Talk:14 October 2024 Al-Aqsa Hospital attack

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2024

• What I think should be changed:

−

The strike caused cooking gas cylinders to explode, further fueling the fire.

+

The strike caused cooking gas cylinders and small-arms ammunition to explode, further fueling the fire.

• Why it should be changed:

Because these are the findings of the "Four munitions experts" cited in the Washington Post article that itself supports the cooking gas cylinders claim.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

2A00:23C6:EE8E:1:E5A4:A472:D4A0:1E22 (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks. This was a late addition to the Post article, it was not present in earlier versions. Andreas JN466 15:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Photo

Hi, I would like to post one from the event, but I can't because I don't have the requirements. If any of you can post it, I would be very happy, thanks in any case. the photo is called GZ0Ubx4XUAQPot3.jpg and idfwarcrimesgaza Bajricvasco (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to 14 October 2024 Al-Aqsa Hospital attack. Everyone favoured a move, but VR argued persuasively in favour of moving the the title including the date and the word "attack" on consistency grounds and this was endorsed by other editors. No need for a relist when the last comment was five days ago. (non-admin closure) EDIT: DISCUSSION REOPENED PER TALK PAGE DISCUSSION EDIT2: With a further discussion, clear consensus in favour of "attack". FOARP (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Al-Aqsa Hospital massacre → Al-Aqsa Hospital airstrike – Per WP:NCENPOV, "massacre" should only be used when used by the majority of source. Extremely few sources use the word for this airstrike, meaning that a move is required. Looking through the sources in the article, "strike" or "airstrike" is the most commonly used descriptor, making it the most appropriate title. It would also be consistent with Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike and other similar events. BilledMammal (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Not the common name and calling an airstrike a massacre is highly POV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose "airstrike", instead propose 14 October 2024 Al-Aqsa Hospital attack.
  • We've had this "attack" vs "airstrike" debate before and consensus was "attack":
    • At 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack there was a debate between "airstrike" and "attack", and attack was chosen.
    • At Tel al-Sultan attack, the closer stated: ""attack" was used in the originally proposed title, and received a fair amount of additional explicit support, so I believe this is the descriptor with the greatest weight of consensus behind it. Other possible descriptors such as "airstrike" received scattered support, but were not widely discussed enough to justify a move." I count >30 users took part in that discussion.
    • At Al-Sardi school attack there was consensus[1] that "airstrike" was WP:OVERPRECISE, and "attack" was the best title.
    • At World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack, there was unanimous consensus[2] to move from "drones strikes" to "attack".
  • Date is necessary. Israel bombed the hospital on 31 March, and also on Aug 4 and shelled it back in 2015. Maybe we should consider a broader article like Attacks on Al-Aqsa Hospital.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• • There isn't a consistent naming scheme here. For example, all of the following use "airstrike" or similar:

    • Al-Fakhoora school airstrikes
    • al-Shati refugee camp airstrikes
    • 12 February 2024 Rafah strikes
    • June 2024 northern Gaza City airstrikes
    • Khadija School airstrike
    • Marlin Luanda missile strike

    BilledMammal (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support change per nom. Either airstrike or Hospital attack are preferable than current title. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Instead Support 14 October 2024 Al-Aqsa Hospital attack per VR. The Tel al-Sultan attack move discussion is quite applicable as in both instances, the majority of deaths occurred from the ensuing fire rather than the initial airstrike. मल्ल (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support The suggested name is better, but since the attack is described in only one sentence, and the rest of the article text deals with the consequences, a better name would be Consequences of the 14 October Hospital Airstrike. TaBaZzz (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support anything that moves away from massacre in the title. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Re-list comment - @Vice regent, PARAKANYAA, Necrothesp, טבעת-זרם, Hogo-2020, and मल्ल:}: BilledMammal has requested a re-list in this discussion on my talk page, primarily based on their argument that "airstrike" rather than "attack" is the common-name for this event. Whilst their evidence appears debatable, and it is of course undesirable to have to move the article back to the title which ever !vote was against, this seems like something that only the community can make a call on. FOARP (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose airstrike, support attack. And the claim of a common name is specious, these are all descriptive titles. This should have remained closed instead of being relisted as that claim is a fundamental distortion of the naming policy. nableezy - 08:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment We should reflect the language preferred by reliable sources, per WP:BALASP and either WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NDESC. In this case, that means using "airstrike", which is the term preferred by the majority of sources, as determined by a review of all news articles including "Al-Aqsa Hospital" and either "attack" or "airstrike" from the 14th and 15th of October:

  Generally prefers "Attack" or similar:

  1. Al Jazeera
  2. Middle East Eye
  3. France24
  4. Al Jazeera
  5. Washington Post
  6. Al Jazeera
  7. PBS
  8. Al Jazeera
  9. Middle East Eye
  10. Muslim Council of Britain
  11. Novara Media
  12. Al Jazeera
  13. People's Dispatch
  14. Al Jazeera
  15. Common Dreams
  16. Anadola Agency
  17. The Siasat Daily
  18. The Siasat Daily

