Talk:Al-Shifa Hospital siege/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Military storming hospital

Israel is storming the hospital. (1) Personisinsterest (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Section regroup

Please add "Casualties" into "Siege and attacks", it's not many casualties and would be better in there. The section can be brought up again if there are more. Please add "Controversy over alleged military use of the hospital" into Background, it doesn't need its own section. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Nov 15 updates

With regard to this edit, please User:Selfstudier explain:

• you claim for POV deletion, but you didn't RV any deletion
• you claim "description of events" - yes the article describes it
• "during event" - please mark for improved wording, or improve it yourself if you may. But RV is not the thing to do here
• IDF was quoted by various reliable news agencies. Same as many other sources from both sides of the conflict
• you wrote "etc etc" - please elaborate

TaBaZzz (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Completely one sided version of events. The incubator stuff is laughable, the hospital has incubators, the hospital needs electricity to run them. I added refs to the article body about this. What about all the deaths at the hospital, where is that? And a ToI article about some stuff found, where is the command center, where are the hostages that were claimed to be there? Do I need to go on?

I suggest we wait for a while, add stuff to the body as we find it out, and only then attempt to write the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Your private opinions are well respected, but cannot shape an entire article. Other opinions, backed with numerous sources, should be presented as well. saying its "laughable", reverting the fuel supply for electricity, and setting your own requirements for activity timeline, are all totally your POV. TaBaZzz (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Your private opinions are well respected, but cannot shape an entire article. This applies pari passu. Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not a question of other opinions, the editing was straight up POV, not even an attempt at neutral editing. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67424064 here is the kind of report we should be looking at. Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

So you get to pick the sources, and can't include other sources if you don't authorize them? TaBaZzz (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I have not picked anything, I said that was the kind of more up to date and full reporting that we need to be looking at. Not live blog snippets and stuff from the IDF like https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/idf-press-releases-regarding-the-hamas-israel-war/idf-enables-passage-southward-from-shifa-rantisi-and-nasser-hospitals-opens-additional-passage-to-enable-civilians-to-evacuate/ Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

and the other sources? TaBaZzz (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Look, this isn't twenty questions. I gave you my opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Assuming you respect other opinions as well, I will carefully and respectfully consider your feedback while bringing back information that you didn't explain reverting. TaBaZzz (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft

@WeatherWriter and Triggerhippie4: There is already a draft about this topic. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 21:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Besieging a hospital whilst openly lying about it is absolutely reprehensible and obviously in violation of the laws of war. That's all there is to say. 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:7009:48B4:E105:742 (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC) because according to international law, a hospital lose their protected status if they are being used for military purposes, international law also says, warnings must be given beforehand to evacuate, which the IDF has been doing for 2 weeks now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesViBritannia (talk • contribs) 03:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Israel has failed to prove the first part aside from their fancy 3d graphics The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia doesn’t declare war crimes. Reliable sources don’t call this a war crime, so neither do we. Several reliable sources, by the way, including Amnesty and The Washington Post, as well as US and Israeli intel, document the use of the hospital as a base of operations for Hamas. Also, not a forum, so whatever, but what is the idea about Israel lying here? Israel really hates hospitals? Israel has no military objective at Al-Shifa, but thinks that its standing with the west, including receipt of aid from the US, is best served by sieging a non-combatant hospital? Zanahary (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC) >a hospital lose their protected status if they are being used for military purposes whcih like I said, hasn’t been proven by Israel aside from fancy 3D graphics, and obviously by their yes-men who claim to have seen the photos of the 56 billion beheaded babies and admitted they won’t draw any red lines for them. So no, they haven’t proven that part The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC) With who do you belive IDF is fighting in and around Al Shifa? There is fighting going on....with hamas militants...therefore they do use it for military purposes. Simple logic. 46.97.168.120 (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"Hamas-run health ministry"

Why the need to highlight the fact that it's run by Hamas? Is it to discredit its authenticity? I feel like it's an unneeded label. 197.56.157.1 (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely is mean to discredit the authenticity of Gaza's health ministry, despite the fact that the facts show that the figures from Gaza's health ministry are accurate.

Perhaps it's time to refer to israel's health ministry as "Likud-run"? I think that'd be fair on wikipedia. 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:7009:48B4:E105:742 (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• meant

2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:7009:48B4:E105:742 (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

We don't quote them in the article so that can be dealt with when we come to it.©Geni (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

who runs Gaza? Hamas, who also claimed israel bombed a hospital, 3 weeks ago? Gaza Health Ministry. Yes, the designation is validCViB (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Pretty important context lol Zanahary (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe readers are morons. The Gaza Strip is/was administered by a Hamas government. It is rhetorical overkill to try and attach 'Hamas-run' to any and everything mentioned there (i.e. the aim is to impress over and over again that this is a 'terror-run' institution. The 'Nazi-run Dresden municipal building was firebombed, as was the Nazi-run Dresden hospital, and the Nazi-run Dresden Roadworks authority, and the Nazi-run Dresden University'. Silly.Nishidani (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

There are two health ministries in Palestine, so it makes sense to specify which one we're talking about. Alaexis_¿question? 19:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I think writing "Gaza" is enough to specify which health ministry. 197.56.177.98 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying that the municipal buildings in question were Nazi-run, particularly when reporting on their claims about the war, would be pretty essential context! Zanahary (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

IDF video of weaponry in mri room

https://twitter.com/idfonline/status/1724855391106801809

I expect RS will pick it up shortly. Probably relivant to the Claims of military use section.©Geni (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense, right? Where else would you keep your guns other than the room with super strong magnets? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a forum :( I'm sorry. Zanahary (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not a siege

"A siege is a military blockade of a city, or fortress, with the intent of conquering by attrition, or by well-prepared assault."

Surrounding one building complex is not a "siege." 2600:381:F1D0:B35:F5F9:75CB:DB7B:8052 (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources state otherwise and use the term. Language is fluid. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"A military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender." That's Oxford Languages. ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Approval of bombing the hospital from Israeli doctors and rabbis

Over 90 doctors, and 45 rabbis published letters approving of the destruction of hospitals like al-Shifa before the siege began. Background.

• Jonathan Ofir, Israeli rabbis tell Netanyahu that Israel has a right to bomb Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza,' Mondoweiss 31 October 2023
• Tali Shapiro Jonathan Ofir, Israeli doctors urge the bombing of Gaza hospitals, Mondoweiss 5 November 2023

Nishidani (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Subheading rename for "Israeli claims regarding the hospital"?

