Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion


Edit request 26 August 2025

Description of suggested change:

Your article states that: "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."

Source 21 is quoting an investigation of forensic architecture. It is clearly not quoted, but instead misquoting other newspaper articles. The investigation from forensic architecture states that "what happened at al-Ahli remains inconclusive".

The aim of the investigation was not to prove or disprove whether Israel or Hamas fired the attack, but to prove israeli disinformation. The investigation just proves that the israeli disinformation about potential propellers were their own, not that they were the ones to strike the hospital, as is stated clearly in the original source.

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


Diff:

ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

152.115.49.8 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 5 December 2025

Description of suggested change:

The following edit is needed because all of the sources under footnote 12 contradict the text as written. All four sources say that Israel is not responsible for the attack, so it is not really "contested." Hamas is not a legitimate source and their claim is contradicted by all four articles.

The first sentence of Paragraph 3 should therefore be deleted: "The cause of the explosion is contested." The last sentence of this paragraph should be changed from: Hamas and PIJ stated the explosion was caused by an Israeli airstrike. to: Hamas and PIJ falsely claimed the explosion was caused by an Israeli airstrike.

Slava570 (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Edit requests are for noncontroversial changes only. Furthermore, in this case the cited sources plainly support the article text as written. Day Creature (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

Regarding this recent edit[1] by @טבעת-זרם, is "Kan" a reliable source? Is the sentence "The head of PIJ's militant wing was documented admitting knowing about the defects and the damange they cause, saying that "Even if a thousand people are killed by friendly fire, that is the price of war"." sufficiently sourced? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli state media reporting on a conveniently discovered document that magically confirms Israeli claims that have been rejected by multiple independent investigations is definitely not reliable. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These claims against Kan are unbased. TaBaZzz (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Has Kan been assessed for reliability on enwiki? I'm surprised this hasn't come up before. Maybe I'm having some error with my search function but can't find anything over at WP:RS. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also could not find anything on WP:RSN. I think in this situation we can safely say that much better sources would be needed to justify this claim without opining on Kan more generally. And even if this alleged PIJ document is real, its link to the Al-Ahli explosion is still WP:SYNTH – Kan does not say the document admits that a PIJ rocket failure caused the Al-Ahli explosion. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was questioning this. Has Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation (Kan/Makan) been raised at WP:RSN before? GnocchiFan (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]