  Generally prefers "Airstrike" or similar:

  1. DW
  2. The Washington Post
  3. The Guardian
  4. NBC
  5. SBS
  6. CBS
  7. Euronews
  8. ABC
  9. New York Times
  10. Times of Israel
  11. Al Jazeera
  12. NBC
  13. Times of Israel
  14. Global Times
  15. BBC
  16. The Guardian
  17. BBC
  18. Times of Israel
  19. Sky News
  20. Euro News
  21. The Independent
  22. CNN
  23. Middle East Monitor
  24. The New Arab
  25. BBC
  26. Washington Post
  27. Tehran Times
  28. CBC
  29. Palestine Chronicle
  30. Washington Post
  31. Global News
  32. iNews
  33. CBC
  34. Euronews
  35. Jagran

I haven't removed unreliable sources from this list, but unreliable sources are far more likely to prefer "attack" than "airstrike", and so removing them would strengthen, not weaken, the case for that name. In addition, there are a number of words similar to "airstrike" that should be grouped under it, such as "air strike", "strike", but they aren't identified by the search - including them would further strengthen the case for "airstrike". BilledMammal (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose airstrike, support "attack". In a Google News search done today, "Al-Aqsa hospital attack" outnumbers "Al-Aqsa hospital airstrike" 10:2. This makes it seem unlikely to me that there is a significant preponderance of "airstrike" over "attack", and given the human consequences of the strike, "attack" seems more appropriate than the rather technical "airstrike". --Andreas JN466 10:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Adding the date would make sense too. --Andreas JN466 09:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Most of those are from unreliable sources. For example, 19 results from "istandwithpalestine", and 26 results from TikTok.

  Most of the remainder cover events other than this one. For example, this TRT World article - note TRT World is considered generally unreliable for Israel-Palestine at RSP.

  In addition, searching for the exact term isn't accurate. For example, "airstrike on Al-Aqsa hospital" would be a source that when attempting to determine the most significant viewpoint - whether sources collectively consider this an "attack" or an "aistrike" - should be counted towards "airstrike", but wouldn't in your search.

  What is needed here is a manual review, as I did above, which shows that sources collectively consider this an "airstrike", not an "attack". BilledMammal (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  You see TikTok in a Google News search? What I see (in the UK) is:

  • For "Al-Aqsa Hospital attack": Al Jazeera, New York Times, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, CBS News, BBC, Washington Post, Middle East Eye, Times of Israel, +972, NBC News.
  • For "Al-Aqsa Hospital airstrike": +972, CBS News.

  That's it. Andreas JN466 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  They see TikTok because they are searching on tiktok.com. Their url for that includes site:tiktok.com, and as the news result page helpfully tells us, When you refine a search with a "site:" operator, Google shows results from all the indexed pages from the website you specified. Leaving the site: but removing the tiktok.com also gives the helpful hint that When you refine a search, Google may include search results other than news content.. Searching without a tiktok.com site operator does not result in any TikTok results as best as I can tell. nableezy - 15:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Your original search includes Tiktok, Facebook, and other unreliable sources in my results - it only happens when you over-refine a search. If it isn't appearing in your geography or Nableezy's, perhaps Google is testing something in mine?

  Given that, I'm struggling to review your results, but even if we assume they are all related to this topic, all correctly classified, and none are duplicates then adding them to my result still results in sources preferring "airstrike" by a considerable margin.

  (I doubt any of those assumptions are accurate, but unless you can provide the links I am unable to confirm that) BilledMammal (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand how the parameter site:tiktok.com got into the URL you posted in this edit Your URL there was:

  • https://www.google.com/search?q=%22al-aqsa+hospital+attack%22+site:tiktok.com&sca_esv&tbm=nws

  Leaving that aside, you say your manual review shows that sources collectively consider this an "airstrike", not an "attack". But among the sources you include in your list for "Airstrike" or similar is, at no. 9, [3] (non-paywalled link). This does not contain the word "airstrike" at all. It contains six occurrences of "strike" (which we couldn't use because of its ambiguity) and three occurrences of "attack". Now you may say that "strike" is similar to "airstrike", but still, it seems somewhat weak to me, given that "strike" in a military context is a synonym for "attack" (see e.g. [4] or [5]). It's much the same with [6] (no. 32 in your list) – this contains one occurrence of "air strike" to describe this incident vs. three occurrences of "attack" being used to describe it, along with some uses of "strike"; only one of them in the publication's voice. Both terms are surely technically correct, and at this point it becomes a matter of personal preference. Regards, Andreas JN466 08:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I added it, to get a count of how many of your results were from that site. It seems Google is behaving differently based on what geographic location the user is in.

  If we are going to continue this discussion, can you provide the links your search found, so I can review them like you are reviewing the ones I provided?