There is currently a subsection "Israeli claims regarding the hospital", but the majority of the content consists of quotes taken from mostly from Al Jazeera with third party observers criticizing Israeli claims. Does anyone have any suggestions of how we can rename this section so that it better reflects the current content?

Another possibility would be to actually fill the body of the subsection with all of the Israeli claims and then maybe create another section with criticisms of the claims? Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I just renamed it to "Israel's claims and third party criticisms" to better reflect the content. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I changed it to "Israel's claims". Reason is because I found an issue with the last sentence not reflecting the source. Netanyahu was talking about hostages; not tunnels. Have changed the last sentence and added new info about the hostage body that was found near the hospital.

Netanyahu stated in an interview with CBS that the Israeli government had "strong indications” that hostages were in al-Shifa, which was one of the reasons they entered the hospital, adding that "I think the less I say about it, the better." On November 16, it was reported that the body of Yehudit Weiss, a 65-year old woman who was captured from Be’eri kibbutz was found near the hospital. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

POV?

Why is the POV tag in the article? Parham wiki (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Because BilledMammal thinks the title is inappropriate. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 20:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Trilletrollet: Thank you Parham wiki (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good reason. Is the requested move supposed to be the NPOV dispute discussion? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Throwing toys out of the pram, pay no attention. Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I never claimed that it was a good reason lol. But yes, the POV tag is related to the move request. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 23:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It's broader than that; it's because our use of "siege" in Wikivoice doesn't align with reliable sources, who prefer to attribute, and thus results in us taking a partisan stance. This includes the title, but I added the tag because of the use in the body. BilledMammal (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

And tagged the entire article because? Selfstudier (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Because it is used throughout the article. BilledMammal (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Sourced? Selfstudier (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

But undue, because most reliable sources don't say this was a siege, and the majority of those that mention the claim that it was attribute it. I'm not sure why you want to re-debate this; we've both established our positions, and it doesn't help to need to repeat them. BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You have to prove that assertion and judging by the current state of the RM, it seems not to be the case. Selfstudier (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I came here to request a POV tag on the article, which I apparently missed.

Yes, this article is quite biased. It's not explaining the reasons very well for the siege, and is only talking about criticisms, even using several week old comments about the situation before the siege even began. I don't know how else to explain other than this article is very much only catering to the Palestinian side. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It talks about the Israeli aims in the lede... LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I have added one additional Israeli aim to the lead: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that there were "strong indications” that hostages were in al-Shifa. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Is article necessary? Maybe merge into Siege of Gaza City?

Real question here: Do we actually need this article? It is part of the Siege of Gaza City. In fact, in readable prose size, it is double the size of the parent article (2,644 words to 1,331 words). Last year, probably one of the most significant and talked about battles was the Siege of Mariupol. More specifically, the siege of the Azovstal steel plant during the overall siege. The steel plant siege does not have a stand-alone article as it was one of the main events during the siege of Mariupol. That said, it does have a very large section in the overall Siege of Mariupol article.

Given this split-off article is actually twice the size of the siege article, wouldn’t it make sense to merge this split-off article into the siege article to build a larger/better article? Just based on how events occurred last year with a fairly similar parent siege (both Mariupol and Gaza City have tens of thousands of media articles) as well as a fairly similar siege-in-a-siege (Steel plant & hospital have thousands of media articles). Also, the siege of Mariupol has just under 10k readable prose size, so merging these would have no consequences in terms of size issues.

Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The real deal is that, recent news coverage began focusing about the hospital, especially after the discovery of the tunnel. Maybe write an summary on the parent article. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 09:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you getting confused with the alleged tunnel at Rantisi hospital? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

No, this tunnel on the northern perimeter of the Al-Shifa complex. (It's a live coverage article, title "The Israeli Army escorts Times journalists to Al-Shifa, a focus of its invasion." The url may change.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 11:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a picture of the "operational tunnel shaft" here. Volker Türk says an independent investigation is required. Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The NYT journalists photographed a "stone and concrete shaft". Can't tell if that's the same one from a different angle. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess will have to wait and see whether it's another round of: Is it a tunnel? Is it a basement? No! It's a hospital adjacent water tank/utility that's now destroyed. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It's been extremely widely discussed, so I can't see why it wouldn't have standalone notability. The same could absolutely also be said for the material on the siege of the steel works in Mariupol. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. NYT says "the fate of its war has become largely entwined with the fate of the territory’s largest hospital." and "The early-morning raid was seen by both sides as a watershed moment in the conflict, capable of shaping the pace and extent of the war". Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Duplication in lead

Para 1 Israeli hostages' bodies have been reportedly found in the hospital's area

Para 2 On 16 November, the IDF said it recovered the body of a hostage from a structure near the hospital.

The IDF also found another body of a hostage in a building nearby. Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess that the statement be written as As of 17 November, 2 Israeli hostages' bodies have been reportedly found in the hospital's area. and removing statements in the second paragraph Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 16:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

No. In the vicinity of the hospital is one thing (what does 'nearby' mean- next door or a buildin or two blocks or more from the hospital?) That is, not in the hospital, or its 'area' (whatever that means) but outside of its confines.20:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Nishidani (talk)

Command center?

The lead says "On 15 November Israeli forces entered the hospital, with the Israeli military saying it discovered a Hamas command centre and weapons cache inside." Afaik, there is no evidence of a command center, no hostages were found in the hospital, the tunnels have yet to be found and most importantly there is zero evidence that the hospital was "used for a military purpose that is "harmful to the enemy"" meaning that there is no valid exception to the rules governing safety and protection of hospitals. Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

According to Israel they have found a tunnel entrance and shown it to reporters - although they have yet to enter due to fear of booby traps. See these two sources from the article; New York Times and AP, as well as this New York Times article on the visit of their reporters to the entrance. BilledMammal (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

We already discussed that in the section above. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Then I'm confused why you said "tunnels have yet to be found" if you were aware that Israel claims a tunnel entrance has been found; until reliable and independent sources can categorically state that this is or isn't a tunnel all we can say is that Israel claims a tunnel entrance has been found, but reliable sources have as of yet been unable to verify it. BilledMammal (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Because no tunnels have been found. IDF says that a tunnel entrance has been found. But this is only one claim yet to be proven, nearly every claim made by Israel in advance of all this has yet to be demonstrated. Bowen: Ceasefire demands will grow without proof of Hamas HQ at Al-Shifa and Israel shows photos of weapons and a tunnel shaft at Gaza's Al-Shifa hospital as search for Hamas command center continues Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

