Jump to content

Talk:Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

is a pro-Israel lobbying organization, and the reprint from the Jewish News Syndicate does not make that partisan source suddenly reliable for factual statements. nableezy - 02:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Jewish News Syndicate and National Post have published it in their own voice; to the best of my knowledge, both of those are reliable sources. Further, a source can be biased or even partisan without being unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
No, they said it is a reprint from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. A group that sources identify as a pro-Israel lobby group cannot seriously be considered an independent source for factual statements on an enemy of Israel. That is absurd. nableezy - 03:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
The author attribution is "Jewish News Syndicate, National Post Wire Services". They are publishing it in their own voice. BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Read the bottom of the reprint. Originally published by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy. You are attempting to put in to this article material written by a pro-Israel lobby as propaganda. And you are doing it based on the veneer of reliability by likewise partisan sources. nableezy - 03:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
For ethical and possibly legal reasons, publishers are required to attribute. What they choose to do is put their own names as the author; they are publishing it in their own voice, and the fact that they meet their ethical obligations in a footnote doesn't change that. BilledMammal (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, no, they reprinted a partisan lobby organizations retelling of an Israeli military press release. That isn’t a reliable secondary source. And it certainly isn’t reliable to turn allegations by the Israeli military in to facts confirmed by independent third parties. Somehow you think choosing to claim you’re the author of a piece entirely written by somebody else makes you a reliable source, but tomatoe tomatoh I suppose. nableezy - 04:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Further, that propaganda piece was misrepresented. You wrote In the past Hamas has been identified by independent sources as using ambulances as part of its operations. The source says In 2014, the conflict between Israel and Hamas spotlighted how Hamas made use of hospitals as part of its strategy. “In Hamas’s world, hospitals are command centers, ambulances are transport vehicles and medics are human shields,” the Israel Defense Forces said. This was a flagrant violation of international law. citing this IDF release. The later section where it says Hamas has also used ambulances during the course of the war as part of its operations. The use of ambulances not only denies civilians who are injured the use of the ambulance but also puts at risk medical workers if terrorists use the ambulance in the course of their activities. cites an Israeli embassy reprint of the same material. So no, not even the garbage source used claims that Hamas has been identified by independent sources as using ambulances as part of its operations. nableezy - 03:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
The independent source says, in its own voice, Hamas has also used ambulances during the course of the war as part of its operations. BilledMammal (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Ha! It cites the Israeli military and it isn’t independent. At this point idk how somebody can pretend that this is a good faith representation of a reliable source. nableezy - 04:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, all three of the publishers that have signed onto this article are independent. Which ones do you think are not?
What part of the quoted sentence, or the surrounding sentences, suggest that these publishers attribute that sentence rather than saying it in their own voice? BilledMammal (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
The link? nableezy - 04:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#National_Post_reprint_of_Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies_paper nableezy - 04:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This issue is very confused - can it be clarified?

Almost all press coverage shows a video of ambulances outside al Shifa, but there is no evidence of an airstrike anywhere. One ambulance has (been) struck (with) something in the front, but this looks like a traffic accident. There are images of a dead donkey. But no crater, no fire, no broken glass, no shrapnel, and while there are bodies that may be casualties, they appear to not to have been subject to anything resembling an explosion.

IDF acknowledges having struck *an* ambulance, but it is clearly not this one. There are images of a burning ambulance wreck at an intersection on al Rashid road, along with debris and other signs of fighting - it might be this one.

Some have claimed that there was a convoy of ambulances, and that it was struck multiple times, first at al Shifa, then at Ansar square. This might be, but I haven't seen any images or other evidence of this. And how is it possible to run an ambulance convoy to Rafa when IDF has encircled Gaza city, and there is heavy fighting? None of this makes any sense.

This is probably a lost cause, all Reliable Sources are just parroting each other's confused narratives. But perhaps it is possible to clarify some of these issues? Ketil (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggested Edit In Background

This sentence "Hamas has a documented history–predating the 2023 Israel-Hamas War–of using schools, hospitals, and other civilian objects to shield itself from Israeli airstrikes." cites an article detailing Israeli allegations of Hamas using human shields. I don't believe this source corroborates the claim "Hamas has a documented history..." I suggest changing the sentence to "Israel has accused Hamas of using schools, hospitals, and other civilian objects to shield itself from Israeli airstrikes" Graxwell (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Rule 29 of the international humanitarian law

