Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Investigations

Months of discussion about how the investigations should be treated in the introduction have, rather wonderfully, resulted in the paragraph becoming less accurate. The New York Times and Le Monde, which both concluded that there was a low probability of Israeli involvement, are now presented as saying the opposite. While these errors have been tagged as "failed verification", they are still there.

The due-weight problem of describing some investigations at length while simply name-checking others remains.

For the introduction, name-checking is perfectly adequate. Perhaps something like:

“ Investigations by Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Le Monde and Human Rights Watch concluded that an errant rocket from Gaza was the likeliest explanation and/or that Israeli involvement was unlikely. Investigations by Forensic Architecture concluded that the blast was the result of a munition fired from the direction of Israel. A Chanel 4 News report the day after the explosion expressed scepticism about the Israeli version of events, while acknowledging that this was not based on independent verification. ”

Utilisateur19911 (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I couldn't find a way to summarise the investigations by Le Monde and the NYT and just added tags. Alaexis_¿question? 13:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The "failed verification" tags have been silently removed. Almost nothing in the following sentence is true: "Investigations from Channel 4 News, Le Monde, and The New York Times contested Israeli claims of a misfired Hamas rocket being responsible for the blast and showed that multiple videos used as evidence for Israel's claims were unlikely to depict the supposed rocket or even the attack itself."

1. Channel 4 didn't conduct an investigation. It is reporting competing claims the day after the explosion and explicitly says on the web page that these claims have not been independently verified.
2. The NYT article offers an alternative interpretation of one (1) video (not mulitiple videos), while noting that taking this video out of the equation doesn't tell us what caused the explosion and that the stray Gazan rocket theory remained plausible.
3. The Le Monde article doesn't say any of the things attributed to it (either in the French original or in the outlet's English translation). The article cited attempts to interpret various videos without reaching firm conclusions. Much of the evidence it presents is consistent with the Israeli version and none of it directly contradicts the Israeli version. In a follow-up report two weeks later (the link is to the French-language page), the always cautious Le Monde goes over the evidence again, and again finds that none of it specifically implicates Israel and none of it excludes the stray rocket theory.

Utilisateur19911 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. The New York Times and Le Monde pieces do specifically contest the Israeli claim regarding videos and photos proving a misfired rocket, but were inconclusive indeed, so not due for the lede, especially the way they were written. I have gone ahead and removed them and added the Al Jazeera and Earshot investigations, but if @ColdestWinterChill: (the editor who added these articles) wants to propose an alternative version or an argument for their inclusion I'm open to hearing it.

Also I don't believe there is a due-weight problem in the current version, as both sides of the POV are equally represented, with name-checks only for the initial investigations on both sides whereas the later two detailed FA investigations rightly have slightly more coverage, but not exceeding the equal weight to the other POV. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That seems sensible. I noticed that the FA sentence was basically duplicated with the next sentence, so I've trimmed that part. It reads fine to me now. The sources seem fine too. Lewisguile (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

EC Edit request: Clearly describe FA claims in lead and body

1. In the lead, "In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded that the blast was the result of a munition fired from the direction of Israel." should be changed to "In its investigations on 14 November 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded that the blast was the result of a likely rocket traveling from the direction of Israel."

• The BBC article we cite to describe the first investigation of FA (which they notably didn't publish except on Twitter/X) - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67216929 - explicitly has an editorial note that FA corrected their analysis: "On 14 November, Forensic Architecture removed a tweet and changed its analysis to say the projectile was probably a rocket although the group stood by its conclusion on the direction it had come from". Thus, it is proper to cite the updated first FA analysis given it's the version of FA's first analysis which they considered to be corrected and distributed by BBC. The change from "fired from" to "traveling from" reflects the language of the sources along with the fact that "fired from" is clearly extrapolation beyond crater analysis.

2. In the lead, the sentence "Subsequent visual investigations by Forensic Architecture published on 15 February 2024 and 17 October 2024—the first one tracking each Palestinian rocket in 3D based on video evidence and the latter including situated testimony from doctors—cast further doubt on the errant rocket launch theory." should be updated to "Subsequent investigations by Forensic Architecture in February and October 2024—the first one tracking a volley of Palestinian rockets that Israel accused of striking the hospital, and the latter including testimony from Dr. Ghassan Abu Sitta—consider what happened at al-Ahli to remain inconclusive."