But this is only one claim yet to be proven And it has yet to be disproved. Reliable sources aren't saying that this claim is false, just as they aren't saying it is true; we can't do any differently. In time, the facts will emerge; until then we can't say "tunnels have been found" or "tunnels have yet to be found". BilledMammal (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The claim was made that there was a network of tunnels not that there was an alleged entrance to a network of tunnels. In any case, the tunnels are not the main issue, see the section heading and the refs I just provided. Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at your sources and your claim no evidence of a command center, I don't believe they are backed by the sources. The BBC article - an opinion piece - says that Bowen doesn't find the evidence produced so far convincing, not that it doesn't exist, and further comments that such evidence may yet be found and produced, noting that it is a large site that will take time to fully search. The CBS article, as far as I can tell, makes no comment on the evidence or lack thereof. BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The burden lies with Israel to prove its claims and until now, not even close. Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Given the quantity of disinformation circulating, esp. by the IDF which has a sophisticated centre for spinning the narrative - (normal. controlling public perceptions is what all states aspire to do in wartime)- restraint must be exercised with breaking news based on the army's media showcasing. What is startling absent in many mainstream reports is the fact that al Shifa as we have was largely restructured by the Israelis during the occupation, that throughout the media campaign hysteria about tunnels, no mention was made of the fact that in Israel as in this hospital, underground structures and tunnels, were there before Hamas. Hamas took evidently a tip from the Israeli practice, but when their imitations were branded as 'terror tunnels'. From our article on al Shifa

The (Israeli= architects also designed and built a large array of underground infrastructure, which the IDF later pointed to as part of the underground Hamas command in 2014 and in the 2023 Israel-Hamas war.[22][11][8][23] In particular, in 1983, the Israelis built "a secure underground operating room and tunnel network" beneath Building 2 of the hospital.

Conricus's theatrical tour apparently doesn't tell us whether the 'command centre' and its tunnels was that built by Israel in the 1980s or an extension by Hamas. Generally reportage tends to be pitched in outrage, as a scandal, were some infrastructure of this type to exist. Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I've gone and removed much of that; the sources that support that claim are few and low quality, while most of the sources provided only supported the claim that a basement was constructed - a basement that Israel claimed Hamas appropriated to store weapons. BilledMammal (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

In a recent article from ABC News it states that U.S. intelligence shows Hamas was using the complex to shield a key command center and carry out its military activities. implying that Israel isn't the only one here. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 15:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

And when pressed to show their evidence, US will not share intel on Hamas and Al Shifa hospital - White House. Yea, right. The same WH that has happily parroted everything Israel says since the getgo.

Although Blinken is more cautious in this Q&A. Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

From the Reuters article, the reason the US won’t share intel is "because some of those same channels are being used to monitor the status of hostages.” Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

IDF evidence so far falls well short of al-Shifa hospital being Hamas HQ <- The real reason. Selfstudier (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Everyone knows Hamas has its military infrastructures, underground, much like the Churchill War Rooms in central London. They have to, in pure military terms, since it would be instantaneously fatal for any such infrastructure to be built in clear sight of passing Israeli bombers. That underground structures beneath hospitals may have served in that capacity is quite possible (though in terms of the moves in military chesswork - it would be highly probable that the prime targets for the inevitable carpet bombing of Gaza city would have relocated south, near a permeable border, around Khan Younis, unless of course this they aspired to be taken out quickly in the predictable suicidal policy they adopted), but not proven. The public 'evidence' so far, is laughable, so the point is not proof, but persuading the global public that there was really no other viable military option available to destroying hospitals (and universities etc). US military intelligence is not sufficiently independent of input and share 'information' from its colleagues in Israel to be neutral. Nothing has been 'shown', at least to the public. And since a lot of the images and information privately shown to Biden, Blinken et al., did not support the spin put on them, we should exercise caution. Ascertained facts shouyld be our priority, not detailed coverage of guided promos showing things like several kalashnikovs and a hamper of dates some metres underground as proof that a hospital, not its basement, was a command centre. There is a huge histrorical literature on how wars are also fought by forging propaganda, so scrupulous encyclopedic editing should not be shovelling in breaknews announcements from any party to the dispute, including Hamas's claim of damage to Israeli military vehicles.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand the topic or purpose of this discussion. The portion of the lead quoted above says IDF says they discovered Hamas military stuff in the hospital. They do say that, right? So why are we talking about the strength of the evidence or lack thereof? It's not like the lead says: "The IDF found evidence of military use of the hospital." --Orgullomoore (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Describe any Israeli claim pre siege that has been proven. In particular, as it says in the title of this section, Command centre? That help with the struggle? Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, because I still don't understand if this thread is proposing a change to the article or merely commenting on the strength of the evidence, or meant to serve some other purpose. --Orgullomoore (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I have been changing the article appropriately, like you just did. So it seems to be having the desired effect. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Scratching my head. All right, then. Let me know if I can be of further assistance in improving the article. --Orgullomoore (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2023

In the "Background" Section, please change the incorrect sentence

The IDF requested the again from all civilians in Northern Gaza and specifically Al-Shifa hospital to evacuate on 9 November.

to

The IDF again requested all civilians in Northern Gaza and specifically Al-Shifa hospital to evacuate on 9 November. AmbitiousAmphibian (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It has been fixed by Nishidani. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 23:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel spreading misinformation regarding the hospital

https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/truth-or-fake/20231115-video-of-nurse-denouncing-hamas-occupation-of-al-shifa-hospital-in-gaza-is-fake Madooo12 (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't say who made it. Selfstudier (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Could be added to the article without mentioning who made it. A video circulating on social media claiming... Was identified as likely to be fake by France 24 due to...

Very relevant to the topic. Madooo12 (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It's relevant information from a reliable source. This type of information is common on Wikipedia.