  Regarding the inews article, in terms of uses in their own voice and in relation to this specific incident, I count:

  • One use of "air strike" (first paragraph; excluding the headline, this makes it the term used most prominently)
  • Two uses of "strike"
  • One use of "bombing" (headline)
  • Two uses of "attack"

  It appears to prefer terms similar to "air strike" - terms that make it clear it wasn’t a ground operation. BilledMammal (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  The Google News results are rubbish. Despite the quotation marks, Google brought up results that did not actually contain the search string. Moreover, the results are different today. I still get 10 results for "al-aqsa hospital attack" today, but now I get 8 rather than 2 for "al-aqsa hospital airstrike".

  The first 5 results for "al-aqsa hospital attack" start:

  • Israeli attack on Gaza hospital tent camp kills four, ignites fire
  • Survivors of Gaza Hospital Blaze Say They Are Living a ‘Recurring Nightmare’
  • Israeli strike in northern Lebanon kills at least 21 people
  • Israel strikes Gaza’s al-Aqsa Hospital grounds, 200 targets in southern Lebanon
  • Israeli air strikes across Gazan hospital and food centre and in northern Lebanon kill 32

  I can email you screenshots for the rest, if you like. But it is rather academic, given they don't actually contain the string. Google used to work, at one time; these days, they obviously figured they earn more money from clicks if they bring up phantom results.

  As for inews, you are right, there are two "strikes" (I missed the one in the image caption). As for "attacks", the three I counted were: "70 injured in the attack overnight", "70 injured in the attack, according to local reports", "Josep Borrell, condemned the attacks. 'I condemn new IDF strikes on a hospital & a school'"

  The thing with "strike" is it is not per se specific to air bombardments; you can have mortar strikes, tank strikes etc., although an air strike does seem to be the most common meaning. Regards, Andreas JN466 02:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support either airstrike or attack (they're both more accurate than the current title) but please just move this thing from the title it has now please Red Slash 22:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support airstrike title, as it is more specific. An attack can be many types of method, while an airstrike is WP:PRECISE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support attack, oppose airstrike, per the norm for other pages like Tel al-Sultan attack, it being used in RS, and airstrike coming over as an attempt to whitewash the violent nature of the attack and its aftermath, which is the main focus of the page, rather than the airstrike itself. In fact that is why "attack" is actually WP:PRECISE. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Attack is far less precise. An attack can be a shooting, a bombing, a group attack, a vehicle attack, a stabbing, anything. The notable aspect of any event is the aftermath, and yet we don't uniformly name all crimes and terrorism "attack". PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Airstrike, support Attack I agree with @Nableezy's argument and @मल्ल's point. It is best to not use Airstrike. Genabab (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose airstrike, support attack, per Andreas and Raskolnikov. M.Bitton (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support either airstrike or attack - the term "massacre" should only be used if most sources use it. Since few sources describe this airstrike that way, a change is needed. "Strike" or "airstrike" is the most common term in the sources. Whizkin (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose airstrike and support attack per VR and Andreas. Using "attack" emphasizes the consequences of the event, which is what the article is about, rather than just the method of delivery. - Ïvana (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

IV drip

Having viewed videos from various angles, it seems to me that an overhanging electric cable, clearly visible in the video linked in the article – it drops down onto the bed at one point – may have been misidentified by social media users viewing narrowly framed shots as an IV drip. (For another video showing the cable running across the bed from the area to the right see [7]. There are others.)

I am aware of only one RS (The New Arab) specifically stating that Shaban al-Dalou was attached to an IV drip. They may simply have been mistaken in the early reporting on this. I have not seen any quotes to that effect from his family, either. Then again, I may have missed something. Is anyone aware of better sourcing for this, e.g. a statement from his family, or a physician, saying he was on an IV drip? Andreas JN466 10:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The IV drip is also mentioned by The Guardian, ABC, The Intercept, AJ, Yahoo, and MEE. - Ïvana (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, none of these seem to be based on actual research. :/

The New York Times, which went to some trouble, does not mention a drip in its long and detailed piece: Article link without paywall.

His dad said he saw Shaban was awake and thought his son would be okay to get himself out, so he got the smaller kids instead: [8]. No mention of Shaban being on a drip.

I just don't see a drip in the video we link, nor the others I've seen. I see an electric cable falling down from above, unattached to Shaban's arm, nothing else, and the first posts I saw on X showing still images and mentioning a drip showed that same cable. We should really be sure we get this one right. Andreas JN466 03:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That might be true (I am not gonna rewatch the video to find out) but if multiple RS say it was an IV drip then contesting it on a hunch would be WP:OR. So I don't think there's much we can do until new evidence comes out. - Ïvana (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ïvana: Well, no. We have a responsibility here to not contribute to the viral spread of an untruth that is bound to be made an issue of sooner or later. Having a falsity as part of our reporting weakens the report, and this is one report I would really not like to see weakened in this way. We can simply decide that the sources for this (minor, in the overall scheme of things) fact are not reliable enough to include it, and that is what I would advocate we do here and in the sister article. (I do understand about not wanting to rewatch the video.)

User:Nableezy, User:BilledMammal, what do you think? --Andreas JN466 01:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)