Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion/Archive 7

Context
Currently, this sentence is included in "Day of the explosion":


 * "Before the explosion, there was a history of Palestinian militant groups firing rockets from within the Gaza Strip that fell short of their target, resulting in property damage and casualties."

On October 21-22, there was a discussion about this sentence, which resulted in its removal from the "Background" section of the article:


 * "The World Health Organization said that prior to the explosion, there were 51 Israeli attacks on Gazan health facilities, killing 15 hospital workers and injuring 27 others."

The second sentence was supported by two sources, USA Today and the UN. Both sources are in relation to the explosion, and both remain online (not just archived).

The justifications for the removal, in a nutshell, were (1) it's "circumstantial evidence" implying Israel's "guilt by association", (2) claims about Hamas doing things in hospitals are not included in the article, and (3) sources were insufficiently explicit in linking this information to the explosion.

Firstly, I'm not aware of any policy that prohibits reference to information that readers might perceive as "circumstantial evidence". The second argument is based on a false equivalency, because even Israel doesn't attribute the explosion to Hamas, so the allegation is particularly irrelevant. And thirdly, if sources are discussing prior attacks on health facilities in articles about the explosion, the fact that they're not spoon-feeding us a conclusion doesn't mean that we should ignore those sources in our own article or deny what they view as relevant context.

Either both of these statements (prior failed rocket attacks/prior attacks on health facilities) are irrelevant circumstantial evidence, or they're both relevant background context. We should either include both or remove both. I don’t feel strongly one way or the other, as long as we’re being consistent. WillowCity (talk)  01:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * In any case, talking about "a history of" something under "day of the explosion" is a little messy imo. WillowCity  (talk)  01:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that those statements should both be included in the Background section. If they were just gathered from unrelated sources, they would be clearly WP:SYNTH, but that's not the case if they're from reliable sources about the explosion. Loki (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Just to give people the whole picture regarding whether there's been synth, I'll quote what the cited articles say:
 * USA Today:
 * "Since the attacks began on Oct. 7, there have been more than 115 attacks on healthcare centers across occupied Palestinian territory, according to the WHO. Fifty-one occurred in the Gaza Strip, with 15 hospital workers killed and 27 injured. The other incidents happened in the West Bank, officials said."
 * UN News:
 * "There have been over 115 attacks on healthcare across the Occupied Palestinian Territory since the start of the conflict on 7 October, sparked by Hamas’s bloody incursion into southern Israel.
 * Of this number, 51 occurred in the Gaza Strip, with 15 healthcare workers killed and 27 injured, said Hyo-Jeong Kim, Lead of WHO’s Attacks on Health Care Initiative.  The remaining incidents took place in the West Bank."
 * And from Reuters, for those interested:
 * "[Dr. Richard Peeperkorn, WHO representative for the West Bank and Gaza] said there so far have been 51 attacks against healthcare facilities in Gaza, with 15 health workers killed and 27 injured."
 * The prior language was taken almost verbatim from these sources so I really don't understand the synth argument. I know the sources are relatively less recent but it doesn't change the fact that the WHO said it and sources reported on it in relation to the explosion. We could use the passive voice like the sources do if that would allay concerns. WillowCity  (talk)  02:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I support including both, but not in the subheading about the day of the explosion. | Orgullomoore ( talk ) 04:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As for Hamas using hospitals as shields, I haven't seen articles on the explosion talking about this. Certainly the IDF alleges that, but with respect to this incident the defense has been "we didn't do this," not "if we did this, it's because Gazan hospitals double as military bases." In other words, I am against including this background fact in the absence of sources covering this incident mentioning it. | Orgullomoore ( talk ) 04:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly! That's a much nicer articulation of my second point re: alleged "shields".
 * I also agree re: placement. To make a concrete suggestion, maybe the "Earlier incident on 14 October 2023" subheading could be renamed to "Earlier incidents"? That section could then begin with prior attacks on health facilities and prior failed rocket attacks, before going on to discuss the events of October 14. WillowCity  (talk)  13:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternatively "The day of the explosion" could be renamed something like "Recent escalation" or "Prior attacks" or something along those lines. Then it would make more sense to refer to this stuff under that subsection. WillowCity  (talk)  13:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This is the prior discussion. Both sentences are undue here as background or context. This article is about this one explosion, what caused it and the casualties and damages it caused, how it was reported, and the differing analyses, opinions, and interpretations. The latter section is where both sentences belong, with proper attribution and citations.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  14:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify whether your position is based on a particular policy, or your own style/philosophy of article writing? E.g. is there a particular MOS policy you’re relying on? I wonder if you may be thinking of the lead policy; I’m not aware that similar concerns apply to the Background section, and I’m not sure that the sentences discussed above fit comfortably under (e.g.) “Aftermath” or “Analyses”. But as I said, I don’t feel super strongly about inclusion, as long as we’re taking a consistent approach. WillowCity  (talk)  16:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I follow WP:NPOV and who, what, where, when. Other than that I ask myself which information the reader of the article needs to understand the subject of the article. I just moved most of the "History of the hospital" section to Al-Ahli Arab Hospital because the history of the hospital going back to 1882 is irrelevant for the explosion. (Might get reverted and accused of censorship — oh, well). People sheltering on the hospital grounds and the reason they were sheltering there is relevant, so I added that. I'm undecided about the evacuation orders and shelling from both sides (need to take a closer look at the sources, some of them are outdated). The mention of the rocket that damaged the radiology ward on October 14 might be OK as part of the shelling, but as a separate section its weight seems undue. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  20:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Baptist history is relevant to explain why some sources discussing this explosion refer to the hospital as the Baptist Hospital, as shown in the footnote you deleted. See prior discussion here | Orgullomoore ( talk ) 20:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A link to the archived discussion (found it: here) would be better (any idea why the auto-archiving period is one day?). Wouldn't s.th. like "also referred to by its former name, Baptist Hospital," suffice? We have the inline link to the hospital's article. Is there a source for "in common parlance as of 2023"? Seems somewhat ORish. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  20:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I'm using my phone at the moment. Glad you found it. Re: sources of common local name, it seems like common sense given that the name cropped up for a 2023 event though there was no longer anything Baptist about the hospital, but:
 * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-gives-israel-private-backing-for-ground-invasion-of-gaza-nfvl7wc9k
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/18/they-believed-it-was-safe-death-toll-rising-blast-gaza-hospital
 * https://www.cbmin.org/pray-for-israel-palestine/
 * https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/anglican-church-says-it-got-israeli-orders-to-evacuate-gaza-hospital-in-days-leading-up-to-deadly-attack/3025806
 * https://finance.yahoo.com/video/burned-wheelchair-found-amongst-debris-033255980.html
 * https://www.persecution.org/2023/10/19/christian-hospital-in-gaza-hit-by-rocket-fire/
 * https://amwaj.media/media-monitor/deadly-hospital-blast-in-gaza-pits-gulf-arabs-iraq-against-israel-us
 * https://www.alquds.com/en/posts/96966
 * https://efe.com/en/portada-america/2023-10-18/israel-underplays-gaza-hospital-explosion-insists-it-was-caused-by-failed-rocket-launch/
 * https://www.palestinechronicle.com/haniyeh-blames-washington-for-baptist-hospital-massacre-in-gaza/
 * https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/stop-this-tragedy-immediately-world-reacts-to-blast-at-gaza-hospital-123101800405_1.html
 * https://www.gulf-times.com/article/670250/region/israel-massacres-more-than-500-in-gaza-baptist-hospital-bombing
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/10/18/al-ahli-hospital-bombing-israel-performing-its-usual-post-atrocity-routine
 * And so on and so forth. | Orgullomoore ( talk ) 21:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also disclosed in the paper that was cited in the removed/transferred background info ("Al Ahli Arab Hospital operates in Gaza to the present day where it is still referred to as the Baptist hospital.") | Orgullomoore ( talk ) 21:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's fairly standard form for an encyclopedia to provide overview of relevant background facts. An overly narrow approach to relevance risks depriving readers (who may otherwise be quite uninformed) of an understanding of the context in which an event occurred. It seems like your approach calls for pretty hard-and-fast exclusionism, but I think that needs to be balanced with consensus and fulfilling the project's informational purpose.
 * The policy on NPOV doesn't call for exclusion of any information that may present a POV, it calls for reasonable balance of POVs (at least in relation to controverted facts). If we were stating in wikivoice that "Israel attacked health centers therefore XYZ", that would raise synth/OR and POV concerns, but the prior wording employed attribution ("WHO said...") and didn't suggest any conclusion.
 * I previously mentioned the Kennedy assassination article (FA-class) as an example of a discrete historical event where broader background was appropriate—a more directly on-point example is Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah, another FA-class article, whose background section mentions Sharon's visit to Al-Aqsa as a precursor to the Second Intifada. I'm not suggesting we go so far as to discuss the historical origins of the current war, just that we provide context (backed by RS) regarding what's been going on since the war started (which, as noted, is already done in relation to rocket misfires). WillowCity  (talk)  22:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and just added it back in myself, since three of the four editors above (myself, Loki, and orgullomoore) support inclusion. Feel free to use your 1RR if you think further discussion is warranted. I also did a little reorganization of the background section as a matter of housekeeping. WillowCity  (talk)  01:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