Single sentence quoted from a single source cannot possible be WP:SYNTH, let alone when it is taken from the international humanitarian law. With regard to this edit, please User:Nableezy explain, or kindly consider self reverting. ~~ TaBaZzz (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Does it mention the topic of this article at all? If not it is SYNTH. This is super basic, please read WP:OR. nableezy - 19:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Ambulance is Medical transports. So Yes. TaBaZzz (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Where does the source mention any of the following, Shifa, Palestinians, Hamas or Israel? nableezy - 19:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The international humanitarian law covers Shifa, Palestinians, Hamas and Israel. TaBaZzz (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but you need a source connecting those topics. nableezy - 20:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Nableezy beat me to it, but yes, this was clear WP:SYNTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Please explain how? TaBaZzz (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Using a source on a general topic that does not refer to what we are covering in this article is original research, in that you are implying something that no source presented says for itself. You can’t use the original law to attempt to say this is what was violated absent a source doing that itself. nableezy - 20:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I didn't say that. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
You implied it, and regardless the source itself must discuss the topic of this article directly. nableezy - 20:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Here's a source that says it explicitly:
  • "Gaza: Israeli Ambulance Strike Apparently Unlawful". Human Rights Watch Council. November 7, 2023. Retrieved November 8, 2023. An Israel Defense Forces spokesperson said in a televised interview that day that: "Our forces saw terrorists using ambulances as a vehicle to move around. They perceived a threat and accordingly we struck that ambulance." International humanitarian law applicable to the armed conflict between Israel and Palestinian armed forces provides that ambulances used exclusively for medical transportation must be respected and protected in all circumstances, and only lose their protection if being used to commit acts harmful to the enemy.
TaBaZzz (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to add that material, along with HRW saying the strike appeared unlawful with the clarification "For the Israeli authorities to claim that their deadly November 3 attack on an ambulance in a crowded area was lawful, they need to do more than just insist that Palestinian fighters were using an ambulance as transport." Citing what you did remains SYNTH. nableezy - 21:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
"forces .... perceived a threat". TaBaZzz (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, you are free to include the IDF said that, and that HRW says that such a justification does not meet the requirements to claim the strike is lawful. Here, Ill do it for you. nableezy - 21:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
and done. nableezy - 21:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Disclosure of Hamas parentage of Gaza Health Ministry

