Talk:Al-Shifa Hospital

RfC: summary of Hamas activity in Al-Shifa hospital
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),
 * Washington Post (2014),
 * PBS (2009) — 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. -- M h hossein   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. Alex Eng ( 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. Alex Eng ( 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). The Economist recently published that Hamas' headquarters are in Gaza City Center. Even in 2014, other sources were speculating if Hamas headquarters were actually in Turkey.
 * 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 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. 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. 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. -- M h hossein   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 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)

Controversies over shaft
The current portion of the lead requires attention from editors:

"Later a shaft was found on the perimeter of the hospital, and various experts confirmed that it was similar to other militant tunnels. Multiple sources state that bunkers were built in the 1980s by Israel during the construction of the hospital while some sources report that the construction also included tunnels. A France24 investigation concluded that the images published by the IDF had matching characteristics of Hamas built tunnels. They also note that the tunnels were found under the Qatari building, which was built after Israel withdrew from Gaza."

It's not of a significant notability and is quite inconsistent give the sentences the sentences coming before it. The previous sentences portray the accusations against Israel over propaganda and death of patients including children. Then it's not known what "later" refers to. Also, These details about the shaft controversies does not seem to be lead-worthy. Investigation by France24 might be something to be included in the body, not in the lead certainly. -- M h hossein   talk 13:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don´t see the controversy. We could add "multiple sources" for the shaft, like with the next sentence, to make it appear equally "noteworthy". If you can´t provide sources that say that that shaft is part of the 1980s israeli tunnelsystem though, it should stay in the lead. Or we remove the tunnel claims from the lead, since there were, without any doubt, tunnels. Just if they were used by Hamas at some point in some function remains questionable. Alexpl (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the tunnel shaft claims might be more suited to the lead of Al-Shifa Hospital siege or Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital than to the lead of this page. Keep in mind this article is about the largest hospital serving 2 million people whose doctors have done incredibly work during at least 4 brutal wars and 2 intifadas (this has been covered in renowned medical journals like The Lancet). We are already giving disproportionate space to human shields claims and counter-claims.VR talk 02:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Vice Regent, I was not aware of 'Al-Shifa Hospital siege or Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital'. The space should be dedicated to to other more significant aspects of the subject. I suggest trimming the tunnel controversies. Also, I am not understanding why Alexpl thinks "If you can´t provide sources that say that that shaft is part of the 1980s israeli tunnelsystem though, it should stay in the lead". -- M h hossein   talk 12:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely no contradiction between the doctors doing a great job and Hamas having tunnels under it. This is definitely noteworthy and has been covered extensively by all kinds of RS. Alaexis¿question? 12:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And no one talked about "contradiction" or whatsoever. The point is to dedicate WP:DUE weight to each aspect based on their significance. -- M h hossein   talk 05:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Arrested
According to Palestinian reports, Khaled al-Batash - one of the leaders of the Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip who is considered close to the leadership of Hamas - was caught in an IDF operation at Shifa Hospital. https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/h1ok11hdap

The IDF and Shin Bet forces have so far arrested about 350 suspects in the Shifa Hospital area, according to an IDF spokesman. The IDF statement stated that the IDF soldiers together with the Shin Bet forces found weapons throughout the hospital. Including: Kalashnikov rifles, machine guns, cartridges, mortars, grenades, RPGs and combat uniforms.

https://mobile.mako.co.il/news-military/2024_q1/Article-6f60f05f7a85e81026.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802