They speak about her non-Arabic accent, her stethoscope color, the fake bomb sounds and so on. Madooo12 (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel and Hamas are belligerents, and in armed conflicts misinformation is common. I urge skepticism of any biased sources--i.e. the Israeli government and IDF, Hamas and its ministries, Al Jazeera (Qatar-owned state media), claims by world leaders who have shown a preference for one side and make claims without evidence, etc. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Even France's public broadcaster France 24 (a source i wouldn't expect to have a pro Palestine bias) said the nurse video is definitively a fabricated. But it is slightly unclear who talked it. Irtapil (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Implication of citing US Officials next to conflicting claims

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

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

Seriously, this should not be controversial. Citing the US like this is deeply, deeply problematic; not just here but across all the articles on these latest hostilities. How can this problem be addressed? Are there any guidelines? Nandofan (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I share Nandofan's concerns regarding the citation of US officials in contexts involving IDF, Hamas, and other parties. Quoting them as impartial sources could mislead readers. 14.201.38.122 (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

They are usually attributed for what they say. Selfstudier (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier its not a perfect analogy by any means but imagine if Chinese official statements were quoted instead? A powerful third party to the conflict. Far away. An emergent super power. It would already appear out of place, right? But now add to that a western-centric bias in English reading consumers of Wikipedia articles, and the US' dedicated alliance and direct support of Israel in this very conflict, and it should be clear that it's even more inappropriate. If naturally implies their opinion carries weight in assessing the conflicting claims in favor of the Israeli position. It would be another matter if they indicated skepticism from US officials (an ally doubting your narrative is significant) but otherwise it's like citing Belarus to affirm Russian claims in Ukraine or something; not as part of an exhaustive collection of international responses (which would be fine) but as part of the primary claims from directly involved parties on the ground such as journalists, human rights groups, doctors, Israel/Hamas etc. Nandofan (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Have any high-ranking Chinese officials opined on this? If yes I see no problems with adding their positions with respect to these events to the article, it wouldn't be out of place. Alaexis_¿question? 07:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I bring that up not because I want Chinese opinions inserted but to argue that it would also not be appropriate. There's no reason to think China would know better and even less to think the US would be neutral. Adding Chinese or US opinion would both be problematic unless it was being collected in a section as part of a somewhat exhaustive list of various international reactions: or if it was at-least heavily contextualized with regards to the Israeli/US alliance which could be problematic in its own right. It's probably better to just avoid citing them. Nandofan (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps statements such as these should accompany mention of the US' nominal or firm approval of Israeli claims on the matter.

Q: So did you have any assets inside Gaza, intelligence (inaudible)...

MS. SINGH: We have no assets or boots on the ground in Gaza.

[...]

Q: So you're confirming that you have no assets on the ground or assets entering to these hospitals to basically confirm the information you're sharing with us?

MS. SINGH: I will say it again: We have no boots on the ground in Gaza.

- Nandofan (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

How seriously should we take US intelligence claims on Gaza? is one source attempting to cover this aspect, "Questions have arisen over repeated US intelligence claims over Israel's war on Gaza that have been either been disproven, lacked evidence, or been retracted by White House officials." Selfstudier (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

IDF evidence of tunnels

The article current states that "no evidence of tunnels" has been found or presented by the IDF. This should be updated as they have now released evidence they claim shows tunnel entrances within the hospital grounds. 217.155.4.206 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Alaexis_¿question? 13:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Relying of Al-Jazeera and WP:WEIGHT

The Alleged military use section now includes the opinions of Marwan Bishara, Mouin Rabbani and Jeremy Scahill, all sourced to Al-Jazeera. The biases of Al-Jazeera are well known, but even if we were to disregard them, there is no reason to use just source for nearly all commentary in this section. I suggest to combine there three positions and trim them down, as well as adding other views, in line with WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 13:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The material is attributed to all three so it is as well sourced to them and all three are notable in their own right, although Marwan Bishara works for AJ so that could certainly be trimmed or even cut. I do have other sources I want to add concerning the dodgy evidence provided to date by Israel eg Information missteps have led to questions about Israel’s credibility Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The credibility of Israel's allegations have also been called into question by France 24's analyst Wassim Nasr. He says a few things of note:

• The images of guns released by Israel is consistent what one would expect from either the "security of the hospital" or from "Hamas fighters who were injured and being treated in the hospital" or from "Hamas police station, as we know there is a police station for Hamas in the hospital since 2014."
• The images released by Israel show "nothing that gets even close to a command and control center".
• Regarding Israel's pre-siege images and animations of a Hamas command center under the hospital: "We don't have any proof of this facility being real." VR _talk 06:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

trapping 15,000 people

Neither of the sources in the lead support the 15,000 figure. The new arab later in the article does attributing it to Muhammad Abu Salmiya. I don't think we should be saying this in the wikipedia voice.©Geni (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

WHO have released some numbers. "2500 internally displaced people" and "There are 25 health workers and 291 patients remaining in Al-Shifa"

https://www.who.int/news/item/18-11-2023-who-leads-very-high-risk-joint-humanitarian-mission-to-al-shifa-hospital-in-gaza

©Geni (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Undue quote in lead

A long quote has been added into the lead from the ultra reliable IDF which is not only undue but does not even follow on from the BBC statement, so it reads:

"A BBC analysis found that the IDF had edited the video showing the arms found in the hospital. to which IDF responded they "don't permit people to enter rooms filled with grenades and live explosives. The IDF forces can handle that, but international media cannot. When they step into a room, it has to be safe. We clarified things, showed them. Everything is thoroughly recorded with soldiers' cameras - it's all real and trustworthy." Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

2 Questions, shouldn't this be inserted in the body first? I realize the BBC claim and the refutation about editing wasn't in the body. I might be wrong though, since I checked quickly.

As for the sentence, we can shorten it to something like "The IDF responded that they had to make the room safe and that the footage is real and trustworthy".

MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

There are other sources saying this besides the BBC , they (eg https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/information-missteps-led-questions-israels-credibility-rcna125723) will need to be added as well so as to clarify that the IDF claims lack credibility. Selfstudier (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no, let's not have undue POV quotes from the IDF in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2023

There's some mistakes I would like to correct regarding and some updates on today's findings. Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mohammed Al-Keesh: Use the template {{td}} like this: {{td | What the article currently says | What you want the article to say}}

which will render

−

What the article currently says

+

What you want the article to say

to clearly communicate the change(s) you are proposing.--Orgullomoore (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Security Camera Footage

Would it be noteworthy to point out that the tending of injured combatants & hostages does not remove the protections afforded to a hospital under IHL? The current text in the article does not dispute this, for the record, but the implicit throughline with all the 'evidence' and reporting has been "Was Israel justified in sieging a hospital?" 173.70.121.247 (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

We can't know for sure that the hostages seen in the hospital were injured, look at the guy in shorts in this video. Alaexis_¿question? 10:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Also why were armed terrorists pushing hostages on stretchers, rather than doctors? Drsmoo (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

We can't know for sure that they were even hostages... Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 November 2023

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: not moved. Not necessarily WP:SNOW but the opposes are overwhelming. My talk page is open for questions regarding this closure. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Al-Shifa Hospital siege → ? – When reliable sources are discussing the claim that this hospital is under siege they generally attribute this claim outside of headlines - which, per WP:HEADLINES, are not reliable and cannot be used as the basis for an article. As such, our current position of putting this claim in Wikivoice is an WP:NPOV violation, and means we are taking a partisan position that is not backed by reliable sources.

