This article was nominated for
deletion on 13 November 2023. The result of
the discussion was speedy keep.
On 15 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be
moved. The result of
the discussion was not moved.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the
Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic
Palestine region, the
Palestinian people and the
State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting
the project page, where you can add your name to the
list of members where you can contribute to the
discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Split November 2023 and March 2024 sieges into separate articles titled “2023 Al-Shifa Hospital siege” and “Destruction of the Al-Shifa Hospital” respectively.
MountainDew20 (
talk)
21:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that there should be two separate articles on the two sieges, differentiated by their separate dates: November 2023 and March 2024.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
11:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Destruction of the Al-Shifa Hospital is not a NPOV name. The sources are quite clear that there was fighting between the IDF and Hamas militants
[1], so the name should reflect it (e.g., 2024 Al-Shifa Hospital clashes).
Alaexis¿question?12:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with Alaexis that Destruction of the Al-Shifa Hospital is not a NPOV name. Clashes did occur around Al Shifa as well as battles. This has been confirmed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants. Hamas said they were fighting in the areas around the hospital but denied presence inside the hospital, the sources are in the Wikipedia article and also this one
[2]Wafflefrites (
talk)
14:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Look at sources I gave in the section above, "ruins", "Wasteland", "sea of rubble", and there are more in similar vein or worse, how would you suggest we title this destruction?
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You only gave sources but you haven’t even written any part of the March siege article yet, while there actually is a section within this article titled “March 2024 siege” that details the days leading to the destruction. I think a better name would be “Al Shifa Hospital March 2024 siege”.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
15:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
In fact, there are more sources about the days leading up to the destruction that the handful of sources you provided about the destruction so the article should be more about the siege per
WP:WEIGHT and also your comment about the sources you provided were relying on
WP:HEADLINESWafflefrites (
talk)
15:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
about the days leading up to the destruction At least we agree on that part. The sources for what occurred during the two weeks are of course valid content but we should prefer the latest sources looking back for the title.
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Even if it is rebuilt, it will still have been destroyed, anyway, they who write the article must decide a title and then submit to RM, RFC and the rest. There is no need for any consensus at this point.
Selfstudier (
talk)
16:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I also agree with Iskandar323 that “clashes” is euphemistic; there are sources calling this a two week long battle and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades was also involved
[3]Wafflefrites (
talk)
20:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm curious to know if there are any sources that testify that there were clashes within the hospital itself that do not rely solely on IDF or Israeli testimony. I'm aware of there being clashes around and in the vicinity of the hospital, but the only claims about fighting within the hospital appear to be Israeli.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
21:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The majority of AJ sources in this article is the AJ liveblog. And in this case, they even put it in their own voice rather than attributing.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
23:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Mondoweiss is interesting, it mentions police inside the hospital firing at Israeli forces. Maybe that’s why the AJ liveblog referred to it as intense battles inside the hospital.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
14:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
POV tag
The lede is written in such a way to distract, overwhelm and obscure straightforward facts about the siege; that it was committed with an Israeli propaganda campaign on the existence of a vast command center below the hospital, which has never been found. This news media says this; Israel says that; this website says this; it is a mess that blurs the distinction between propaganda (as reported by RS) with facts.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
09:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I checked all the non paywalled sources used in the lead. 5 say “propaganda” but attribute it to Hamas accusing Israel of propaganda. The only source that actually accuses Israel of propaganda is Jeremy Scahill, which I have appropriately attributed and avoided wikivoice. The previous lead used wiki voice where not appropriate and editorializing words identified by Wikipedia’s Manual of Style. Reliable sources do not call it propaganda. They just say the evidence provided by Israel fall short it’s original claims of there being a vast command center, for example:
“The evidence produced so far falls well short of that. IDF videos have shown only modest collections of small arms, mostly assault rifles, recovered from the extensive medical complex.
That suggests an armed presence, but not the sort of elaborate nerve centre depicted in animated graphics presented to the media before al-Shifa was seized, portraying a network of well-equipped subterranean chambers.”
[5]Wafflefrites (
talk)
13:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I will check the sources in that section and get back to you. I actually didn’t change the lead much, if you look through my edit history. I fixed the
MOS:EDITORIAL, issues and moved a sentence that was in the third paragraph to the second paragraph.
If editors would like the 2023 military siege to be about propaganda, than maybe more sources saying that it was propaganda needs to be placed in the lead.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
14:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, I did a quick source check in that section. From the non paywalled sources that I able to check, only 3 use the word “propaganda”: The Nation, Democracy Now, and The New Arab.Wafflefrites (
talk)
14:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes and then there all the sources saying that it was basically lies and misrepresentation (whether they used those words or not), that's what propaganda is.