The "Hamas-run" language has been added, removed, re-added, re-removed, re-re-added, and re-re-removed. To prevent edit-warring and build consensus, I am starting this discussion. In my view, it should be included. The disclosure is in line with reliable sources who consistently remind their readers that Hamas is calling the shots, e.g., Le Monde ("To be transparent about the origin of these figures, we have also decided to change the way we present them, by stating that they come from the health ministry in the Gaza Strip 'administered by Hamas.'"); The Guardian ("Can we trust casualty figures from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry?"); BBC ("Gaza strikes: Hamas-run health ministry says 700 killed in 24 hours"); AP ("A massive blast rocked a Gaza City hospital packed with wounded and other Palestinians seeking shelter Tuesday, killing hundreds of people, the Hamas-run Health Ministry said."); The New York Times ("The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza has released a list of 6,747 people it said had been killed in Israel’s relentless bombardment of the Palestinian territory in retaliation for the Hamas-led raid on Oct. 7 that killed more than 1,400 people in Israel."). A person who is not familiar with the relationship between Hamas and the Gaza Health Ministry might see it as: IDF says it targeted Hamas, but a third party denied Hamas was there. When in reality it is: IDF says it targeted Hamas, but a subagency of Hamas denied Hamas was there. The advantage of inclusion is that you are flagging for the reader that this is not some uninvolved purely medical disinterested health agency, but rather a subdivision of a political party at war with Israel. Put another way, Al-Qassam Brigades and the Gaza Health Ministry are siblings and Hamas is their parent. Hamas and Israel are both committed to the other's destruction. In my view, it is important when describing claims and counterclaims made by them–as opposed to statements made about them by others–we make that distinction. What is the advantage of not disclosing the bias, or at least opportunity and motive for bias? Pinging those involved in the inclusion, removal, re-inclusion, and re-re-removal for their comments, but everyone should feel free to discuss (save for IPs and non-ec users): @Iskandar323, David O. Johnson, and The Great Mule of Eupatoria:. | Orgullomoore (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that casualty numbers for individual events are starting to be independently corroborated. For the 31 October 2023 attack on Jabalia, the Indonesian Hospital gave it's own count of corpses[1] and it was higher than the official Gaza Ministry's count. Likewise, news agency are reviewing footage that will show many of the corpses. For this particular attack, the CNN[2] story reported that the number of casualties was corroborated by witnesses at the scene. The Palestinian Red Crescent[3] has also corroborated the casualty numbers. In the same article, BBC quotes an interview with a witness that describes that people lost their arms and legs in the Israeli attack.
If you still insist on adding "Hamas-run" then we should also include all the corroboration from non-Hamas sources too. VR talk 20:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, in this particular instance I think the more disputed element is whether the ambulance was being used to transport militants and/or weapons, as opposed to the number of casualties. | Orgullomoore (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
That's not disputed as of yet, because there is zero evidence for it. It is currently a bald claim with no greater veracity than any other piece of hearsay. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Isn't it one bald claim vs. another? IDF says they have intel that the ambulance was being used as a Hamas wagon; Hamas says nuh-uh that's not true. | Orgullomoore (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Reuters also has reservations about the Israeli narrative: In a statement on the incident, Israel's military gave no evidence to support its assertion that the ambulance was linked to Hamas but said it intended to release additional information.[4] So maybe we can wait until IDF releases more information? VR talk 20:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Of course, there is more to be seen. My original question, though, is why should we not disclose that the health ministry is a subdivision of Hamas? | Orgullomoore (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
shall we disclose that the Israeli health minstry is overseen by the Likud party, then? Or that everything that Israel says comes from Likud party spokespeople? 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:7009:48B4:E105:742 (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:7009:48B4:E105:742 Maybe check the other times I have answered that same exact question on this page. --Orgullomoore (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
It was a well publicised medical convoy that the Palestinian Red Crescent was a part of. That the medical convoy was a medical convoy is the de facto state of reality and default state of affairs unless proven otherwise. That the health ministry denied the unevidenced claim does not somehow make it more credible. If someone says, unevidenced (and in defiance of common sense), that the sky is orange, someone denying this and saying the sky is blue does not make this a debate where the truth is neither of these statements but instead some sort of halfway house. The sky is still blue. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Or, put more simply: Occam's razor. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
PRCS also contradicts Israeli narrative.[5] VR talk 20:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you guys please address the issue? The only question is about whether we should be transparent that the health ministry is in fact part of Hamas. I'm not arguing that one side should be believed over the other, I'm just saying we should clearly delineate the sides.--| Orgullomoore (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

