Talk:Church of Saint Porphyrius airstrike

Add citation from The Guardian: Former US congressman says family members killed in Gaza church blast
Would be good to add this source to the article:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/21/justin-amash-family-members-killed-gaza-church

Story from The Guardian also notes that
 * Saint Porphyrius is less than 300 meters (nearly 1,000ft) from the al-Ahli hospital compound where an explosion on Tuesday killed and injured hundreds of people who had fled there to escape Israeli airstrikes.

This information also seems like relevant context to add to the article, along with a wikilink to al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion for reference. 133.106.34.150 (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅  Abo Yemen ✉  07:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone add citation
someone should add a citation that Israel admitted themselves that they bombed the hospital Brek1234567 (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * generally the lead section of an article shouldn't have citations, because everything in the lead should be expanded upon in the body. in this case, the citation for the claim is at "In an initial statement the IDF stated that Israeli fighter jets had hit a nearby command and control centre that was being used by Hamas to attack Israel. " there is a citation for the claim, and i've expanded the statement slightly for clarity. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the article you posted led to me to another article claiming that Israel did the bombing but you had to pay to read the full thing????
 * The body of the article before having to pay for it dosent even explain how Israel admitted to the bombing Brek1234567 (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And that is per which MOS?  Abo Yemen ✉  07:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * here
 * https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-gaza-strip-conflict/card/israeli-military-claims-responsibility-for-church-blast-in-gaza-ItyUvoIPaeNBEsIeIS6J
 * You have to pay to read the full article Brek1234567 (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Civilians
They were civilians according to Amnesty. Revert yourself. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * CTRL-F on "civi" didn't bring anything on the page you provided. Where do you see it? TaBaZzz (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "On 19 October, an Israeli air strike destroyed a building in the compound of the Saint Porphyrius Greek Orthodox Church in the heart of Gaza’s old city, where an estimated 450 internally displaced members of Gaza’s small Christian community were sheltering. The strike killed 18 civilians and injured at least 12 others." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You can use this source. But it wasn't there before. TaBaZzz (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2023
Change “Israeli occupied Palestinian territories” to “Hamas controlled Palestinian Territories” or “Palestinian territory” since Israel doesn’t occupy Gaza and has completely retracted all control in 2005 an unarguable historical fact. 176.12.142.140 (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Candace Owens and domestic American reactions
Candace Owens, a formerly fairly pro-Israel conservative activist, has accused Israel of genocide after this strike, sparring with Ben Shapiro in recent months. She has further criticized Republican candidates such as Nikki Haley for unconditionally supporting Israel's government and military in the midst of the Gaza war and has further stated in interviews that unconditional support for Israel has been massively dwindling among younger generations of Americans in their 20s and 30s. Should this be added to the article? Bellabors (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2024
The word "aistrike" in the opening paragraph of the article should in fact be "airstrike". John Schwandt (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jamedeus (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Ahli hospital
Please self-revert your latest addition and avoid adding Israeli disinformation that has been debunked, or at the very least does not reflect consensus of RS. Forensic Architecture has disputed the Israeli narrative in an investigation published on 15 February 2024; which is a secondary source relying on visual investigations that is superior to a primary source parroting Israeli propaganda published less than a week after the incident. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The source I added reflects the consensus of reliable sources; I can find different sources if you wish, but the consensus of reliable sources is that PIJ is probably to blame. BilledMammal (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. That is cherrypicked. We have only your word for it that there is a consensus on this. On the same day your weak force speaks of a likely PIJ rocket misfiring, the Wall Street Journal ran an article which states:
 * "The Israeli military said that a blast Thursday night on the St. Porphyrius Greek Orthodox Church campus in Gaza City was the result of its airstrike. The blast resulted in the collapse of a building adjacent to the church where dozens of people were sheltering and killed two people. Hundreds were sheltering on the campus of the church. The Israeli military said a wall of a church in the area was damaged. “The incident is under review,” it said. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem didn't respond to request for comment Friday. On Thursday, it denounced the incident as an Israeli bombing.Chao Deng, Israeli Military Claims Responsibility for Church Blast in Gaza Wall Street Journal 23 October 2023"