We also add there is many countries that believe israel did
Based on this reading, it appears that the bombing is contested, with some attributing it to Palestine. While we have mentioned the beliefs of the UK, USA, and Israel, it would be appropriate to include the perspectives of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the Arab world, who believe that Israel was responsible. This will provide readers with a comprehensive view of both sides of the argument. 102.218.51.17 (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No offense to these aforenamed countries, but do they have access to the same technological intelligence that US, Canada, France, UK etc have? Do they even have munitions experts of the same calibre? I know they have a lot of smart people with advanced technical expertise, but my understanding is that the Arab world outsources a lot of the more serious "technical analyses" and this interest in preventing unsubstantiated finger-pointing is more of a "Western-world problem". I don't think an event like this in Yemen, for example, would make the Arab world blink.
 * Or do you mean to include who governments "suspect"? In that case, I think you have a point. Interesting to see if Iran's non-Muslim majority allies share the same opinion, with opinions divided across geopolitical allegiances. 1.129.104.160 (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Turkey should be mentioned. I think the argument you stated above does not apply to Turkey. 70.49.189.160 (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I think the article already includes "suspicions", even including North Korea. 1.129.104.160 (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The article already contains this sentence with respect to Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia condemned "the forces of the occupation" for the alleged attack, which it described as a "heinous crime". The article also contains this sentence encompassing the UAE's position: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Egypt, Algeria, Lebanon, Egypt, Algeria and Libya condemned the explosions as attacks, and accused Israeli forces of bombing the hospital. | Orgullomoore ( talk ) 18:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Algeria is mentioned twice here. :) 133.106.47.67 (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! So was Egypt, but I didn't catch Algeria. Will fix now. | Orgullomoore ( talk ) 00:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Seth Abramson analysis
This article published by Seth Abramson two days ago is the most detailed available on this subject to date.



Not only does it describe all the perspectives around the source of the blast and the death toll, it describes the Israeli disinformation campaign in significant detail.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Feel free to use any reliable source he uses, but we can't use a Substack, especially not one by Abramson, who isn't reliable DFlhb (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * He's a propagandist and not a reliable source  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Abramson's about as much as reliable source as Louise Mensch, Alex Jones, Eric Garland, or any other of the 2010s black helicopter gang. And even if he were a far better journalist than he is -- most journalists don't have to constantly make half-apologies for making up hoaxes -- his Substack still wouldn't be a reliable source. If he happens to link to actually reliable secondary sources, then those can be added to the article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the source quality, it's a trove of other sources that can be used. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Grammatical Correction
In the analysis section, there is this passage which I believe is redundant: Justin Bronk at Royal United Services Institute said that, while not conclusive, "an airstrike looks less likely than a rocket failure causing an explosion and fuel fire" was a more likely explanation than an Israeli airstrike. I propose removing the beginning of the quote, so that it reads: ...while not conclusive, "a rocket failure causing an explosion and fuel fire" was a more likely explanation than an Israeli airstrike. I cannot edit this protected page myself. Chucklet13 (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅: Next time, please make an edit request using the edit request wizard. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2023
change:

""" A few days prior to the incident, the hospital had received evacuation orders from Israel, and was hit by Israeli rocket fire, which damaged two floors and injured four staff members. The incident that followed caused a large explosion while many displaced Palestinians were taking refuge at the hospital. Reports of the number of fatalities vary widely, with the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry reporting 471 killed, and the Anglican diocese that manages the hospital reporting 200 people, while US intelligence agencies assessed a death toll between 100 and 300. """

to:

"""

A few days prior to the main explosion, the hospital had received evacuation orders from Israel, and was hit by Israeli rocket fire, which damaged two floors and injured four staff members.

