undue weight, then that's a problem that requires attention beyond the scope of this RfC. The lead should summarize the article per WP:LEAD. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Old stories have less weight, certainly not enough for the proposed size in the lead. Just UNDUE, I can't even see how that is arguable. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and summarizing doesn't mean repeating individual factoids. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 is preferable I think, although you should include some content in reference to evidence submited. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Option 4 and any other option that wants to put the Washington Post alleged "defacto headquarters" thing in the lead. That violates policy for many reasons:
  • First it makes the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that Al-Shifa are the Hamas headquarters. If this was true, we'd find more than one source in the world calling them the headquarters. In fact, there is no agreement among RS on where Hamas' headquarters are, whether they are even inside Gaza (some say they are in Qatar[26]). The Economist recently published that Hamas' headquarters are in Gaza City Center[27]. Even in 2014, other sources were speculating if Hamas headquarters were actually in Turkey[28].
  • Second, the article cites absolutely no sources for its claim. Literally the only piece of evidence it cites is "Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices", without actually citing which Hamas leader was there. For example, was the Hamas director-general of Gaza Health Ministry working out of the hospital? That would be very different than a militant leader working out of the hospital. And in 2014, it was reported[29] that Hamas leader Haniyeh's father went to Al-Shifa to visit wounded patients. Unfortunately that article doesn't give any context at all to a Hamas leaders being seen in the hospital hallway.
  • Third, did the WaPo author actually visit the hospital or was he told about the above claims by someone else? If so, who? Also troubling is that the WaPo author, William Booth, had been previously accused of plagiarism.[30] By contrast, the WaPo's claims are contradicted by Mads Gilbert who worked extensively at Al-Shifa during this period and published the internal workings of the hospital in detail.[31] VR _talk 03:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding your first argument, the WP doesn't say it was *the* headquarters. Personally I'm not insisting on using this word in the lede, by the way, but it seems like Option 4 is preferred to my Option 1.

  The second argument is irrelevant. We are saying exactly what a RS has reported.

  As to the evidence, there could be many reasons for the WP not to uncover its sources, for example not to endanger them. There is no reason to trust Mads Gilbert more here as it would've been decidedly unwise on his part to criticise Hamas while being in Gaza. Alaexis_¿question? 08:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  It is relevant in the weight given to the isolated claims of a single RS. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 As the most neutral and in line with reliable sources. For another source, Lawfare by Orde Kittrie p.306 Drsmoo (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Does he actually cite a source? It is highly improbable that he visited the hospital himself.VR _talk 04:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 or failing that Option 1. This isn't an Israeli accusation. Reliable sources describe the hospital as Hamas' defacto military HQ. This really should be in the first sentence: "Al-Shifa Hospital is Hamas' military headquarters as well as the largest medical complex and central hospital in Gaza". Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Reliable sources? Plural? Are we still talking the lone 2014 WAPO piece? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  There's a multitude of sources, for ages. Like The BMJ in 2014 piece (you need full text): "But in addition to being a busy hospital al-Shifa is a notorious haunt of Hamas leaders, several of whom hid in the basement during the last Israeli campaign in 2009." Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  haunt: "a place often visited" (Cambridge dictionary)

  A source saying a hospital is visited by Hamas leaders is not the same as being its headquarters. If you read the rest of the source, it clarifies what it means is that Hamas leaders use the hospital as "safe place for meetings and interviews with the media". VR _talk 15:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 seems most balanced without leaving out useful information RussNelson (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 I cannot believe that Hamas would place their leaders in a hospital where Israeli spies could easily go there and kill them. Hamas leaders could be anywhere in the network of 400 km underground tunnels. I agree, though, that al-Shifa is safe place for Hamas meetings and interviews with the media. "sightings of senior Hamas leaders inside the Shifa hospital " is not a good reason for including the allegations in the lede. The paragraph should be moved to the main body of the article where there is enough place for including counter-views.Ghazaalch (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 If the sources weren't 10 years old, I would like Option 1, but they are 10 years old. Option 4 gives too much WP:WEIGHT to such old sources. I wouldn't mind some mention of the previous use, but it needs to be very clear that the situation may well have changed since 2014. Loki (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Novem Linguae, or failing that, Option 1. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: Per WP:SYNTH we should not generalize a challenging comment by WaPost 9 years ago. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: Agreeing with Nableezy and VR per WP:WEIGHT. Contentious claims years ago shouldn't be featured in the lead. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4: Most neutral and backed by reliable sources. Dionyseus (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 As I mentioned, option-2 looks to be more appropriate. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

A few editors have said that the presence of Hamas in the hospital in 2014 should not be mentioned in the lede because it was 10 years ago. This is a legitimate argument, however you can't use it selectively. Now ([32]) most of the second paragraph deals with the events in the hospital during the 2014 conflict, including Gilbert and Fosse's interviews from 2015.

So we should either remove all the details about the 2014 events from the lede or mention the Hamas presence, something that was reported not just by Israeli sources. Alaexis_¿question? 09:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Gilbert has been reported again on 3 Nov, 8 Nov and 10 Nov. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Those articles seem to be seriously lacking in information. Why no mention of dates? When did Gilbert last work at the Al-Shifa hospital? During which periods was he not in Gaza? Looking at his twitter page he seems to be very anti-Israel, and on his wikipedia page it is stated that about whether he supports the 9/11 terror attack in the US he said "Terror is a poor weapon, but my answer is yes." So he appears to be anti-Israel, anti-US, pro-terrorists, it is not a stretch to say any claims he makes about not knowing of Hamas activity at Al-Shifa to be doubtful. Dionyseus (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean, if you worked in hospitals where injured civilians kept pouring in from indiscriminate bombing, you might rapidly form some pretty severe opinion about the state of the current international order. He also apologized for the statement you mention, so that's a dated and out of context assessment. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes he apologized but 8 years later which is interesting. I wonder what his thoughts on the October 7 terrorist attack are. Dionyseus (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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