Also was captured Mahmoud Qawasma - a senior Hamas official who was released in the Shalit deal, deported to Gaza and from there he planned and financed the kidnapping and murder of the boys Naftali Frankel, Gil-ed Shaar and Eyal Yifatah in 2014. https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/by7ouy00ct 2.55.173.47 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Al-Arabiya's sources told them that al-Batsh is not arrested ( لا صحة لاعتقال إسرائيل للقيادي في الجهاد خالد البطش ), let's wait a bit and see what actually happened. Alaexis¿question? 22:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Major changes
Can you explain your re-implementing of those major changes? Your edit summary doesn’t help me to understand them. BilledMammal (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You didnt point to any issue, you just said you couldnt follow the changes. But my revert is because your revert put in a wildly undue amount of material on recent news in to the lead of the article.  nableezy  - 14:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The MOS:CLAIM issues should have been easy to find; I’m not sure how much more specific you want me to be there.
 * The NPOV issues including presenting some things as fact in the lede when it is attributed in the body, and excluding most of the Israeli position despite extensive coverage in reliable sources - it’s WP:BALASP.
 * I’m hoping you can explain why these changes and necessary and appropriate, given it is a drastic departure from the status quo. BilledMammal (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ive explained, this is the article on the hospital, and having over 60% of the lead devoted to material from the last several months is wildly undue. If there is some specific CLAIM issue then address that, but a blanket revert with a vague wave to supposed issues doesnt alleviate the UNDUE weight youve placed on recent events. In the lead no less.  nableezy  - 14:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * First, I’m not sure I would agree it is undue. These events are the most significant to have occurred in relation to this hospital; significant coverage in the lede is due.
 * Second, I’m asking you or MakeandToss to explain how you decided what was or wasn’t due, because as far as I can tell you’ve introduced serious BALASP and UNDUE issues. BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you have been reverted, please explain concerns point by point and we can go from there. I see a similar mass revert at the related Al-Shifa Hospital siege article, again with an anything but clear edit summary. Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We’re talking about major changes from the status quo, with the only explanation being “wildly undue”. The starting point is to explain these edits, rather than insisting they are appropriate while simultaneously refusing to explain why they are needed and why they are appropriate.
 * Specifically, I’m asking for explanations of:
 * Why are we ignoring MOS:CLAIM
 * Why was the removed content WP:UNDUE
 * Why are we attributing content that is not attributed in the body (for example, the existence of a tunnel)
 * Why are we not attributing content that is attributed in the body (for example, whether a command centre was demonstrated)
 * BilledMammal (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You just asserting that these events are the most significant is just your assertion. Al-Shifa has been covered for decades, and the balance of the coverage in this war has been on the Israeli siege and the destruction of the hospital, not on the Israeli claims of Hamas usage. Even if we were to devote that much space to this war, the majority of the coverage should follow the reports on the wholesale and wanton destruction of a major medical facility, the condemnation from human rights groups and the WHO for Israel's actions, the sources that have said that Israeli claims have been unsubstantiated.  nableezy  - 15:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s the other way around; can you care to explain why you have mass reverted constructive edits to the lede? You simply reinserted content that turns the lede into everything but a summary of the body. Please go sentence by sentence on what you are opposed to its exclusion. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Look at the dot points, with examples, that I’ve provided above. You’ve made major edits without even providing edit summaries; it shouldn’t be surprising that you are asked to explain in more detail. BilledMammal (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not what you asked though, you simply mass reverted, including edits that you are not actually concerned about, as far as I can tell (same at the other article). Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The examples are quite vague. I’m sure all the editors here would appreciate you giving us concrete examples on how you think the lede can be improved. Examples would be X=>Y. Also you could have obviously just chose to reinsert these specific examples yourself, instead of this indiscriminate mass reversion. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious - there is nothing else currently in the lede I can be referring to - but in my examples I am referring to the lines Israel stated that it found a tunnel around the hospital and However, this did not demonstrate the existence of a Hamas command center.
 * However, these are only examples; the change is filled with issues, and so I am asking you to explain the entire thing. It's a reasonable request when a major change is implemented without any explanation. BilledMammal (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I summarized the body appropriately instead of highlighting undue news articles in the lede, as another editor has already pointed out to you. Again, I don’t understand your example, which you just cited without providing an alternative formulation? Makeandtoss (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you why you are attributing content [in the lede] that is not attributed in the body and why you are not attributing content [in the lede] that is attributed in the body.
 * Note that this is a shift from the original version of the lede - the version I reverted to - where attribution in the lede was aligned with attribution in the body.
 * Other examples of issues - although still incomplete - are removing Amnesty International reports about the 2008 to 2009 war (content that appears to be at least as significant and WP:DUE as content you left in or added), and adding Israel published animations depicting a large underground militant network beneath the hospital (which appears to be excessive detail).
 * Please, explain your changes; per WP:EQ, when someone disagrees with your edit you are expected to provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate. It's not appropriate to refuse to explain the changes and simply insist they are better than the status quo. I want to have a discussion about these edits; it's very difficult when you can't even explain why they are appropriate and needed, as there is no opportunity for me to understand why you have made these extensive changes, and as such no chance for you to convince me why you are right, and at the same time no chance for me to convince you why I am right. BilledMammal (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not how it works, explain specifically by reference to each edit reverted, what is the problem with that edit. If any such edit seems improper for some explicable reason, we can discuss those edits. Mass reverting good and allegedly bad edits is not right. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No it is not obvious, as has been explained by three editors now, the mass revert is simply unjustified. For example, if a thing is in the lead but not in the body, then it should not be in the lead, right? Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Summarize
I'm attempting to summarize this here, as the discussion above is a little too threaded to be easy to follow.