On the day of the main incident, a large explosion took place at the hospital while many displaced Palestinians were taking refuge in it. Reports of the number of fatalities vary widely, with the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry reporting 471 killed, and the Anglican diocese that manages the hospital reporting 200 people, while US intelligence agencies assessed a death toll between 100 and 300.

""" HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅. Btw there is no need to open a separate request if there is an active discussion, we are still not that bureaucratised :) Alaexis¿question? 20:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize you are EC...
 * Thank you :) HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done M.Bitton (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not accurate that there is a consensus among independent analysts
i looked at the sources for consensus among independent analysts that the explosion was most likely a rocket and couldn’t find anything in the sources confirming that 188.236.163.120 (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * See the following, among others: AP, CNN, WaPo, AFP, Der Spiegel, WSJ, and BBC. | Orgullomoore ( talk ) 15:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources youre bringing are proving the point. WaPo 10/27: None of the more than two dozen experts consulted by The Post was able to say with certainty what kind of weapon struck the hospital grounds or who fired it. The BBC article doesnt give any type of indication that they think there is some conclusion that is a consensus. The AFP article goes to great lengths to say nothing can be determined. The other articles pre-date the later analysis by WaPo and NYT and FA. I dont think you can rightly say that after that there is any consensus on the likely cause, and using outdated sources that claim it when newer ones say there is no such consensus is not appropriate. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody's claiming certainty here. We're saying most likely scenario, and that has been said time and time again by the experts consulted. They all say, we can't say for sure, but it definitely doesn't look like an airstrike and it's consistent with a rocket fuel explosion. And that's based on the site photos more than anything else. The WaPo and NYT (and CNN) later reports just say that the Al Jazeera video does not show what everyone thought it showed, and the very partisan FA source just says that it would appear the projectile came from the east (which is not inconsistent with a failed rocket flying all over the place). | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 16:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * FA also says the crater is consistent with Israeli artillery fire. But the WaPo and NYT do more than just say that the video does not show what everybody said it did in their earlier quoted analysis that did have a consensus, what the NYT also says is The Times’s finding does not answer what actually did cause the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital blast, or who is responsible. The contention by Israeli and American intelligence agencies that a failed Palestinian rocket launch is to blame remains plausible. Plausible and "consensus view" are not the same thing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you're saying anything different than I am. NYT says (paraphrasing): People have been citing this video, but this video does not show the projectile that hit the hospital parking lot; but still, we don't know what did hit the hospital. And that's because their article does not address anything other than the video. The experts in munitions, acoustics, etc., said the rocket theory is the most plausible. We can do a headcount if you'd like. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 16:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether there is a "consensus" (a source saying so). As of 23 October, that was the case, I think it is not the case now, though. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd rather see something like "the majority of experts consulted concluded that a misfired rocket was the most likely cause of the explosion." I agree that there is not a "consensus." Not sure who wrote that and can't be bothered to check at the moment. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 16:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I added the date because of the report with that date saying there was a consensus then. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ... or at the very least there is not unanimity, which I think "consensus" can be taken to mean (though it can also be taken to mean widespread agreement, which I think there is). | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 17:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Was. Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a fair assumption that everyone's opinion needs to be re-analyzed because of the video issue. Those opinions that are not based on the video should be presumed unchanged unless the sources go back and retract the stories and say "Oh, now that we see this AJ video is not what we thought it was, we have a new opinion." That the news cycle has moved on and NYT was last to publish its video analysis should not mean that everything before it is invalid or obsolete. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 17:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is saying that there is a consensus view on the likely cause is incorrect, and all the sourcing for it comes prior to later analysis that have cast doubt on some of the evidence that was prominently presented as evidence for what was a consensus view. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * All right. Then let's change that "consensus" sentence to something that makes more sense. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 17:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your change fixed it. It wasn't consensus that it was a misfired rocket, but consensus that the likeliest option is a misfired rocket.
 * I do disagree with though not unanimous, because it does seem that every RS is unanimous that a misfired rocket is the likeliest. DFlhb (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point yes. I think every reliable source agrees that this is the most likely version of events. It's a shame that all of the debris was removed before journalists could access it. If we had access to some of the pieces of debris we could've settled this for sure (this is as per the NYT, I believe it's since been removed from the article). Chuckstablers (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. See the article, which as of this moment says: David Leonhardt concluded that Hamas's failure to produce evidence from the projectile "suggests the group may not want outsiders to see it." | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 01:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Very biased article written by pro Israeli sources.
Very biased article written by pro Israeli sources. 202.47.36.141 (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Many of us editors are actually against the Israeli occupation and are perhaps biased the other way, that being said we are required to report omn what reliable sources say. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * LOL. Two topics up we were accused of slanting heavily anti-Israel. I guess we're doing a good job. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 00:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Orgullomoore: A) this isn't a funny topic, and B) no, conveying bias in any direction is not doing a good job, and even if this was a statement in jest, it undermines the work we are doing here. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (A) is your opinion and appears to presuppose that the topic is death as opposed to repeated mutually inconsistent allegations of bias, (B) takes for granted the part that I found funny, i.e., that an article can be biased against Israel at the same time as it is in favor of it, and (C) is a nebulous conclusory statement lacking any argument to be addressed. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 13:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead section POV
I removed this sentence from the lead: The New York Times and The Washington Post have reported that a video pointed to by the Israel Defense Forces and others as evidence of what caused the explosion, in fact shows an Iron Dome projectile miles away from the hospital, and is not related to the hospital explosion. It's a detail from the Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion section, the NYT and WaPo analyzing one video and coming to a conclusion. It's no more leadworthy than the other analyses listed in the Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion section. restored the text in Wikivoice, without the attribution to the two RS, and added editorial POV by connecting it to the preceding sentence with the word to watch "while": A conclusive determination of the cause was impeded by the lack of press access to Gaza and unavailability of the remnants of the projectile while a video provided as evidence by the Israel Defense Forces in fact shows an Iron Dome projectile unrelated to the incident. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  12:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It was worded poorly, attribution was unnecessary and it is at least as important as "A conclusive determination of the cause was impeded by the lack of press access to Gaza and unavailability of the remnants of the projectile" so I have partially restored that deletion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It needs to go, it's both WP:WEASEL and minor detail — one video out of at least four, two analyses out of a dozen or more and coming to the conclusion, well, this particular rocket wasn't the one that caused the explosion. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  13:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire last para should be reduced and reworded to the effect that a) Contested and b) No conclusive determination and possibly some short statement to the effect that a majority but not all sources consider a misfire as the most likely cause. All else in the body. Then maybe it can come out. Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not just any rocket; it's the rocket implicated by the IDF in their now demonstrably innaccurate evidence, and a highly pertinent observation that is referenced in nearly all later reports on the event. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a minor detail, and your edits have the effect of making the lead push what a contested POV without any of the other significant POVs in the article. You cant decide anything that does not conform to the story you want the article to go with is a minor detail. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a minor detail, and more importantly is largely irrelevant to the article as a whole. The last sentence in the Lead definently needs to be removed. Much of this article has been built around continued argument of misinformation which frankly has no encyclopaedic value. It's just reporting, and WP is not news. Aeonx (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You cant decide that anything that DOES conform to the story you want the article to go with is a major detail worthy of inclusion. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think attribution is probably necessary. NYT, WaPo, CNN, and Le Monde all say that the projectile in the AJ video is probably/likely not what caused the explosion, but the IDF says they still think it is. Personally, I think (and who cares what I think) that NYT, WaPo, CNN, and Le Monde are more likely to be right than the IDF on this point. Le Monde makes the most mathematically compelling argument in pointing out that the debris would have had to travel (without propulsion) at 800 meters per second for 20 seconds to reach the hospital from the point it is seen disintegrating in the AJ video, compared to the maximum public speed of Iron Dome missiles (with propulsion) of 700 meters per second. The laws of physics would seem to rule out an object traveling at 700 m/s intercepting another object and thereby causing it to move at 800 m/s. But because we describe disputes and don't engage in them, I think we should present both contentions and attribute. Now, the question of whether it goes in the lead. I think it probably does not. On the one hand, the IDF presented the video as a smoking gun and continues to stick to its guns on this issue despite having contrary evidence thrown in its face by multiple outlets. And that makes it more relevant, in my opinion. On the other hand, I agree with  point that the video was only one of several signs that this was a rocket misfire and the video issue does not (as the articles themselves explicitly state) rule out the rocket misfire theory–it just pulls out one element of the case. The NYT put it succinctly: One of the legs of the stool — the videos of a rocket exploding in the sky — now looks a lot weaker than it did. But the other pieces of evidence remain in place. And the overall conclusion of the American intelligence agencies appears sound: It was a malfunctioning Palestinian rocket that most likely hit the hospital. I don't think it is so relevant that it deserves its own sentence in the lead. It is more getting into the weeds about the analyses and counter-analyses and poking holes in the analyses. As it is right now, that sentence looks like an orphan. The reader is suddenly confronted with "an Al-Jazeera video cited as evidence" without knowing anything about the video and what it was cited as evidence for. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 17:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * NYT, WaPo, CNN, and Le Monde are secondary sources; the IDF is a primary source - they are not on a par. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , do you have a cite for the IDF presented the video as a smoking gun and continues to stick to its guns on this issue? I've been looking for any later statements. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  17:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's in Le Monde: When asked, IDF spokesman Jonathan Conricus maintained that the Al-Jazeera images show a Palestinian rocket. And also NYT says: Asked about the Times’ findings, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the Times and American intelligence agencies had different interpretations of the video. (I misremembered that as IDF). CNN says: In an interview with CNN on October 18, Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a spokesman for the IDF, held up a piece of paper with a screenshot of the Al Jazeera footage printed on it, claiming it showed “the rocket that fell into the hospital.” The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) told CNN in a statement that the Al Jazeera video in question was never claimed as “definite proof” of its findings, which it said, “are supported by other resources and intelligence.” So, I may be exaggerating. But I think it's fair to say the IDF has resisted or failed to accept or refute this new wave of reporting showing/suggesting that the AJ video initially "held up" while "claiming it showed 'the rocket fell into the hospital'". That's all I've got. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 17:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Responding to Selfstudier, Iskandar, and Nableezy. Without that POV clause, the lead says:
 * the parties involved blame each other
 * experts mostly agree that the cause was most likely a failed rocket launched from Gaza
 * the intelligence communities of five Western countries say that the cause was most likely a failed rocket launched from Gaza
 * determination of the cause of the explosion was impeded because the press didn't have access to the site
 * determination of the cause of the explosion was impeded because of "unavailability of the remnants of the projectile" (dissolved like water, as missiles are wont to do).
 * To me, that — in addition to the when/what/where of the first two paragraphs of the lead — seems to sum up the article's most important contents very nicely. You're all harping about an initial, presumably faulty analysis presented by the Israeli army based on the evidence they had at the time, i.e, the Al-Jazeera video. What about Hamas's presumably also false claim that the hospital was hit by an Israeli airstrike? Should we put that in the lead, as well, for balance? Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  16:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont think the experts agree part is true, Forensic Architecture says that it is consistent with an Israeli artillery strike. And the experts mostly agree that the cause was most likely a failed rocket launched from Gaza was based, in large part, on the video that the later analysis debunked as a possible cause. So removing that leaves an older consensus that has since been brought in to question unchallenged. No, we are not harping about anything, and no that is not only from the IDF, every source prior to NYT that was discussing a failed rocket was pointing to this video saying it showed the failed rocket. You are attempting to use analysis that has since been shown to be based on incorrect assumptions and use their conclusions without including that the evidence for it has been debunked. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When and where did Forensic Architecture say that something "is consistent with an Israeli artillery strike"? Please cite the link to that statement. Forensic Architecture said on October 20, as cited by the Bloomberg source in Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion: "In reviewing our analysis, investigator & explosive weapons expert @CobbSmith agrees the fragmentation patterns may indicate the projectile came from the northeast—the direction of the Israeli-controlled side of the Gaza perimeter—and not from the west, as claimed by the IOF." Nice slur but not mentioning an Israeli airstrike or even claiming that it was an Israeli projectile. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  16:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC). I just found the other (initial?) statement by Forensic Architecture. It's cited by El País in the origin and trajectory section: "3D analysis shows patterns of radial fragmentation on the southwest side of the impact crater, as well as a shallow channel leading into the crater from the northeast. Such patterns indicate a likely projectile trajectory with northeast origins." Doesn't contradict the rocket malfunctioning and changing trajectory explanation.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  17:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * BBC:"While it was difficult to be sure at such an early stage, he said, the evidence suggested the explosion was a result of a section of a failed rocket hitting the car park and its fuel and propellant (a combination of fuel and an oxidizer agent) causing a fire. However in the past week, not every analysis has agreed with this. The Forensic Architecture agency, a UK-based organisation which investigates human rights abuses, has carried out its own analysis of the crater, and suggests it is more consistent with the impact marks from an artillery shell which it concludes came from the direction of Israel. It says that the scarring patterns above the crater are consistent with the shrapnel damage that would be expected from an artillery strike. Several types of artillery have been deployed by Israel since the start of the conflict, including M109 155mm howitzers and M270 MLRS rocket launchers. We have since showed images of the crater to several weapons experts and asked them whether the damage markings were consistent with the type of explosion caused by artillery shelling. NR Jenzen-Jones, a director at Armament Research Services, says the crater is significantly smaller than one typically generated by a 155mm artillery projectile. But Mark Cancian of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies said that, based on evidence so far, it was difficult to differentiate whether it was caused by an artillery shell, a mortar or a rocket - it could potentially be any of them."<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree that the prior consensus was based on the video. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 17:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't disagree. Show the older sources that don't recall the video. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I also completely disagree on the basis that a number of news reports have been published since that NYT piece, have acknowledged the NYT piece, and have restated that they believe the failed scenario rocket is the likeliest. So experts mostly agree that the cause was most likely a failed rocket launched from Gaza was based, in large part, on the video that the later analysis debunked as a possible cause is untrue; the media didn't alter their conclusions, and those conclusions were never solely based on that one AlJazeera video DFlhb (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ive only seen CNN say this, I havent seen a number of others. CNN did go back, after adding a note in their initial reporting, saying that their conclusions have not changed and "the balance of evidence suggests the explosion was not the result of an Israeli airstrike and was likely caused by a malfunctioning rocket." WSJ has not, nor have the other analyses that I have seen so far. If I am wrong, and I may well be, then please bring some of those sources. But the earlier analysis was largely centered around that video showing what they said was a failed rocket motor and that explained the odd trajectory and so on, and that was all bunk. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My recollection is that the majority of the initial sources relied mostly on the conclusion that the images from the explosion site (crater size and lack of damage to surrounding buildings) were inconsistent with an Isreali airstrike and were consistent with a rocket misfire. I won't have time to do a survey of the sources until after work, about 7 hours from now, but I am willing to do one. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 17:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree they used multiple pieces of evidence for their conclusions, but nearly all of them featured this video prominently as one of the centerpieces of their analysis, and just leaving those conclusions left unchallenged when that centerpiece has fallen apart strikes me as non-neutral. I dont think anybody, besides the initial claims by Hamas that it was an Israeli airstrike, is saying it was an Israeli airstrike, but per FA it still is up in the air on if it may have been an Israeli artillery shell. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, well this is encouraging. So we (you and I) agree that the airstrike theory is out. We agree that analyses that relied on the AJ video as showing the projectile that caused the explosion (and not those that relied on other types of evidence) are obsolete. Now we are left with the preponderance of experts agreeing that a rocket misfire was the most likely cause, but a source that calls the IDF the IOF saying they think an artillery shell is the more likely explanation and one expert saying he cannot rule that out? | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 18:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont accept calling the IDF the IOF makes a source unreliable, and I think we have established repeatedly that Forensic Architecture is a source treated as a serious source by other reliable sources. Again, I dont think the preponderance of experts agreeing can be taken as true when that preponderance of experts repeatedly cited the video as a primary reason for their conclusion. Sure, you cant throw them out entirely, even the ones that have not gone back to restate their belief, but you do have to include that one of the centerpieces of their arguments has turned out to be completely false. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know your position on the IDF/IOF issue very well, and I have no desire to rehash it, which is why I was careful not to say "unreliable" and stick to the undisputed fact that they call the IDF the IOF. What we are left arguing about, I think, is whether a preponderance of the experts who did not rely on the video agreed that a rocket misfire was the most likely cause. For that we need a detailed survey, which I intend to provide. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 18:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The BBC says that The Forensic Architecture agency ... has carried out its own analysis of the crater, and suggests it is more consistent with the impact marks from an artillery shell ... but the FA tweet they link to says this: "Preliminary analysis by FA, alhaq_org & earshot_ngo into the Al-Ahli hospital blast in Gaza casts significant doubt on IOF claims that the source of the deadly explosion was a Palestinian-fired rocket travelling west to east." This is another FA tweet merely saying it is doubtful that the object that the parking lot was travelling west to east. The BBC's suggestion that the crater is "more consistent with the impact marks from an artillery shell which it concludes came from the direction of Israel" is unsourced, as far as the reader can tell. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  18:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I imagine they talked to FA? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They talked to "it"? The Forensic Architecture agency, a UK-based organisation which investigates human rights abuses, has carried out its own analysis of the crater, and suggests it is more consistent with the impact marks from an artillery shell which it concludes came from the direction of Israel. It says that the scarring patterns above the crater are consistent with the shrapnel damage that would be expected from an artillery strike. I added the link to the same tweet the BBC links to. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  19:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC) The source of the photograph of the crater is the European Pressphoto Agency.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  19:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Youre also mising the tweet in the thread "Our/@CobbSmith’s analysis of the crater size suggests a munition larger than eg a Spike or Hellfire missile commonly used by IOF drones. It is more consistent w/ the impact marks from an artillery shell—but w/o additional material evidence, we cannot make a definitive assessment." <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I finally found the thread (I'm not on Twitter) - wow, they don't hide their bias, do they? A very large artillery shell carrying large amounts of explosives? Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  19:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Bias != unreliability. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually in most cases, I think you'll find it does. It's for that exact reason scientific papers disclose any bias they may have. Aeonx (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is WP, bias and reliability are two different metrics. Selfstudier (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles that acknowledge the AJ video isn't right, but still finds more evidence that points to a failed rocket launch: NYT 11/3, CNN 11/2, Le Monde 11/3, WaPo 10/26, L'Orient le jour 10/27 (last one summarizes other reporting, no analysis)
 * More interestingly, WaPo contradicts something mentioned in other outlets and FA, which say that the small crater could be consistent with small Israeli munitions, but WaPo says experts told it that small Israeli munitions would be inconsistent with the lack of visible fragments and with the fireball shown in videos. I also think much of the pre-NYT analyses rely on the crater rather than AJ.
 * We could word it more cautiously: "independent experts found more circumstantial evidence pointing to a misfired rocket, though definitive conclusions are impossible at this stage" (rather than 'consensus that it's most likely'); though as I said above I don't think the last sentence should be in the lead. DFlhb (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But Le Monde doesnt reach any conclusion as far as I can see, they only say it remains possible that it was a rocket from a salvo launched near the time. "Two weeks after the blast, Le Monde's analysis of the images shows the trajectory and speed of a salvo of Palestinian rockets are compatible with the explosion at the hospital. Our investigation sheds light on a night of clashes, from exchanged fire to the presence of two fighter jets, probably Israeli, without establishing with certainty the cause of the explosion." isnt quite the same as "reached a conclusion that a Palestinian rocket is most likely". The WaPo has "None of the more than two dozen experts consulted by The Post was able to say with certainty what kind of weapon struck the hospital grounds or who fired it. But munitions experts agreed that the damage at the hospital was consistent with a rocket strike. They said it was not consistent with an airstrike, which would have caused much greater destruction, or with an artillery strike, which would have left substantial fragments and probably not caused the massive fireball seen in videos." And "The analysis of that and other videos, in addition to expert review of imagery of the blast site, provides circumstantial evidence that could bolster the contention by Israel and the U.S. government that a stray rocket launched by a Palestinian armed group was responsible for the Oct. 17 explosion. At the same time, no visual evidence has emerged showing a rocket hitting the hospital grounds, and the evidence reviewed by The Post does not rule out the possibility that an unseen projectile fired from somewhere else struck the hospital grounds." I dont see how that makes the conclusion that we are stating in the article. Saying that the damage is consistent with a Palestinian rocket but also that some other projectile may still be the cause is not the same as what we are saying in the lead. The earlier analyses that were more conclusive in their wording were in large part based on the now debunked claim that the AJ video showed a failed Palestinian rocket. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm proposing more cautious wording as replacement for our current wording. Notice my stance did shift since my first post in this discussion after reviewing those sources. - DFlhb (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I should have responded to that part as well, my bad. I agree. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a concrete proposal? Maybe we will all be able to agree on it. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 19:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "independent experts found more circumstantial evidence pointing to a misfired rocket fired by Palestinian groups, though definitive conclusions are impossible at this stage". It's not a definitive proposal, copyediting is welcome DFlhb (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a starting point. The "Independent experts" part lends itself to being tagged with who, if the history of this article is any guide. We probably need to work on that some. I can't think of a solution off the top of my head right now. The "at this stage," I think lends itself to being merged with an existing sentence: ". . . more circumstantial evidence pointing to a misfired rocket fired by Palestinian groups, though a conclusive determination of the cause was impeded by the lack of press access to Gaza and unavailability of the remnants of the projectile." Do you have any concrete suggestions we can build on? | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 19:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Independent experts" is fine; many people overuse who due to not having read the Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity paragraph in its documentation. That wording is meant to indicate separation from the government assessments that come before, clarify that it's not journalists assessing it (who have no expertise), and properly attribute expert statements to experts. I agree on replacing "at this stage" by merging with the next sentence. DFlhb (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would go with "Several independent media outlets have analyzed the publicly available footage and found that an Israeli airstrike was an unlikely cause, and that the damage was consistent with a failed Palestinian rocket launch but that no conclusive determination could be reached without further evidence, including the remnants of the munition". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not ignoring you. I'm working on this to inform my proposal and our discussion. I'll propose something soon and we can go from there. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 22:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool, Ill respond down there. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Canada, UK, France, US did conclude that it was a Palestinian rocket. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We already say that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Issues for which the principle relevant guideline is WP:AGEMATTERS. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Explain? Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  17:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed."
 * Point would likely be that earlier sources shouldn't be given the same weight as later ones. This thread is so jumbled that I can't tell who that was a reply to. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Just for interest, translated copy of Spanish WP lead Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Tabulated survey, discussion, and proposals for last paragraph of lead
All right. I have gone through all the sources and tabulated them by date, analyst name or description, and whether they relied on the AJ video. The table is supposed to be collapsible, so I am transcluding it below. If that becomes an issue, it can be found here. Details about the methodology can be found at the bottom.