For example, we have two sources in the lede to support the claim Al-Shifa Hospital ... is under siege, the Washington Post and the Guardian. The former's only mention of a siege outside of the headline is On Friday, at least six hospitals in Gaza City reported being under siege or close to heavy urban combat, while the latter's is An Israeli officer, Colonel Moshe Tetro, confirmed to Reuters that there were clashes outside the hospital but denied that al-Shifa was under siege or direct attack. Neither of these are claims from either source that the hospital is under siege.

Reviewing every other sources in the article, only two agencies - out of dozens - make the claim in their own voice that the hospital is under siege; Al Jazeera and The New Arab. Most either don't use the word "siege" in the body or attribute it; for example, Reuters attributes it to Ashraf Al-Qidra, who represents the health ministry in Hamas-controlled Gaza and CNN did similar, attributing it to A senior official at the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza. Egypt Today attributes it to Minister of Health Mai Al-Kaila, and Newsweek attributes it to Health officials in Gaza.

Others, like the Hill, only mention the claim that the hospital is under siege in the context of Israeli denials of that claim.

I'm not certain what the best title for this article would be - perhaps Al-Shifa Hospital conflict - but most would be better and more compliant with our core policies than the current title. BilledMammal (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a waste of time, the siege just ended.Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

We still need an NPOV-compliant name for the article. BilledMammal (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Surround a hospital with tanks and soldiers, cut off the electricity, don't let anyone in or out, etc etc, sounds like a siege to me. Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

According to Israel, they are letting people out. However, it is not our place to decide who is correct here; all we can do is follow the sources, and the sources indicate that this is a claim that we should attribute, not a fact that we can put in Wikivoice. BilledMammal (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

According to the news, people who leave get shot. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

According to Hamas officials; that article attributes all claims. It's not certain what is going on there; Hamas says the hospital is under siege, Israel says it is not - and most reliable sources are saying "we don't know" and attributing. BilledMammal (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

According to doctors. Stop speaking about the people of Gaza as if they are monolithically obeisent to their political overlords. It's extremely distasteful. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at how sources describe it, perhaps Al-Shifa Hospital clashes? Reliable sources have consistently said in their own voice that there has been fighting in the vicinity of the hospital, often using the word "clashes". BilledMammal (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-11-15/siege-by-israeli-army-forces-excavation-of-mass-grave-in-gazas-main-hospital.html Siege it is. Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-raids-gazas-al-shifa-hospital-2023-11-15/ And reuters, you can take the tags off now. Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said, some sources put it in their own voice; however, reviewing the sources currently within the article (ie, no chance that I have cherry picked them, as I added none of those sources) we see that most attribute it. As such, we must do the same; for us to put it in Wikivoice is has to be the majority position, and it is not. BilledMammal (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

When an army approaches a building complex or town or city, surrounds it, and fighting occurs between the surrounders and surrounded, in no history book I am familiar with is such an event described as 'clashes' when siege is the default technical term. The Romans and Crusaders laid siege to Jerusalem, and yes, there was a clash of arms, but we don't write of 'Clashes in Jerusalem, 70CE', except if we want to stir a laugh or mock the topic.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not our place to decide that. We have to follow reliable sources, and reliable sources generally prefer to attribute the claim that the hospital is under siege; as such, we cannot say it is under siege in Wikivoice. If you don't believe "clashes" is appropriate then I encourage you to propose alternatives - but per WP:NPOV, "siege" is inappropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

And https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/15/israels-raid-on-al-shifa-hospital-heres-what-you-should-know AJ . As I said, this is just a waste of time, it is obviously a siege and RS are calling it that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I already said Al Jazeera uses it; they are one of the two sources currently in the article that does so. I've never disputed that some RS are calling it that; the issue is that most are attributing it, and when most reliable sources choose to attribute a claim we cannot do otherwise. BilledMammal (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

And the IDF deny it is a siege, so it clearly is. Selfstudier (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's NYT "Gaza City’s hospitals were increasingly under siege on Friday, with hundreds of seriously ill and wounded patients and thousands of displaced people stranded on hospital grounds as intense, close-quarters combat between Israeli troops and Hamas fighters raged around them."

Take off the tag now? Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

BBC live at 3:48 "How many inside beseiged Al-Shifa? Thousands of patients and civilians are believed to be sheltering at Gaza's Al-Shifa hospital, which has come under siege from Israeli forces." Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no doubt you can produce dozens more sources that put "siege" in their own voice, just as I can produce dozens more sources that attribute "siege". However, it wouldn't be helpful to do so, because they would be cherry picked; that's why I reviewed the existing sources in the article to avoid that issue, and when I did so found that they consistently attributed - even the sources that were supposed to support the claim that the hospital was under siege. BilledMammal (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll put them in the article if you like, then you can shut this down and stop wasting everyone's time. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

When I reviewed the sources in the article they were an unbiased sample; editors weren't adding sources or excluding sources on the basis of them using or attributing siege.

What you propose doing here - adding sources that use siege, because they use siege - will result in a biased sample, and so will not provide any evidence for the claim that reliable sources generally don't attribute the claim that this is a siege. Right now, the evidence we have is that siege needs to be attributed; cherry picking sources doesn't change that. BilledMammal (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I am quite happy to wait for other editors to advise you on a correct course of action. Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

One other thing to note; so far we have only considered sources that either use or attribute "siege". We haven't considered the vast majority of sources that decline to do either - however, they serve as additional evidence that this name is WP:UNDUE. BilledMammal (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Nah. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, now I can see that you have been editing the article to support the claim made in this RM that it is clashes and not a siege even when there are sources that say siege. Not cool. Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

My edit was to align the article with the sources used in the article; I removed no sources, added no sources, and in my move proposal referred to the former version of the article, not the version with my edits. In line with WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS, please strike or remove your comment. BilledMammal (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

First off this article has been called siege since the outset, and it is yourself trying to change that now that the siege is actually over (and refs which describe it as being over). In the infobox it said siege previously, you changed it to clashes to match up with this RM. OK, I didn't notice that and had to self revert it back to clashes (to avoid breaking 1R not because it was wrong) and added a reference for it (I also added refs for the dates of the start and end of the siege as well, referring to the siege as a siege). So I think it is pretty clear what is going on here. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I oppose using Al Jazeera as a source for this article, as they are a state-owned Qatari government media conglomerate that has not been neutral in its coverage of the conflict. For an NPOV-compliant title, I would go with Al-Shifa Conflict/Clashes (2023) (pick either conflict or clashes). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd favour something like Al-Shifa Hospital during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. It would cover wider aspects of the hospital, whether it is, or remains, besieged/cut off/occupied/overrun. Sionk (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

