Talk:Al-Shifa Hospital siege

Draft

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

amazing how this isn't classified as a war crime on here

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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move 15 November 2023

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'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)