 * So the burden on you is to prove the vaunted consensus.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No.My apologies. The poor syntax and proximity of the church to Al Ahli hospital led me to read the 'consensus' as referring to St Porphyry. Hasty reading. Lamentable. But it is wholly undue to spend a whole paragraph on the Al Ahli hospital incident, and I have removed it, because anyone following the link to that other topic can find details there.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, that's an easy mistake. However, given you've removed only half of the paragraph on the Al Ahli hospital incident I've added the POV section tag; while I don't think the mention of Al Ahli is relevant or DUE, I think we are going to mention it with have to include at least some context - at the moment we imply that Israel was responsible for both this airstrike and that explosion, when only the first is indisputably true. BilledMammal (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, Wikipedia reflects reliable sources; it does not reflect the personal opinions of its editors. If the Guardian has thought it was relevant and due to mention the incident, then it will be mentioned in Wikipedia. The sentence does not imply that Israel has to do with the explosion; please provide an alternative wording that makes no such alleged implication. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I objected to 'consensus', (and I remain neutral as to the responsibility for the al-Ahl bombing, though the FA investigation raises serious questions and I think this must await some months for improved analysis). I'll meet you halfway on this, and suggest we omit references to the hospital bombing for the time being-Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus on the matter, as evidenced by the FA investigation on the Ahli Hospital explosion. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "in a way that doesn't imply Israeli culpability;" and why is that? Israel could be very well culpable. There is no consensus saying Israel is not culpable. The POV tag is overkill. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the talk page isn't going to make the problem disappear. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that the POV tag has not been defended despite repeated requests to engage, it will be removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I explained it above, and I have no obligation to WP:SATISFY you.
 * However, rather than argue over the tag I've gone and removed the content - as Nishidani says, it is WP:UNDUE to spend a whole paragraph on the Al Ahli hospital incident, and as I've pointed out, the current wording and context implies Israeli culpability for the airstrike, without providing relevant and important clarification that reliable sources are in consensus that Israeli culpability is unlikely. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Misleading as 's comment you are referencing was referring to the paragraph which you inserted on the responsibility of the bombing that Nishdani removed; and not the removal of any mention of the bombing.
 * Again, WP reflects RS, and if RS have said that the church bombing occurred next to a hospital bombing, then this should be mentioned, without regard to the responsible party since there is no consensus on the matter so far.
 * You added a POV tag and I explicitly asked you to provide an alternative wording that makes no such alleged implication so we can meet each other half way, which you refused to engage in despite repeated pings. Now again I asked you to provide an alternative phrasing. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nishidani also said I'll meet you halfway on this, and suggest we omit references to the hospital bombing for the time being - and I inserted a sentence in the existing paragraph, not a paragraph.
 * As for the rest: An single RS mentioning something tangential doesn't mean we have to, and there is a consensus that PIJ is probably the responsible party, so I'm not sure what you mean why you say since there is no consensus on the matter so far. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Halfway as I mentioned is suggesting an alternative phrasing that does not seemingly and allegedly assign responsibility for the bombing to anyone. Removing all mention of the bombing despite RS mentioning it is more your way than halfway, so I will wait further elaboration from on what they actually meant in their second comment. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the context, I don't see a way to mention the hospital explosion without implying Israel was responsible, unless we explicitly say that reliable sources suggest Israel was probably not responsible. BilledMammal (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As evidenced by FA, RS do not necessarily suggest Israel was probably not responsible. This controversy should be left to the respective article. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not tangential. It's another Christian facility 300m away caught up on the fighting for no apparent reason. It is very obvious immediate context. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * BM. You appear to have a habit of rejecting perfectly good factual RS material on the basis of possible implications for the readership that something might be implied about Israel, so either one omits it or adds further text casting doubts on Israel as 'responsible'. With that approach all factual writing is sunk in POV-protective humming and haaing that takes us off each separate point. These two bombings are regularly linked because close together, in RS, and therefore mentioning them here is not problematical. So I agree with M&T that the Al Ahl hospital incident should be mentioned as a fact, with a link, no more.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Both WP:OR and WP:NPOV require us to consider the context of the information we place, and whether it suggests a conclusion that is either not supported by sources, or only supported by a minority of sources.
 * Further, the Guardian article includes a paragraph on responsibility for the airstrike:
 * We can't have it both ways; the Guardian article can't both be sufficient to establish that mention of the explosion is WP:DUE, but insufficient to establish that coverage of responsibility is DUE. I also note that the article was published a day after the explosion, and more recent coverage of the airstrike does not mention it. BilledMammal (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Israel blamed the attack." This is not commentary on responsibility, but commentary on the finger pointing, which isn't relevant to this article. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the wrong page for this level of detail. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

CATPOV
The WP:CATPOV issue is that categorizing this as mass murder isn't uncontroversial - a lot of civilians were killed, and though it is tragic it isn't automatically mass murder. BilledMammal (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Doesn't explain why "2023 building bombings" was removed, despite this being, unambiguously, a bombing of a building in 2023. The Patriarchate also flat-out called this a war crime, so I'm not sure why the war crimes category was removed either. XTheBedrockX (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You'll have to ask Makeandtoss about that.
 * The Patriarchate called it a war crime, but one organization leveling the accusation doesn't make the accusation uncontroversial, which is what is required for WP:CATPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)