There is already Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike on 3 November in the leadup to the siege and there is a main article Al-Shifa hospital. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit odd to have a lengthy article about a single missile strike. I would have thought the ambulance hit would be combined in one article about the hospital. No doubt it will be, when we look back on these events with some distance, rather than report them 'live' on Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This merge/expansion makes sense to me; I would support it. BilledMammal (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: This page was aptly named from the get-go, based on the wide array of sources that have very clearly described the situation as a siege, alongside it descriptively obviously being one. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. It's described as a siege by many reliable sources, and it fits the definition. A hospital (sheltering thousands of innocent civilians btw) is being surrounded and invaded by a hostile army. Calling it "clashes" would not only be completely inaccurate, but also incredibly heartless. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. It was never a siege. People could always leave. Israel provided alternatives to all legitimate reasons to stay there. TaBaZzz (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel provided alternatives to all legitimate reasons to stay there - curious to know if you have a source for that: is there some sort of list of 'legitimate reasons' and 'alternatives' to peruse? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"people could always leave" yes very easy for the old, disabled, and infants to move through areas where Israel would probably consider them active combatants. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Ill conceived RM that shows a poor understanding of the situation. Apart from the half dozen sources above explicitly calling the event a siege, as well as delineating its start and end dates, here's another from the FT "The Israeli raid was the climax of a days-long siege of al-Shifa that had triggered widespread fears over the fate of patients in the facility" Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, four FT sources discuss Al-Shifa and the claim it is a siege; the source you presented, and these three: one, two, three.

Of the four, three attribute. As I said above, cherry picking sources is not helpful. BilledMammal (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The one I gave is the most up to date. Selfstudier (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Support: This entire article is ridiculously partisan and even the naming of the article is a case of OR. Most reputable news sources are using terms such as "operation," "raid" and "conflict." I think any of these terms would do. The majority of the article does not even focus on the "siege"-like aspects of the conflict and is instead discussing various clashes and strikes. Dazzling4 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I have shown seven top drawer RS that use siege and it wasn't even hard to do. Siege is very specific, not some throwaway word covering a host of sins. Selfstudier (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose if reliable sources are describing it as a siege, who are we to question? Conflict and clashes are both way to vague, and if it is indeed a terrorist stronghold as Israel purports, siege is a more descriptive word. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. It is extraordinary that one can propose a name change, without proposing an alternative. Siege is a neutral descriptor for a military operation of this kind. To scrape the barrel, I consulted the Oxford Learner's dictionary which gave the following banal example of neutral usage:-

The police placed the city centre under a virtual state of siege (= it was hard to get in or out).

When multiple RS of quality use it, we don't use attribution, a specious demand.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani: When multiple RS of quality use it, we don't use attribution - even when a great number of quality reliable sources do use attribution? BilledMammal (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

They attribute someone calling it a siege, they don't attribute when they are themselves calling it a siege. Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Took the words out of my gob, you bloody thief! This whole quibble is a lexical farce. I'd be the first, merely from philological scruple, to object were I to sense any POV equivocation here. Nishidani (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

When they choose to attribute rather than put it in their own voice they are saying that this is a disputed claim that they aren't willing to take as fact without further evidence. The fact that exceptions exist - perhaps a minority of editors or writers in that newsroom disagree with that position - doesn't change that.

To consider a different example; if a few articles from reliable sources say that weapons were found in Al-Shifa, but the majority of articles attribute that claim to Israel, would you be arguing that we should say, in Wikivoice, that weapons were found in Al-Shifa? I hope not. BilledMammal (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Are there any articles that don't attribute it to Israel? (including the two Qurans, a string of prayer beads and a box of dates). Point me to them so I may write their editors. Selfstudier (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I've seen a couple, but I didn't save them as I have no intention of using them as to do so would be WP:UNDUE. However, that misses the point; you clearly, and correctly, wouldn't accept using those sources to require us to put "weapons were found in Al-Shifa" in Wikivoice - you should apply the same standard here. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

If there were top drawer sourcing (some number more than one, obviously) saying that in their own voice, I would have to assume they had fact checked and were happy with what they were saying. Selfstudier (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment So now the anti siege editors are going around knocking out siege refs in the article, someone took out Reuters, so here again, right up to date, Reuters 15 November "The operation followed a days-long siege that caused global alarm over the fate of thousands of civilians trapped inside." Selfstudier (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment NYT again "Even before the hospital closed, critically ill patients were being sent home through violent streets or transferred to Al-Shifa, a nearby hospital that is under siege by Israeli forces. Selfstudier (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I just checked and it is absolutely uncontroversial in mainstream European newspapers to speak of 'siege' (assedio in La Stampa, and Corriere della Sera, siège in Le Monde etc.) Numerous Rundschau publications use it (Belagerung). I could well imagine someone in Israel's Social Media Unit might prefer that military language be avoided when speaking of IDF operations, but seriously . . .Nishidani (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

And El Pias (English) "The siege to which Israeli forces have subjected Gaza’s main hospital since last Friday has forced Palestinians to dig a mass grave in the Al Shifa health complex......

Israel has maintained a military siege of the hospital compound, where it considers one of the main command posts of the Hamas militias is hidden." which also gives the start date. Selfstudier (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Especially in the absence of a concrete proposed alternative. Just because IDF says it's not a siege doesn't mean it's not a siege. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. It has unambiguously been described as a siege by a number of reliable sources, and the arguments in favour of changing the title have not convinced me otherwise. XTheBedrockX (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Reuters calls it a seige. Financial Times calls it a seige. In fact most of the reliable sources published following the event seem to call it a seige in their own voice, as far as I can see. I'm not sure what we're doing here. Newimpartial (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  See my reply to Selfstudier above; Financial Times, at least, attributes in a majority of their articles on the topic, and uses their own voice only in a minority. BilledMammal (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  So the financial times has both called it a siege in its own voice as well as relayed that others have called it a siege? Got it. nableezy - 08:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: this has reached WP:SNOW territory, and I think it would make since for either an impartial editor or @BilledMammal to close this out as there is a very clear consensus. The fact that some editors are removing reliable sources which describe it as a siege suggests this discussion is doing more harm than good. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Many well-cited sources call it this. Especially considering the proposal doesn't even offer an alternative, I don't see the point of this move. Fuchsia 'tude (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - the current title is fine.Irtapil (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose reliable sources call it a siege, and the argument used for the various massacre articles is that reliable sources call them massacres. You cant support one title based on the sources and then ignore the sources for another article. Or you can, but that would be POV-pushing and tendentious editing. As far as the claim only two sources use such language in their voice Financial Times, Reuters, AJE, el Pais and I stopped counting when I doubled the original claim. nableezy - 18:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  If the majority of reliable sources attribute the claim that they were massacres rather than saying it in their own voice then we need to move those articles as well; I encourage you to open a move request.