Looking through this, it seems that those who believed they were looking at a failed rocket in the AJ video, thought they were watching the motor separate from the warhead, with the motor falling and causing a small explosion, followed by the warhead exploding in the parking lot and igniting a large amount of rocket fuel and/or the gasoline tank in one or more of the vehicles, causing the larger explosion that killed, at a minimum, scores. Now, NYT, CNN, WaPo, and Le Monde say that whatever the video shows is likely unrelated to the cause of the explosion. So for our purposes (rephrasing the last paragraph of the lead in a way that justifies removing "under discussion" from every last sentence in that paragraph), we should focus on analysts who did not operate under the mistaken belief that the AJ video showed a rocket falling apart in midair before crashing into the hospital parking lot.

What's left after removing the AJ video-reliant opinions? About 25 analysts' opinions not based (in any way, at all) on the AJ video. And what do they say? That: (1) the crater and damage rule out an Israeli airstrike (including an airburst bomb); (2) the fireball is consistent with rocket fuel/propellant and not consistent with an artillery shell (which is more likely to result in a visual plume of dust or dirt); (3) the Iron Dome is not designed to hit objects while flying over Gaza; (4) the amount of time between the end of the contemporaneous rocket barrage and the explosion is consistent with the usual speed of Palestinian rockets and the distance between the launch site and the hospital; (5) the acoustics are consistent with an object that is accelerating, as if falling from the sky as opposed to horizontal movement; (6) the size of the crater and "blast bore some similarities to an impact from a 155-millimeter artillery round, a munition in the Israeli arsenal," but that "an artillery round would not have produced the fireball seen in the blast videos"; (7) the impact marks are (according to Forensic Architecture) "more consistent with the impact marks from an artillery shell which it concludes came from the direction of Israel"; (8) (according to Forensic Architecture and Earshot) the projectile came from the east or northeast; (9) one expert (Mark Cancian) could not rule out an artillery shell, mortar, or a rocket, but another expert (NR Jenzen-Jones) opined that the crater was significantly smaller than one generated by a 155mm artillery projectile; (10) the slow burning was inconsistent with military-grade explosives, which detonate much more quickly than low-grade explosives, such as propellants; and (11) the fact that the projectile missed the target, i.e., hit the parking lot and not the hospital, is inconsistent with an intentional attack by Israel because of Israel's precision-guided targeting capabilities. Time and time again, the experts stressed that they would want to see the remnants in order to make a conclusive determination. We know that Hamas said they had the remnants, then said they didn't, and that they had their OED unit on the scene on the night of the explosion.