Selfstudier (
talk)
14:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This just further proves the point how the WP article is written in a misleading way; the article (seems to have been) published by the Intercept and should be attributed to the Intercept; not to a random investigative journalist named Scahill. Also we don't need to exactly use the word propaganda; many RS have said that Israel is outright lying, so this is another issue of semantics.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
14:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
All right, I am not opposed to others putting a sentence summarizing the body in the lead about lies and misrepresentation. It would make things more organized.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
14:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes in that case then the attribution would be to the Intercept, which readers would take more seriously than a person named Scahill, so this is just one example how there are problems of neutrality here.
Makeandtoss (
talk)
15:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The "vast command center" wasn't found but the presence of Hamas fighters in and of tunnels under the hospitals in supported by multiple RS and should not be obscured in the lede.
Alaexis¿question?11:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You didn't know because it isn't precisely true, there was a tunnel that might have been built by Israel and no Hamas fighters (or show me sources saying the contrary). At any rate, nothing approaching sufficient evidence of a military use to justify attacking a hospital and killing civilians in the process.
Selfstudier (
talk)
10:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Split proposed
Many sources are reporting that the March "siege" was a massacre, with hundreds of civilians killed by israeli forces. This is clearly significant enough to warrant a separate article.
Dylanvt (
talk)
03:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: You have Euro-Med Monitor via ReliefWeb up there twice, as well as Mondoweiss twice. One of your sources is The Electronic Intifada, which is not a reliable source per Wikipedia. Personally, I do not think the English sources you provided are very mainstream. If more mainstream sources like CNN, The New York Times, AP News, Reuters, WSJ are naming it "massacre", then I would agree per
WP:COMMONNAME, but it seems the mainstream sources are still calling it a "seige" or a "raid.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
03:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yet is anybody denying the fact that hundreds of civilians were killed by an occupying military force? Is that not a massacre? Besides, the crux of this is not the specific wording, but the fact that the March event was significant and distinct from the November one and should have its own article.
Dylanvt (
talk)
04:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Apologies, I didn't notice the section above that already had discussion on this, as there wasn't a tag in the article itself before I added one.
Dylanvt (
talk)
22:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support split and Oppose name “Al-Shifa Hospital massacre” per
WP:COMMONNAME and lack of its use in mainstream reliable sources. I would support a name like “Al Shifa Hospital March 2024 siege” or “2024 Al-Shifa Hospital siege”.
The problem with siege is the implication that all the Israeli forces surrounded but did not enter the hospital, which they did initially but not for the entirety of the episode. Attack is better and I think that is in fact what it was, Israel claimed the presence of enemy forces in the hospital as justification for it. Whether that actually holds up as an excuse I cannot say until I have looked at the sourcing a bit more closely but on past performance I doubt it.
Selfstudier (
talk)
12:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think you are right about the siege definition. This probably means that the current COMMONNAME is not accurate. The reliable sources really need to get better at naming.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
13:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Siege" here does accurately refer to the first operation, where israeli forces circled the hospital in november for four days before raiding it. In the march operation, the hospital was immediately raided and because of the time gap and different type of operation which led to the hispital's destruction, it is distinct enough to warrant its own article
The Great Mule of Eupatoria (
talk)
04:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Selfstudier other hospital articles are called that, maybe they should be changed to invasion or attack? I can't think of a word that sounds like the right scale.
MWQs (
talk)
17:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Split and Oppose Name There were two separate raids on the hospital so the article should be branched off into two articles, each covering one particular raid. I strongly oppose the term "massacre", since there is no mainstream consensus that it was a massacre rather than a battle. Many of the sources provided here to back up the "massacre" claim are blatantly partisan, such as Electronic Intifada, Jacobin, Mondoweiss, and ICJPalestine. It should be "First Raid on Al-Shifa" and "Second Raid on Al-Shifa" or "First Battle of Al-Shifa" and "Second Battle of Al-Shifa". The massacre allegations can be covered within the articles but they should not be presented as indisputable fact.--
RM (
Be my friend)
09:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The second attack involves at least 200 dead militants according to the IDF but the reports from the other side speak of 381 bodies and another 15 a week later. This whole affair probably needs a complete investigation to uncover what occurred. The name of the second should not be merely number 2 or anything like that because it is at least clear that the death and destruction are on a completely different level and idk, massacre may in fact be appropriate. There should definitely be a split and the sources rounded up and examined further.