  As far as the claim only two sources use such language in their voice. You misunderstand. The two sources was from a review of sources in the article at the time, in order to get an unbiased sampling of sources and avoid cherrypicking. BilledMammal (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  But here you are basing the majority of reliable sources on a minority of sources. Wikipedia articles arent titled off of the sources that are in an article at the time, and your method of sampling is faulty as a Wikipedia article is a. not complete, and b. not reliable anyway. You cannot claim that the majority of sources attribute something based on sourcing that is currently in an article. You also cant edit to that effect, claiming something is usually attributed based on nothing but fuzzy math. nableezy - 07:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  your method of sampling is faulty as a Wikipedia article is a. not complete, and b. not reliable anyway That doesn't explain why the sampling is faulty; for a: by definition, a sample is a subset, not a complete set, and for b: we're not using the article, only its sources.

  For the purposes of determining whether the majority attribute or use their own voice it's a random and unbiased selection of sources; in other words, a good sample. BilledMammal (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Who said a Wikipedia article was unbiased? nableezy - 08:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nanleezy. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 06:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – the central argument of this has been proven wrong (see Nableezy and others above providing RS that call it a siege in their own voice). I might have been more tempted to support a move if an good alternative title had been suggested/provided. – GnocchiFan (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  @GnocchiFan: It was never disputed that some sources called this a seige in their own voice; the issue is that the majority that even mentioned the claim that this was a siege chose to attribute it, rather than say it in their own voice.

  As for alternatives, above I suggested Al-Shifa Hospital clashes, but I am now wondering if Occupation of Al-Shifa Hospital would be better - I suspect if this doesn't result in a move I will be proposing a move to such a title in a week or so anyway, because regardless of whether the initial stage was a siege, the majority of the article is now focused on the occupation and thus the current title is inaccurate. BilledMammal (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  You are against consensus on pretty much all of this, plenty of these oppose are fine with title as is, and proposing another requested move would not be constructive. I would take the initiative to self-close this request, especially if you plan on opening up yet another requested move "if this doesn't result in a move" (it won't). LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Probably time to say the siege is over

The hospital is now 600 meters behind the front lines and while the IDF remains jumpy they appear to have at will access to the entire campus without being shot at. While its not impossible there there a few tunnel holdouts in a tunnel somewhere there is no evidence of such and they would not strictly be in the hospital.©Geni (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

FT says "The Israeli raid [on the 15th] was the climax of a days-long siege of al-Shifa that had triggered widespread fears over the fate of patients in the facility." and

Straits Times "Israeli troops entered Gaza’s biggest hospital on Wednesday, following a days-long siege.." and there are others similar so it seems logical to say that the siege terminated with the raid, with subsequent events being the aftermath. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't have FT access but that seems the more solid of the two. Suggest describing the siege as taking place in the first half of November 2023 which gives us some wriggle room on dates.©Geni (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources seem clear that the siege began on 11 and ended on 15, that's what I amended the infobox to read just before you replied here. Is there a need for "wriggle room"? Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I was more talking the opening sentence. The wriggle room is needed to cover loose vs close siege and any question marks over the exact day when it ended (for example when Israel had enough control that the evacuation could be agreed).©Geni (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, Ok, yes, the lead needs a bit of work, the tenses are wrong as well. Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Director may have been arrested

AFP are reporting that Khalid Abu Samra (aparently a department head) is saying that Mohammad Abu Salmiya (the hospital director) has been arrested. IDF are only saying they are looking into it. we can probably afford to wait a bit on this one.©Geni (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking that now the siege is concluded, everything else is only going to be this drip feed of stuff about tunnels and whether it is a command centre, etc etc and which is getting duplicated in a haphazard way in this article and the main hospital article. So I have split out what we are calling "Alleged military use" into Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital a separate article to deal only with that and to which this article and the main article can refer to with summary.

Atm, just a copy paste so needs a lead and build out. Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Military use section is incredibly POV

It egregiously adds irrelevant content about Israel bringing aid and supplies to the hospital. This is then tied to the next paragraph about the discovery of weapons. This is seemingly to synthesize a conspiracy out of thin air.

The section is also full of cherry picked quotes from sources described on the reliable sources noticeboard as both biased and partisan. The section should stick to describing events and facts and not try to influence the reader by cherry picking quotes. However, since my edit has already been reverted, I will balance the section with more neutral quoting at present. Drsmoo (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You want to remove the only Arab source and retain a bunch of Israeli ones, and claim it is in the name of reducing bias? A partisan source is still a reliable one, and that source is listed as generally reliable, and only that some editors consider it biased. nableezy - 03:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue is the inclusion of a plethora of one-sided commentary, not the nationality of the authors (I have no idea of their nationality). Do not make that insinuation again. Drsmoo (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t make any insinuation and I said about the source being Arab. You are removing the sole Arab based outlet while retaining many Israeli ones. NPOV does not mean only including views whose bias you approve. nableezy - 04:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Which Israeli commentary are you referring to? Drsmoo (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

For example, this. nableezy - 04:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Huh? That was added after you reverted my edit and had already falsely claimed that I “want to remove the only Arab source and retain a bunch of Israeli ones”. So, what Israeli commentary were you referring to when you wrote that? The section is POV due to it being inundated with biased opinion and commentary. The section would benefit from all commentary being removed, but if that’s not to be the it will have to be balanced. Drsmoo (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I dont believe my original coment said anything about "commentary", making that a curious thing to accuse me of saying. I said removing an Arab based outlet while retaining Israeli ones. You selectively removed material cited to al-Jazeera while retaining the Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Haaretz. nableezy - 17:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed undue biased commentary from multiple sources, as you know, Al Jazeera was one of them. I did not see any commentary from Israeli sources. Other sources were simply describing facts. I’m not sure why you’re conflating articles reporting facts with articles that are providing random commentary. However, all of the commentary was one sided and egregiously POV. Since the edits were reverted, I added some additional commentary to attempt to balance the POV. Drsmoo (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with the addition, but the idea that "commentary" also known as "analysis" should be removed wholesale is not one that youll find in keeping with common practice across a range of articles, and I dont think it should just be done here. nableezy - 00:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Currently AJ commentary occupies absolutely undue percentage of the section. At the very least it has to be trimmed. AJ is not the only source that has reported on this, and their biases are well-knows. Alaexis_¿question? 21:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The analysis is from the contributor, not just al-Jazeera. For example Jeremy Scahill is a source that is totally usable with or without al-Jazeera. nableezy - 00:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