But I'm arguing that the Israeli narrative here is doubted by many sources and should be given lower due weight (at this point in time).
"The dead and wounded visible in the videos reviewed by The Post included women and children and no weapons or individuals wearing military clothing could be seen." The Washington Post too has doubts[6]. VR talk 21:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
But how is that relevant to the question of whether we should tell readers that the health ministry is run by one of the parties to the conflict? I don't see how that question touches upon which party has a more credible narrative. | Orgullomoore (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Directly addressing the question, I think it should be included. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I also agree, and think that the "Hamas-run" should be included. EytanMelech (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I think thats an odd argument to be honest, if one of the combatants is the government then of course its ministries are run by that government. And to the point, it is no longer true that sources are uniformly following this line for the Gaza ministries. The Washington Post article on this attack repeatedly attributes it to the Gaza Health Ministry with nary a Hamas-run to be seen. The NY Times article on this attack repeatedly refers to a Gaza Health Ministry, again no Hamas-run to be seen. nableezy - 02:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's safe to assume the reader knows that Hamas is the government. That's a unique aspect of this particular conflict. Conventionally, countries declare wars on other countries, as opposed to political parties. And conventionally, political parties don't have their own militaries. And conventionally, countries do have their own militaries. Here, Israel declared war on Hamas, which is a "resistance movement" that won elections in 2006 and then pushed out the other party in a civil war in 2007, never again to hold elections. There is no Palestinian army. There used to be a Palestinian Health Ministry embracing the Strip and the Bank, but in the course of the aforementioned events it was politicized. There is nothing typical about the facts here. The governance of the Gaza Strip is a complicated subject, and I think the "Hamas-run" label is informative and clarifying. | Orgullomoore (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with attributing it as "Hamas-run". When we say "Israeli Health Ministry" or similar it is obvious to readers that the health ministry is controlled by Israel, but the same is not true of "Gaza Health Ministry" and Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is it not true that Gaza Health Ministry will not be assumed to be controlled by Gaza? And what of the sources that report on this attack that simply attribute statement by the ministry to the Gaza Health Ministry? nableezy - 02:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is it not true that Gaza Health Ministry will not be assumed to be controlled by Gaza? That's not what I said? What I said was but the same is not true of "Gaza Health Ministry" and Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I know thats what you said, but as youre shifting what needs to be understood between the combatants I asked the question that would be the logical conclusion of When we say "Israeli Health Ministry" or similar it is obvious to readers that the health ministry is controlled by Israel. Why would we need to specify the party running the government for one combatant and not the other. And what about the sources reporting on this attack, such as the two I linked, that attribute statements by the GHM to the GHM. nableezy - 02:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Because here the combatants aren't Israel and Gaza, they are Israel and Hamas. That's why "Israeli Health Ministry" is sufficient attribution but "Gaza Health Ministry" is not; the former makes it clear that the health ministry is controlled by one of the combatants, while the latter does not. BilledMammal (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Hamas is the government of Gaza. Again, what of the sources about this specific topic that simply attribute to the GHM the statements made by the GHM? Ive asked that question three times now. nableezy - 02:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Again, what of the sources about this specific topic that simply attribute to the GHM the statements made by the GHM? Some sources don't, most do. For example, one of your examples was from the New York Times. I searched for news articles from the New York Times in the past week mentioning "Gaza Health Ministry";
"Hamas-run" or similar:
  1. Israel-Hamas War (October 31)
  2. Israel Struck a Dense Area in Gaza, Saying It Killed Hamas Militants
  3. Israeli Troops Battle Into Gaza as Airstrike Draws Conflicting Claims
  4. Israel-Hamas War (November 1)
  5. Israel Confirms Deaths of 15 Soldiers in Ground Invasion of Gaza
  6. Wednesday Briefing
  7. ‘A Very Slow Game:’ Why the Pace of Israel’s Ground Operation Counts
  8. Israelis Advance on Gaza City, as Netanyahu Rules Out Cease-Fire
  9. Israel-Hamas War (October 30)
  10. Democratic Rifts Over Israel Burst to the Forefront in Congress
  11. Israel-Hamas War (November 2)
  12. Israel-Hamas War (October 29)
  13. ‘You Think of Dying at Any Time’
  14. Israel-Hamas War (October 28)
  15. What We Know About the War Between Israel and Hamas
  16. Israel-Hamas War (November 2)
Only "Gaza Health Ministry":
  1. After Years of Vowing to Destroy Israel, Iran Faces a Dilemma
  2. Blinken Meets Arab Ministers in Bid to Calm Outrage Over Gaza Airstrikes
  3. Israel-Hamas War (November 4)
  4. 34 Hours of Fear: The Blackout That Cut Gaza Off From the World
Single examples aren't illustrative; it's certainly possible to find examples where it is not attributed to Hamas in the New York Times coverage, but if we look at the broader picture we see that the New York Times consistently uses "Hamas-run" or similar, and thus gives weight to the notion that we need to do the same. BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Which of those sources are about the topic of this article? Because I checked, and it appears to be none of them. nableezy - 03:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, only one New York Times article has mentioned this strike and the Gaza Health Ministry. The sample size isn't large enough for us to determine whether the New York Times is diverging from its standard policy of attributing to Hamas.
However, since you want a larger sample size, I searched for "Gaza Health Ministry" "Al-Shifa" "Ambulance" on Google news confined to the past 24 hours. Of the first ten results from distinct news agencies, seven attributed to Hamas and three didn't.
"Hamas-run" or similar:
  1. Jordan Times
  2. The Guardian
  3. WION
  4. NBC
  5. CNN
  6. VOA
  7. Times of India
Only "Gaza Health Ministry":
  1. NPR
  2. Mondoweiss
  3. Al Jazeera