Selfstudier (
talk)
11:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No, massacre is not appropriate. It was an extended battle. If you want to call it a "massacre" prove that it's widely acknowledged as being such in the mainstream.
RM (
Be my friend)
06:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I changed my mind about splitting the article. I don’t think it should be split due to continuity and context reasons. One example is the mass grave that was dug in the courtyard during the 2023 siege. Later in the 2024 siege, the IDF bulldozed the courtyard, according to the AJ liveblog source (which doesn’t provide context other than the courtyard was bulldozed). A better source may be needed but this is a continuity and context issue because only this Wikipedia article with the combined sieges provided the context that there was a mass grave in the courtyard that was bulldozed.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
13:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
After some time to reflect, I think you are right, mainly because of the continuity argument, we would lose something of that in the process of a split.
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Continuity can be woven in with interlinks. That's not a reason to keep two separate, discrete events four months apart bound together.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
18:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Of course that's true in theory but even tho I have been around here for a while now, I still sometimes find the discontinuity in certain articles a little bit jarring, I sort of feel all the info should be together in one place. In this particular instance I am also more interested in the legal issues than the precise details of the attacks but that's just me.
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think both events should be in the article and the article should be renamed “Sieges on Al-Shifa Hospital in the Israel-Hamas War” or similar. Also, there more than two sieges.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
18:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I can no longer find the source but I believe I read somewhere that the hospital had been raided multiple times. Now the more recent sources just focus on the two raids.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Support: This material was originally clustered as events unfolded because it was unclear how significantly subsequent events would build upon the initial events. As it turns out they build upon it significantly and the page is now of a length that is more than some pretty in-depth topics. As the material has expanded, the splicing together of events four months apart as if they are one event has become more untenable and artificial.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
18:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - The term massacre is frequently defined as primarily civilian death, and as
Selfstudier says, many of those who were killed were militants according to IDF: see
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/09/middleeast/israel-gaza-mass-graves-al-shifa-hospital-intl. There needs to be consensus to use this term. As multiple others are saying, siege is not an agreed upon term for the second IDF operation performed at the Al-Shifa hospital either, considering it is used more infrequently than "raid" among other news sources. A title rework would be in order if the page is split out. I oppose the page being split given the reasons provided by
Wafflefrites and
Selfstudier; primarily due to lost context. This section also needs rework before ever considering a migration: it is unclear whether content for each date was added because the relevant content added is bona fide, or just in order to have a news item that happens on every day, no matter its level of significance. The timeline of the Gaza-War has similar event density. This timeline style is not wiki-prose and should probably only be used in pages titled "Timeline of ..."
Relspas (
talk)
05:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Mass graves
@
Makeandtoss: You recently added content saying hundreds of dead Palestinians were found in mass graves in and around the hospital and 381 bodies were recovered from mass graves within and around the complex. However, that isn't supported by the source, which says that bodies have been recovered from mass graves, but doesn't say how many of the 381 bodies recovered had been recovered from there - and states that some of the bodies were found above ground, and thus could not have been in mass graves.
BilledMammal (
talk)
11:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, that source is in the wrong Talk page article. That source is about Nasser Hospital. This article is about Al Shifa. Edit: Oh wait, never mind, I see that you quoted a sentence about Al Shifa from the source.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
02:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks but that source is a liveblog and didn’t provide much additional information. I think maybe you should add to the Wiki article rather than listing links.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
11:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm aware of how to edit, thanks. I am interested to discuss an article that deals with all the hospitals in the light of emerging info.
Selfstudier (
talk)
11:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, that wasn’t clear to me that you wanted to merge all the hospital articles / have an article dealing with all the hospitals. Was confused because there were also discussions about splitting this article, but maybe it is a good idea to have an article dealing with the military siege and a separate one of all the war’s impact on the health system, if an article like that doesn’t already exist.
Wafflefrites (
talk)
13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes I saw that, here’s a UN primary source
[7]. I think there’s a separate Wiki article for Nasser Hospital that I will add that to. Al Shifa article is a bit of a mess..
Wafflefrites (
talk)
17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Article says “ Among the deceased were allegedly older people, women and wounded, while others were found tied with their hands…tied and stripped of their clothes”. I read elsewhere the dead were patients. The ones with hands tied probably summary executions
Wafflefrites (
talk)
17:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please add to the casualties section in the info box that the listed casualties are from the second raid. Currently the info box creates wrong impression as these casualties are from the entire siege / 2 raids, and not only from the second one.