• First, we remove exact dates which are present nowhere else in the article, and remove certain descriptive embellishments "visual", "situated", "3D", which aren't afforded to any other sources and don't add anything to a brief description of the unique aspects of their methods (which are the use of fuel burn analysis and doctor testimony. Every analysis here is visual, situated, and 3D—this is language appropriate in the FA report but not in the Wikipedia lead). Second, there is ONE doctor I could find cited in the FA report, not "doctors", and he is reported on enough and makes up enough of the second FA report that it's worth providing it as a POV account by citing his name. Third, what does "each Palestinian rocket" mean? They tracked 17 rockets accused of potentially striking the hospital, so this language is much more precise (this was specifically the volley receiving media attention). Fourth, "cast further doubt on the errant rocket launch theory" is TOTALLY different language from what's used everywhere else in the lead. Other claims in the lead in the prior paragraph are described with the words "considered", "noting", "said", "reported", "assessed" (this stronger word only used here for US conclusions on death toll), and "questioned". It's entirely different to say in wikivoice that a source "casts FURTHER doubt". To support this stronger conclusion, the 21 article is cited as a note, but (1) it remains disproportionate language compared to elsewhere in the lead (we don't say "CNN analysis provides further corroboration"), and equally importantly (2) only one of the cited sources in the [21] note are citing the 2024 FA analyses, the rest are citing their 2023 twitter posts. The single relevant source is the New Arab, which is fine but it's not a perennial source so it would want to be POV. My suggested substituted directly mirrors the language of the February 2024 FA report (https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disinformation-al-ahli-hospital), which is highly desirable when trying to explain what a controversial report concludes (the October report doesn't make any similarly clear statements on guilt). The report also reports that the specifics of the Israeli rocket claim is wrong (i.e. the claimed rocket was not responsible), but that's less relevant to the lead because this is not yet described.

3. In the body, the parenthetical "(in February 2024, Forensic Architecture analyzed the rocket salvo preceding the explosion and concluded this was unlikely: all 17 rockets in that salvo exhausted their fuel in flight; and none of them flamed out significantly earlier than the other ones)" SHOULD BE REMOVED.

• This is improper synthesis, since (1) the FA report is described alone elsewhere in the article and no other articles are interacted together throughout the wikipedia page in this way, (2) the reports never directly address one another and generally stood by their analysis, so it's unclear if NYTimes considers these 17 rockets to be conclusive, (3) see point 4 below. Specifically, the FA report notes they the salvo FLARED OUT (not burned all their fuel) in flight, and that it's therefore likely ("suggests") that they exhausted their fuel in flight since none of them flamed out significantly earlier than the other ones. In general it's best for us not to interact the sources in bizarre parentheticals that aren't supported by any other sources, and instead to leave discussion of FA report to where we discuss the FA report further down.

4. The statement in the body about the FA report "because the videos showed that all rockets in the salvo exhausted their fuel in flight—a scenario they said was confirmed as likely by weapons experts—with the time and distance passed by the rockets before going dark from fuel exhaustion being consistent." should be removed or substantially modified as described at the end of this point.

• The following is the ENTIRE analysis of the Feb. 2024 FA report following video reconstruction of where rockets stopped flaring (the October FA report doesn't revisit this):
  • "We consulted an aerospace expert with a specialism in rockets and missiles who prefers to remain anonymous. They told us that:
  • The distance and speed of the rockets while flaring is consistent with an Arash or Grad rocket typically used by Hamas or PIJ.
  • The speed and distance travelled while flaring indicates that the propellant had finished burning in all seventeen rockets while they were still mid-flight.
  • Once a rocket’s propellant has started burning, it is highly unlikely that it will stop burning with fuel still remaining in its chamber.