If we are to follow reliable sources - as we are required to do - we must attribute this to the "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry" or similar. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
NBC attributes a total number of casualties to the ministry, which doesnt appear in this article, CNN doesnt have Hamas-run or similar, what it has is A spokesperson for the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza, who was at Al-Shifa Hospital, said that Israel was responsible for the attack. and Palestinians have rejected the Israeli army claim. The Director General of the Gaza Health Ministry, Dr. Medhat Abbas, told CNN last week that Gaza’s hospitals “are used to treat patients only” and are not being used “to hide anyone.” Voice of America is a propaganda outlet, and Time of India doesnt attribute anything to Hamas-run anything. The Guardian says The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza. Yes, Hamas runs Gaza, all the ministries are Hamas run. That says that Hamas runs Gaza, full stop. Did you even read your sources? nableezy - 03:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
NBC attributes a total number of casualties to the ministry, which doesnt appear in this article NBC is discussing this strike, mentions the Gaza Health Ministry in the context of the strike, and makes it clear that Hamas runs the Gaza Health Ministry. I'm not sure what more you want?
CNN doesnt have Hamas-run or similar CNN says At least 15 people were killed and 50 others wounded, the Hamas-run health authorities said Friday.
Voice of America is a propaganda outlet Voice of America is considered generally reliable at WP:RSP, and I'm surprised that you objected their inclusion but not the inclusion of Mondoweiss which has no consensus at RSP.
Time of India doesnt attribute anything to Hamas-run anything Times of India says The incident led to the deaths of at least 15 people and injured, according to Hamas-run health authorities, and repeats Hamas-run at other points in the article.
The Guardian says The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza. Above, what I said needs to be done is make it clear that Hamas controls the Gaza Health Ministry in the same way that Israel controls the Israeli one. The Guardian does that with that quote.
Did you even read your sources? Yes. Did you, or did you just glance at them? BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I did given I gave the same quotes. When attributing to the ministry or the spokesman they are doing it without specifying Hamas run, because, again, Hamas is the government of Gaza and all government ministries in Gaza are run by the government. And, again, Hamas runs the Gaza ministries the same way Likud runs whatever ministries it controls. nableezy - 04:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
When attributing to the ministry or the spokesman they are doing it without specifying Hamas run, because, again, Hamas is the government of Gaza and all government ministries in Gaza are run by the government. Except they are; Hamas-run health authorities and similar. I'm not sure what you want here? For them to say "Hamas-run" every time they mention the health authorities? BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
That’s what you’ve been doing across a range of articles so yes. nableezy - 05:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
No, it's not. How about this as a compromise; the first mention in each top level section we attribute to "Hamas-run", and any mentions after that in the same section we don't? That will meet our requirement to properly attribute and make the situation clear to the reader without being excessive. BilledMammal (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I’d be fine saying, once, part of the Hamas government. This Hamas run meme is just poisoning the well. nableezy - 12:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
How about The Gaza Health Ministry, which is part of the Hamas government, denied any military use of the ambulances.? BilledMammal (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Im fine with that, once. nableezy - 14:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Added, I'm glad we could find an appropriate middle position. If the page becomes significantly longer I may believe it needs to be repeated at least once, but at the current length I think a single note is sufficient. BilledMammal (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
then we’d have to go “likud run health ministry”, or “democrat run health ministry”. It basically started as covertly saying “health ministry=hamas=lying” and then over time it latched on The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
If it's such a no-brainer, why do many news agencies consistently insert the reminder? And if it's a close call, why are we not erring on the side of informing at the risk of slight annoyance through redundancy? | Orgullomoore (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It was stealthily removed by Iskandar323 in this diff. I re-added it. Why would it be re-re-re-removed without discussion after being discussed at length? | Orgullomoore (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Because it's not relevant (or really ever was); it's just a fairly sad attempt at aspersion (the suggestion that the health ministry is somehow not reliable or their denials plausible) - as media has now confirmed redundantly that there is no evidence of military usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323 And it falls on you to make that decision unilaterally and not even tell anybody about it despite there being a long discussion on it in the talk page? You believe that the solution is that we revert one another every 24 hours instead of reaching a consensus? | Orgullomoore (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
This whole thread is dated. It is no longer just the health ministry saying this, but the HRW and independent media, so it's somewhat irrelevant and trivial detail whether the health ministry may or may not be bias by way of political affiliations at this point. It's not alone. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. If their denial is not relevant in view of the input from HRW and independent media, then why mention it? And if it is relevant, then why not disclose that it's coming from Hamas? I opened up an RfC below and publicized it on the NPOV noticeboard. | Orgullomoore (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
This is conjecture and doesn't belong in the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
@Elmmapleoakpine: I'm sorry, but what part is conjecture? That the parent organization is in fact Hamas, or that this fact is relevant to the potential for pro-Hamas bias in their statements? Because the former is not disputed and the latter is subjective. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
How is it conjecture when the attribution is stated by a clear majority of reliable sources? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I fundamentally misunderstood something. Please ignore my comment. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Shifa_ambulance_airstrike/Archive_1&oldid=1267815935"