In my opinion, the changes introduced issues in regards to MOS:CLAIM, in regards to attribution, and in regards to WP:NPOV. As these changes weren't explained, and introduced a large number of issues, I reverted them all and asked that a discussion be had here so that we could determine which aspects were good and which needed to be changed or omitted - this is common and appropriate for major changes where the issues with it are non-trivial.

For example, the attribution issues include Israel stated that it found a tunnel around the hospital (attributes something that wasn't previously attributed and isn't attributed in the body), However, this did not demonstrate the existence of a Hamas command center (doesn't attribute something that was previously attributed and is attributed in the body).

The NPOV issues include removing Amnesty International reports about the 2008 to 2009 war (content that appears to be at least as significant and WP:DUE as content left in or added), and adding Israel published animations depicting a large underground militant network beneath the hospital (content which appears to be excessive detail).

The CLAIM issues include Israel claimed that Hamas militants returned to the hospital.

This isn't a full list of the issues with the changes; the change is replete with them, and so I am asking for a full explanation of why Nableezy or Makeandtoss believed these changes was necessary and appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ive already answered your request for an explanation, I said that having 60% of the lead devoted to material from the last couple of months is UNDUE weight on recent events. If there is some specific issue with WP:CLAIM then adjust that, but that does not justify a mass revert to make the lead wildly unbalanced towards recent events, and even if we were to focus on recent events the focus should follow the sources that focus on the lack of evidence for the Israeli claims, the condemnation for the Israeli attacks, and the wholesale destruction of a major hospital. But claim is correct for Israel claimed that Hamas militants returned to the hospital per for example Al Jazeera: The Israeli military confirmed the sudden pullback on Monday, saying it had completed operational activity in the area of the hospital and claiming to have killed and captured numerous Hamas fighters. and Washington Post: The Israeli military has cast the operation as advancing their goal of destroying Hamas, reporting that more than 150 people they said were terrorists have been killed and hundreds of suspects detained since the operation began. The claims could not immediately be verified. ... The Israeli military says Hamas has used the facilities for military activities, a claim the militant group denies. These are unverified claims by a combatant who has an established track record of lying. So I dont know what word would be better used here.  nableezy  - 16:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And? You couldn’t simply remove the” Israel stated” part if that’s the objection? Reliable sources such as Amnesty International do not need to be attributed. As for removing the torture in 2009 part this was dispute by other RS such as Finkelstein and is a minor part of the body that isn’t due for the lede. As for the animations this is important because RS have referred back to Israel’s initial claims about the underground network. As for the last part on “claimed” that’s what RS have used as far as I have seen. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting to provide explanations. Now, can you please provide explanations for the rest of your changes, and we can start to have a discussion about which aspects changes are appropriate and necessary and which aren't? BilledMammal (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Orrr you can say which aspects are an issue?  nableezy  - 16:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I cannot provide explanations to what in my mind sounded logical to do. The overarching goal is to summarize the body instead of having cherry picked news information in the lede. Wait for further examples I can respond to. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have issues with most of it, but it is difficult to discuss that without understanding why the edits were made - and more importantly our guidelines are clear on this, with WP:EQ telling us that editors are expected to provide explanations for their disputed edits; to explain why in their mind the edits sounded logical to do.
 * Effectively, what I am asking for is for Makeandtoss to write the edit summaries they forgot to include with the edits. BilledMammal (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove the animations content, a major part of the Israeli propaganda campaign? Israel has said that the hospital contained a control center not that it was used as "a base for their operations." And to who is this sentence attributed: "but that it did demonstrate that Hamas used the hospital as cover"? And this sentence: " there were extensive gunfights"? You previously asked to provide edit summaries for the edits; as far as anyone can tell from your edit, it has a misleading edit summary under the name of "attribution," which was also given selectively here. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed it because it was excessive detail for the lede. We include Israel's claim; we don't need to go into the details of that claim in the lede.
 * but that it did demonstrate that Hamas used the hospital as cover The reference for that sentence is the New York Times source that is provided next to the sentence.
 * there were extensive gunfights The reference for that sentence is the New York Times source that is provided next to the sentence.
 * BilledMammal (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring. This is your third revert on the same content in a week and you know well how that will end up. Two editors disagreed with your inclusion; therefore there is no consensus; there is no "status quo." Waiting for your self-revert, in addition to your removal of the non-summarizing NYT quote that you have inserted. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The content has been in the article ; it is the status quo. If you want to remove it, please open an RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed the dated material, undue for the lead. And btw, status quo only lasts as long as the material is not challenged, which it has been. To include this material, obtain consensus and stop with the edit warring. Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Image descriptions (as opposed to captions)
Clicking on the lead image (File:Operation-Local-Surgery 2024-03-30 at 20-31-44.jpg) opens the media viewer where the following description is presented: Operation Local Surgery - IDF raid on terror headquarters in Al-Shifa Hospital, led to 200 terrorists killed and 500 terrorists arrested.