"

• Thus, "weapon expertS" is not a correct description; it's a single expert who is notably anonymous (This distinction is important because many other sources cite many experts and when they're anonymous, wikipedia says it). Notably, videos DID NOT SHOW rockets exhausted their fuel, but rather their flaring. One anonymous expert said that based on the average flaring time and some unpublished trajectory analysis, they could determine the rocket type which is expected to have about this much fuel, so this flaring time makes it likely that they didn't have any unspent fuel left. Thus FA diffs from what wikipedia currently reports because (1) videos did not show rockets exhausting their fuel in flight but rather they stop flaring, (2) what sort of language is "confirmed as likely", (3) not weapons expertS, but an anonymous expert, (4) the last clause is more correct but totally unclear and I wouldn't understand it without reading the FA report. If we want to replace these categorically false Wikipedia statements, we could say "concluded that unspent fuel from it was an unlikely cause of the blast, because a video showed that the 17 rockets stopped flaring mid-flight, which an anonymous weapons expert considered most consistent with in-flight fuel exhaustion."

5. In the body, it's stated that "Forensic Architecture furthermore disputed the claim by, among others, Israeli military spokesperson Lt. Col. Peter Lerner that a mid-air explosion shown on Al-Jazeera captured a misfired rocket responsible for the blast at al-Ahli. According to its analysis, this missile was likely an Israeli interceptor with no relation to the blast." This should EITHER be REMOVED, OR the prior two bullet points should be REMOVED.

• That's because the two bullet points and two sentences below them say exactly the same thing (literally) yet are presented as different conclusions. Personally, I think these two sentences should stay and the two bullet points above it should be removed, because the two sentences are a more succinct paraphrasing than the two FA bullets. More importantly, they directly contextualize the FA claim with Lerner's statement, which is valuable.

6. In the body, we state in wikivoice "However, their analysis revealed that this [i.e. HRW, BBC, AP conclusions about blame for the explosion] was not possible, for it..." This should be removed because

• (1) use of the word "reveal" is not neutral when claiming to reveal that several reputable sources are wrong, (2) FA DOESN'T EVEN CLAIM THIS!!!!! FA writes specifically "While what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive, it is clear that in the aftermath of the explosion, the Israeli military launched an aggressive disinformation campaign." They state the 17 rockets highlighted by israel are very unlikely to be responsible, NOT that it is impossible that a rocket caused the event.

Thank you for correcting what I think are consensus conclusions about what was said and not said in the Forensic Architecture reports to those who have read them. Scienceturtle1 (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

1. I don't believe this is warranted. While it is true that FA removed one specific element of their 20 October investigation to clarify the artillery shell/rocket distinction, we already account for that by saying "munition". The 14 November update does not alter the conclusion that it was likely a munition fired from the direction of Israel, which is language used in RS:

New York Times: "Forensic Architecture, a London-based visual investigation group, disputed the Israeli account, saying that the munition had been fired from the direction of Israel."

BBC: "The Forensic Architecture agency, a UK-based organisation which investigates human rights abuses, has carried out its own analysis of the crater, and suggests it is more consistent with the impact marks from an artillery shell which it concludes came from the direction of Israel." to "(On 14 November, Forensic Architecture removed a tweet and changed its analysis to say the projectile was probably a rocket although the group stood by its conclusion on the direction it had come from.)"

2. Done, except for the "cast further doubt", which is an accurate description of the FA investigations and their conclusions regarding the errant rocket launch theory (in fact this is already a weaker version as they strongly suggest Israeli munitions were responsible for the blast). Moreover your description of these detailed reports as "controversial" is not backed by any RS. In fact, as prior discussions in talk have established, the FA investigations are exactly noteworthy because they were not preliminary as the prior ones, and therefore are more credible.

3. Done.

4. The video-flaring distinction has been made, as is the attribution as it is indeed one expert referenced not multiple, however the report says multiple times that they also rely on their own analysis: "Our analysis, however, suggests that all seventeen visible rockets in the salvo the Israeli military claimed was responsible had finished burning their fuel mid-flight", "Our analysis of open source footage suggests that all seventeen of the rockets in question had finished burning their propellant while in flight." I took your suggested version and matched it with that.

5. Done, but kept the bullet points instead of the sentence as it is better to quote directly from the report.

6. Done. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for making the page's description of FA accurate! As I pointed out, I think the language in describing the FA report remains clearly asymmetric compared to other sources in the lead (and note I didn't mean controversial as in not credible - it's highly credible - merely that it disagrees in conclusion with other highly credible analyses leading to caution in interpretation), but at least it is accurate now and I appreciate that this is what we have consensus for.

Best,

Scienceturtle1 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)