Jump to content

Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 49.197.224.249 (talk) at 09:24, 29 March 2024 (→‎order of death counts in stats box). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed?

There is a POV tag on this article since Nov 2023.

Is the neutrality still disputed or can the tag be removed? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the talkpage history, there has been no active POV discussion for some time. Additionally, the issues for which it was originally raised have been resolved long ago. I've removed the POV maintenance tag accordingly. It can always be re-instated if there are new NPOV concerns raised. Aeonx (talk) Aeonx (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I removed the "globalize" tag as well, since the editor who added it did so without explanation or discussion (and that editor has since been topic banned also). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be written that the racketeer was Palestinian in fact

This is a fact, only anti-Semites can say that it is an Israeli rocket and to decree it 1 The most unreliable sources regarding the war in Israel מושיקו מהאבטיחים17 (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic Architecture Analysis

Source:

https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disinformation-al-ahli-hospital


This new analysis conflicts with statements in this main section of this article such as "The consensus from various independent studies of videos, images, and eyewitness reports of the explosion, its aftermath, and the blast area suggests that an errant rocket launch from within Gaza is the most probable cause."


Also, it is interesting that the many of the analyses parroting the Israeli narrative are in the main, but analyses which clash against it are absent from it. The neutrality of this article seems rather absent.


Analyses such as that from Channel 4 and Forensic Architecture need to be given brief mentions to maintain neutrality and ensure each source gets proper weight. Formless Entity (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic Architecture's initial analysis is mentioned in the article as it has been mentioned by several media outlets (though it's that it hasn't been challenged). If this analysis is also widely reported on by reliable source, we should mention it too, probably replacing their initial findings. Alaexis¿question? 19:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norway in reactions

Should it be under Norway when it is an director of an independent non state organisation making a statement? All the other countries are statements from their government. 80.217.100.31 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Done. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick thing it is misspelled, it should be Norwegian not norwegin. 80.217.100.31 (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Done. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 49.197.224.249 (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of government level reactions in other languages that are missing in the English version here. French has Arab League, African union, EU, and UN. Spanish has a few individual countries that aren't here, and Arabic has 16 that mostly aren't here. 49.197.224.249 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic article wildly different than English article

Why is the arabic version and the english version wildly different?

The english version: "On 17 October 2023, an explosion took place in the parking lot of the courtyard of al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City during the Israel–Hamas war, resulting in a large number of fatalities and injuries among displaced Palestinians seeking shelter there." "The consensus from various independent studies of videos, images, and eyewitness reports of the explosion, its aftermath, and the blast area suggests that an errant rocket launch from within Gaza is the most probable cause. While this is not a conclusive finding, it is currently considered the likeliest explanation based on the evidence gathered in investigations"

The arabic version translated: "The Baptist Hospital massacre, also known as the Arab National Hospital massacre, is a massacre committed by the Israeli Air Force when it raided the Arab National Hospital “Al-Baptist” in the Al-Zaytoun neighborhood, south of Gaza City, in the early night hours of October 17, 2023. The raid hit Violent Israeli air strikes in the hospital courtyard, which contained dozens of wounded, as well as hundreds of displaced civilians, most of whom were women and children. The Israeli massacre caused a real disaster. It tore apart the bodies of the victims, making them scattered and burned, while the hospital turned into a pool of blood. The National Arab Baptist Hospital is one of the oldest hospitals in the Gaza Strip, and is affiliated with the Anglican Episcopal Church in Jerusalem." Isnr13 (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Arabic version is written by Arabic-speaking editors, mostly from the Middle East/North African, using MENA news sources, which usually have a significant bias when it comes to coverage of Israel and Palestine. Mooonswimmer 23:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mooonswimmer Why would Arabic speakers from MENA region be more biased - or less well informed - than English speakers from North America, Europe, and India? Most people actually in Gaza speak Arabic, if they speak a second language it's more often Hebrew than English. Arabic speakers are more likely to have an accurate understanding of the situation in Gaza. The English speaking world is getting a second or third hand version filtered through a small number of major media outlets, e.g. CNN https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/04/cnn-staff-pro-israel-bias whose own staff have complained about bias and distortion. 49.197.224.249 (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

order of death counts in stats box

Why are the death counts listed smallest to largest in the stats summary box at the top? Why is the actual body count listed after two very rough estimates? 49.197.224.249 (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last one, 471 is the actual body count. It is the most precise and probably the most reliable. That is the actual body count from the following day, and it matches local estimates based on how many people were in the area. The initial local estimate was 500, that was reported by Al Jazeera, who have numerous journalists actually in Gaza. So 471, the actual count and matches the most reliable estimates closest to the event, 471 is the most reliable number.The initial local estimate was 500, that was reported by Al Jazeera, who have numerous journalists actually in Gaza. So 471, the actual count and matches the most reliable estimates closest to the event, 471 is the most reliable number. 49.197.224.249 (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even the references for the other two numbers BOTH list 471 before the estimates they are used to support.
https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231018-what-we-know-about-the-deadly-blast-at-gaza-city-s-al-ahli-hospital
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/18/al-ahli-arab-hospital-piecing-together-what-happened-as-israel-insists-militant-rocket-to-blame
So those references don't justify including the estimates before the actual body count. 49.197.224.249 (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 250 count is an outdated initial estimate that really doesn't belong there at all. Possibly it could be mentioned in the text, but not before the actual body count in the summary stats box. In the summary stats box 250 is misleadingly presented as authoritative by saying it is the estimate from the hospital director. But the reference, a France 24 article, gives more context. When they asked the director his main response was about struggling to save hundreds of wounded, 250 is (at best) a wild guess from a man who is very busy with other things. They don't quote the context for 250, just the number, so it might even be his estimate of how many people died instantly, which does not include people dying of their injuries in the hours that followed. 49.197.224.249 (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 250 estimate is already in the body text, but just as misleadingly as it is on the stats box. The AP article [1] says "Mohammed Abu Selmia, said he thought the toll was closer to 250, based on the casualties he saw streaming into the triage center" but the France 24 article listed says "Ambulances and private cars rushed some 350 casualties to Gaza City’s main hospital, al-Shifa, which was already overwhelmed with wounded from other strikes" so whoever was coming in the door wasn't everyone. 49.197.224.249 (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The summary box lead figure of 100 to 300 in the stats box isn't even listed in the body text? 49.197.224.249 (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]