This information is effectively presented in Wikipedia's voice as a statement of fact, whereas the body of the article adds the qualifier that the claim that the 200 casualties being terrorists is claimed by Israeli officials (the referenced source notes that this has not been confirmed). Does the image description need changing? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree this is a problem. Not sure the solution. Thanks for bringing this up. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On Commons, I've now added a "fact disputed" tag with the note, "It should be needless to say that the IDF's characterization of the hospital as a "terror headquarters" is contentious at best, and the notion that everyone killed or arrested was terrorist is absurd." This is probably not a complete solution, but it is a step in the right direction. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 08:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Huge improvement; appreciated. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Article for Mar 18 - Apr 1 raid/battle
This military operation should probably have its own article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent additions for review
I recently added two paragraphs (beginning with "United Nations special rapporteurs Tlaleng Mofokeng and Francesca Albanese issued a statement..." and "The Israeli operation has been referred to as a massacre by some sources...").

There has been some dispute over this content so I am making this entry for this content to be discussed/reviewed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Just be honest. The given sources for your claim "referred to as a massacre by some sources" are two opinion pieces/essays by Seraj Assi /Linah Alsaafin in The Jacobin and The Nation. Clear NPOV violations Wikipedia:Due and undue weight. If you want them in anyway - I already told you, there are many, many extreme views on Al-Shifa out there. Alexpl (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2024
In the extended description for the image at the top, the one of the destroyed complex, it describes the 200 killed inhabitants (that's how many people were killed) as "terrorists," as well as the 500 and counting arrested people as terrorists. Says as follows: "Operation Local Surgery - IDF raid on terror headquarters in Al-Shifa Hospital, led to 200 terrorists killed and 500 terrorists arrested". This is unconfirmed, highly unlikely to be true and preemptively characterizing every single person held in that 14-day period as a terrorist is a gross distortion of the facts. Someone with editing privileges fix this to say "people" until further information, this caption is not a proper nor professional use of editorial privileges.

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/06/1243045199/al-shifa-hospital-gaza-israel-raid-before-aftermath

https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/middleeast/israel-withdraws-from-al-shifa-complex-after-killing-200-and-arresting-1400/ar-BB1kRHpY Cathodia (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * — English Wikipedia does not have a caption with that description. The English Wikipedia caption for the image in reference states, “The destroyed complex in April 2024”. This potential issue should be discussed over on the file’s talk page on the Wikimedia Commons, not here, as English Wikipedia cannot change the caption from what is on Wikimedia Commons. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Edited my comment to say "description", my apologies. Factual error in the description will show when clicking on the image in question Cathodia (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The description you're referring to is from Wikimedia Commons, where the image is hosted. See here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Operation-Local-Surgery_2024-04-01_at_12-08-16-1.jpg. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also I fixed the description. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Should See also section link to Israeli war crimes page
Should "See also" section link to Israeli war crimes page as it may be relevant to contextualise the final sections of this article. Additionally Hamas war crimes. Eamonn Cooper (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Per WP:MOS the section should contain links to related articles, especially ones not linked already in the article. Right now the relationship is not established, and most likely it would be better to link it inline rather than in the see also section. Alaexis¿question? 10:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Wording
In the second paragraph it says “Israel, supported by the United States” needs to be changed to just Israel. John Bois (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not done, US intelligence backed up the Israeli assessment on al-Shifa. Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)