So the possibilities are: (1) a Palestinian rocket's engine failed, causing the rocket to spiral downward into the parking lot, ultimately making impact at a southwest angle, resulting in the payload igniting the leftover rocket fuel and a car's gas tank; or (2) an Israeli artillery shell missed its intended target (or intentionally hit the parking lot makeshift campground with hundreds of civilians), ignited gasoline in one or more of the cars, and was then retrieved by Hamas, who concealed evidence of the Israeli war crime. Regarding # (2), and with all due respect, that smells like WP:FRINGE. The 155mm artillery shell theory is not the accusation from Hamas, which is that the IDF carried out an airstrike–a possibility that nobody is taking seriously. There is one expert (Cancian) who cannot rule an artillery shell out, whereas another one (Jenzen-Jones) can rule it out. It should also be noted that "Former British army Maj. Chris Cobb-Smith, a weapons and munitions expert" is cited by FA in this tweet: In reviewing our analysis, investigator & explosive weapons expert @CobbSmith agrees the fragmentation patterns may indicate the projectile came from the northeast—the direction of the Israeli-controlled side of the Gaza perimeter—and not from the west, as claimed by the IOF. But what does Cobb-Smith also say? He also says that, although the size of the crater and the blast bore some similarities to an impact from a 155-millimeter artillery round. . . other weapons could do the same, and an artillery round would not have produced the fireball seen in the blast videos, and that [w]e should not be blinkered that this may, indeed, be an error on the part of the Palestinian forces.

Now, how do we rewrite the last sentence of the lead? We have these proposals to start with: (1) Independent experts found more circumstantial evidence pointing to a misfired rocket fired by Palestinian groups, though a conclusive determination of the cause was impeded by the lack of press access to Gaza and unavailability of the remnants of the projectile (proposed by ); and (2) Several independent media outlets have analyzed the publicly available footage and found that an Israeli airstrike was an unlikely cause, and that the damage was consistent with a failed Palestinian rocket launch but that no conclusive determination could be reached without further evidence, including the remnants of the munition (proposed by ). My proposal is: "Experts consulted by independent media outlets ruled out an Israeli air strike and stated that the damage was consistent with a failed Palestinian rocket launch. The experts noted that a conclusive determination could not be reached without further evidence, including the remnants of the munition, which Hamas asserted "dissolved like salt in the water", and were therefore unavailable for examination. Efforts to determine the cause of the explosion were impeded by the lack of press access to Gaza and confusion surrounding a video that was initially believed to show a rocket failing midair over the hospital, but in fact showed something unrelated." Your thoughts?

Also, is it really true that the entire last paragraph is under discussion? I'm pinging you,, since you made it a point to tag every single sentence in that paragraph. What would you like to discuss, beyond the last sentence, before those blemishes are removed? And if nothing, would you kindly remove them already? Also pinging and, who participated above.--| <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 03:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Orgullomoore
 * You have clearly put a good deal of work into compiling this table. However I feel there may be issues with your methodology which could influence the conclusions you make. These questions speak to that if you are happy to engage:
 * 1). Could you explain a bit more about how you decided if analysis relied on the AJ video or not? Why were close calls and partial reliance resolved in favour of a Y and not an N? How did you decide if analysis was a close call or partial reliance?
 * 2). Did you have criteria for deciding if an analysis related to the "cause of the explosion"? E.g. how do you distinguish analysis of travel distance of rockets (include) versus accents of supposed Palestinian militants (exclude)?
 * 3). How did you come to the conclusion that the 25 analysts' opinions "rule out" an Israeli airstrike (your proposed rewrite)? Reading through the table, it seemed to me that no-one used this language except Garlasco, though I was reading quickly. The weight of language used by analysts seemed to be more moderate (e.g. 'unlikely', 'most likely cause', etc). Hanne Thato (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just Garlasco who ruled out an airstrike. Michael Knight (#62) said that "We have none of the indicators of an airstrike—none". Mostly, the experts said that the damage is not consistent with an airstrike. That's "ruling out" rather than unlikely. "Most likely cause" refers to the determination of rocket vs. intercepted rocket vs. failed rocket vs. artillery shell. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  13:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Space4Time3Continuum2x Apologies, I missed Knight and agree with that point. If the experts mostly said the damage is not consistent with an airstrike, shouldn't we use that language? Hanne Thato (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Re #26, WaPo citing Markus Schiller. They cite him again in the last paragraph: The seven seconds between the midair explosion and the hospital explosion miles away was not enough time for debris from the intercept to have impacted the hospital, Schiller said. Any object at the site of the midair explosion would have had to travel at more than 500 meters per second, a supersonic speed, which "is quite impossible,” he said. Schiller said the culprit was more likely an unrelated rocket that was malfunctioning and "hit the hospital grounds just a few seconds after that intercept event." Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  12:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Re #99, CNN citing Markus Schiller. They also cite him again in the fourth to last paragraph: Schiller said that he estimated a Qassam rocket, which are used by Palestinian militants, would have taken about 25 to 40 seconds to reach the distance from the launch site to the hospital, depending on variables like launch angle, acceleration and burn time. He added that the most likely cause of the explosion was a rocket launched towards Israel "that fell short and hit the hospital’s parking lot" just a few seconds after what he described as the “intercept” seen in the Al Jazeera footage. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  12:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Pinging myself,, to see why Orgullomoore's ping didn't work.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  13:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Again: . Nope, nada, not a clue, didn't work.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  13:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Added the rest of Schiller to #99. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 20:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I already explained why I tagged those sentences, following the tag placed by yourself on the last sentence. I will repeat here what I said above.
 * Quote "The entire last para should be reduced and reworded to the effect that a) Contested and b) No conclusive determination and possibly some short statement to the effect that a majority but not all sources consider a misfire as the most likely cause. All else in the body. Then maybe it can come out." Unquote
 * And that is still my position. Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. So, concretely, your proposal would be something like: "The cause of the explosion is contested. A conclusive determination of the cause was impeded by the lack of press access to Gaza and unavailability of the remnants of the projectile. There was widespread, though not unanimous, agreement among experts that the most likely cause of the explosion was a misfired rocket." Is that an accurate portrayal of your proposal? | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 19:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well first off, thank you for going through all this, it is obviously a lot of work and you should be commended for it. The problem I have in the analysis is trying to segregate views and experts the way you do it. For example, the the AP story has 5 entries, but you cant really tell if any one expert is making a conclusion solely off of the part they are cited in during the story. Like they are telling a story, and they are going through different parts of the story and citing a for x, b for y, and c for z. You dont really know if any of these people are relying on only x, y or z when they reach their conclusion. But I dont think we are really that far apart in our proposals to be honest, I dont think we need the dissolve quote (and also it was later contradicted by Hamas saying they have the remnants), I think that can be summarized better. How about Several independent media outlets, citing expert analysis and analyzing the publicly available footage, have found that an Israeli airstrike was an unlikely cause, and that the damage was consistent with a failed Palestinian rocket launch but that no conclusive determination could be reached without further evidence, including the remnants of the munition, which Hamas has yet to produce for analysis. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree, we are getting there. What if we tweak that like this: "Independent media outlets, citing expert analysis, found that the damage was consistent with a failed Palestinian rocket launch, and inconsistent with an Israeli airstrike. However, no conclusive determination could be reached without further evidence, including the remnants of the munition, which Hamas has yet to produce." I took out "several," because it's quite a bit more than "several" but I want to avoid "numerous," which I presume would be controversial. I also trimmed some words I considered superfluous, for brevity and simplicity. I also broke it up with punctuation, for readability. I took out "publicly available footage" because that is only one component of the analyses, and one of those videos has been convincingly challenged, which complicates things for the lead. I agree with you that we don't have to quote Hamas's "dissolve" statement. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 19:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nableezy's wording was a better fit, with experts remarking that an Israeli airstrike was unlikely, and that the damage was consistent with a failed rocket launch or other munition. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Has yet to produce" sounds as if they promised to produce it in future, but they outright rejected to produce any evidence, claiming it does not exist. I would just write "which Hamas declared does not exist". Cloud200 (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cloud200 They have actually said at least three things: (1) it dissolved like salt in the water (NYT); (2) since when do we have to provide proof of all the massacres? (NYT); and (3) it will soon be shown to the world (WaPo). So they have claimed inability, unwillingness, and future intent. | <span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 13:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the assessment that you wrote remains short of Neutrality, as mentioned below. I think @Space4Time3Continuum2x proposed a better wording below that reflect the conclusion of Independent Media Homerethegreat (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Part of your wording I disagree with is the whole "yet to produce" thing. Hamas has refused to produce it, after evidence that they removed the site of all debris before journalists arrived (after claiming to have debris, then when asked to produce it claiming it "dissolved like salt in the water"). Saying "has yet to produce" implies that they might produce it in the future, and they've blatantly said that they won't as it doesn't exist (according to them). Chuckstablers (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * What part of the third paragraph of the lead is the proposed text intended to replace? The last three sentences? have found: "said" is better wording; an Israeli airstrike was an unlikely cause isn't not neutral wording. The sources say s.th. along the lines of "the cause could not be determined" and "most likely cause is a Palestinian rocket". None of the sources mentions "cause" in conjunction with an Israeli airstrike. Based on the sources, here's my proposal for the text to replace the three sentences of the lead: Several independent media outlets, citing expert analysis and analyzing publicly available videos of the explosion, said that the damage was consistent with a failed Palestinian rocket launch and inconsistent with an Israeli airstrike. They also said that a conclusive determination was not possible without further evidence, including the remnants of the munition which Hamas said did not exist.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  12:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is also fine. I just think we ought to mention that not only independent media confirm this but also Western Intelligence (The 5 countries mentioned: US, Canada, France, UK (can't remember the 5th)) Homerethegreat (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you searched the sources? Because I seem to remember some specifically stating that the cause was unlikely in their analysis to be an Israeli airstrike? I don't even know why this would need to be explicitly stated, as the only causes seriously discussed are an Israeli airstrike or a palestinian failed rocket. They're mutually exclusive; one or the other. A conclusion of likely palestinian rocket necessarily implies that it's inconsistent with an israeli airstrike and vice versa. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Well done for the heavy work :).
 * I think we can write simply that: "Independent Media sources indicate the explosion was most likely the result of a failed Palestinian rocket" if you wish you can add: "US, Canadian, UK, French intelligence also indicate the same". Homerethegreat (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Would agree, that seems to sum it up pretty accurately. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Al-Shifa hospital
Note that the New York Times has once again contradicted IDF statements that blamed Palestinian rockets for deaths and damage at a hospital, in this case the al-Shifa hospital:



As the NYT article points out, this is beginning to look like a pattern: "Israel’s assertion that Al-Shifa was actually hit by a Palestinian projectile echoed similar – and unresolved – claims and counterclaims following munitions that hit the courtyard of another Gaza hospital, Al-Ahli, nearly a month ago. The evidence reviewed by The Times from Al-Shifa points more directly to strikes by Israel – whether on purpose or by accident is unclear."

Quite independently of the question of what happened at al-Ahli, we know that the IDF presented evidence that was found to be untrue by the New York Times and Washington Post. The fact that this has now happened again makes this point worth highlighting. It shouldn't be buried. I restored the sentence a few minutes ago when I checked back into this article (I had not seen the discussion above). --Andreas JN 466 10:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The Western media is slowly catching on to being constantly gaslit ... Iskandar323 (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Another editor has removed the sentence I added again. There is something else in the lead: The New York Times article says:
 * U.S. officials believe that the health ministry also inflated the toll when it announced 500 deaths; the actual number appears to be closer to 100. This episode doesn’t mean that Gazan officials always mislead or that Israeli officials always tell the truth. Even in this case, for example, Israeli officials have cited video evidence that Times reporting suggests does not support their argument. Both sides deserve continued scrutiny.
 * What our article makes of this in the lede is this:
 * The New York Times has concluded based on available evidence that death toll is closer to 100, and estimated that that the Gaza Ministry of Health has, on this case, deliberately disseminated misleading information to the international community
 * I don't think that quite covers it. Also, reading this, my feeling is the NYT is not quoting its own estimate based on its own analysis for the 100 figure, but that of the US officials. I admit it's not quite clear in the original; but saying "The NYT has concluded based on available evidence ..." seems to be stretching things a bit. Andreas JN 466 14:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I removed part of the sentence in the lead. The NYT sentence about "the Gaza Ministry of Health, controlled by Hamas" having “deliberately told the world a false story" refers to the preceding paragraph about the cause of the explosion. It then continues to say, "U.S. officials believe that the health ministry also inflated the toll when it announced 500 deaths; the actual number appears to be closer to 100." As for pattern: the NYT says "appears to" and "echoes", and this is not the article on the Al-Shifa Hospital siege; that hospital, BTW, was used as a Hamas HQ and torture center during the 2014 Gaza war, according to Amnesty International (AI, WaPo).  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  14:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting this, you're right. I didn't notice your comment at first and reverted your edit, now I've partially reverted myself. Alaexis¿question? 21:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)