propaganda campaign

Drsmoo, the sourcing is specific that Israel has conducted a propaganda campaign. Why are you misrepresenting the cited sources? nableezy - 02:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

nableezyThe Nation is partisan, per Reliable Sources, and requires attribution. You can say that the nation called it a propaganda campaign, but you certainly can't put it in Wiki voice. Drsmoo (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Its also the Intercept. Regardless, you didnt just attribute, you distorted the source in claiming it is saying something other than what it is saying. nableezy - 02:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The Intercept is also considered biased. What did I distort? Drsmoo (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Biased is not the same as unreliable. And WP:RSP has the Intercept as "generally reliable". What you distorted is that the sources say Israel has waged a propaganda war, not a media campaign. I ask that you restore the original heading to properly reflect the cited sources. nableezy - 02:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Both sources require attribution due to being partisan and biased. Their opinions can be attributed to them, but cannot be put in wiki voice. I've added that The Nation described it as propaganda. Drsmoo (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

You are just saying that. But when reliable sources make statements of fact that no source disputes then it is a fact here. To claim it is a contested viewpoint that needs attribution you need to bring a source contesting it. Do you actually even dispute Israel has waged a propaganda war here? nableezy - 03:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Lol at "statements of fact". The Nation and The Intercept should always be used with attribution because they are so biased and partisan, they should never be in wiki voice. Let alone as a subject heading, let alone in ARBPIA. If you can establish that a clear consensus of reliable sources use the word propaganda to describe Israel's media campaign (they don't), then a discussion can be had. Drsmoo (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, statements of fact as opposed to opinion. You can keep saying that they can never be used without attribution, but that is a personal view not shared by the community. I need to disprove your unproven claim? What source disputes that Israel has waged a propaganda war with regard to the claims of Shfa being a Hamas military base? Including promoting falsehoods? Do you have any source that disputes the video of the supposed nurse was propaganda? Any at all? nableezy - 03:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"You can keep saying that they can never be used without attribution, but that is a personal view not shared by the community."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources - "Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed."

Btw I see you added France24 saying the nurse video is fake, but you missed that their subsequent video on the tunnels beneath the hospital confirmed them as consistent with Hamas-built tunnels. I'm currently updating the article. Drsmoo (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Please quote the Intercept too. Also still waiting on a source disputing a propaganda campaign. nableezy - 03:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Nah, that's not how it works. You don't comb through tons of articles, find two biased/partisan sources that use a particular word, and then demand that this word must be used unless one can find other sources which also use that word preceded with a "not". Establish consensus within reliable sources for use of the term if you want to advocate something blatantly non-neutral. Drsmoo (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

So, you have no sources that dispute a propaganda campaign? Because I have several that say it flat out. And, as always, neutrality is determined by sources, not a Wikipedia editor's imagination. Ill be fixing that source misrepresentation, and Ill remind you that misrepresenting sources is a conduct issue, not a content one. nableezy - 04:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I see you've added Democracy Now, they are not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. So far all of your sources are considered biased. I do not appreciate your comments about "my imagination", when I am simply citing the Reliable Sources noticeboard. If you edit in a tendentious topic title it will be reverted.Drsmoo (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I added Muhammed Shehada, of Euro-Med Monitor. Also, your France24 bit has been added to another more appropriate section. Ill fix that later too. Also, they are not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia is likewise your imagination. No consensus on something does not mean it is not reliable, sorry. nableezy - 04:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the personal attack. The France24 assessment of Israel's media of the Hamas tunnels is certainly relevant to a section on Israel's media campaign. "No consensus on something does not mean it is not reliable, sorry." - It is, in fact, not considered reliable, or to be specific, it is considered "marginally reliable", as opposed to a green source which would be "generally reliable". One thing that is consistent is that all sources you've brought that have used the word propaganda have either been classified as "biased" or "partisan". Wikipedia strives NOT to be biased or partisan, which is why we use neutral terminology. Drsmoo (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No, that isnt what the RSP entry means. It means there was no consensus on its reliability. Not that there is consensus for it to be marginally reliable. Beyond that, the source is Muhammed Shehada. Wikipedia's NPOV actually defines itself based on the sources, and in order for you to claim "propaganda" is biased you need sourcing that disputes it. Right now there is only sourcing that supports it, so it is definitionally NPOV to call it "propaganda" in Wikipedia's voice. But if you notice, I didnt even do that, I said Israel has been accused of waging a propaganda campaign. You took that very obviously true statement of fact and distorted the cited sources to make them appear to support a claim they do not support. They do not support Israel has waged a media campaign to justify anything, they support that Israel has engaged in propaganda to distract from war crimes. nableezy - 04:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Nope, you found a term used by an extremely tiny minority of sources, all of whom are considered by most of wikipedia to be "biased" or "partisan", and tried to use their biased/partisan term as a subject heading in an ARBPIA topic. That is an NPOV violation. Drsmoo (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I will include accusation in the subject heading if that is your complaint. nableezy - 05:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Youre now synthesizing several things into one supposed topic. You are including material covering the propaganda campaign, along with material that is covered in the alleged military use section, resulting in a section that repeats material from elsewhere and meanders from point to point, all in an effort to not have a section covering the propaganda campaign. nableezy - 05:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a media campaign, only biased and partisan sources have called it a propaganda campaign. Wikipedia strives not to be a biased/partisan source, so it won't use that term as a subject heading. The material I've included is visual analysis of the Israeli media campaign. It is only not relevant if you want the section to specifically present sources from a particular point of view, which is self-evidently an NPOV violation. Drsmoo (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources you add discuss a media campaign, that is your novel synthesis and is prohibited. I’ll fix it though don’t worry. nableezy - 11:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

My two cents: yes, it's obviously propaganda. On the other hand, that's somewhat of a loaded and subjective word and the neutral thing to do is describe the statements made, summarize the positions taken, and let the reader decide if it constitutes what they call propaganda. It's obviously public statements intended to justify military action. "Propaganda" implies falsehood and twisting of the facts. That is present, in my opinion. At the same time, I prefer to convey that in as detached a manner as possible --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

But there have been unquestionably instances of falsehood and twisting facts. And either way, I did not even include as a fact that Israel has been pushing propaganda, though as you say it is obviously true, I only included it has been accused of doing so. nableezy - 05:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I think your edits were appropriate. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)