Jump to content

Talk:Kamal Adwan Hospital sieges

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Kamal Adwan Hospital)


Veracity.

[edit]

this page is based on unconfirmed sources. This page is anti Israel propaganda Greerda (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. All assumptions are based on Hamas statements, including the reasons for Oct 7 in the first place. I see talk of adding Saudi Arabia to the article. This needs to be fleshed out. Much analysis in the media that Hamas, as an Iranian proxy, struck to undermine Saudi-Israel normalization. Hamas doesn’t represent, fight for, or protect Palestinians. It fights for Iran out of Palestinian territory. Huge miss if geopolitics are skipped over to address human issues solely. Paradox Seeker (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UN confirmation

[edit]

Under "Background" it states that "The UN confirmed the killings" in the maternity ward, but the source only states that the deaths were "reported." That isn't confirming what the director said, it's reiterating it. The sentence should be removed, which the earlier statement from the director standing on its own.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing it. I've quoted the source verbatim. Alaexis¿question? 07:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox "nonoperational"

[edit]

In the infobox, what does status=nonoperational mean? Is this in reference to the hospital? If so, it's probably misplaced as the article is about a military operation, but notwithstanding that, is that supported by the article, which says that there is an operational neo-natal ICU (as of August). ☆ Bri (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over-use of Al Jazeera

[edit]

WP:RSP states Most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest. Given this, should Al Jazeera be used at all, let alone for more than a third of the article's citations (currently 15 out of 43)? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are on the ground and Israel has banned other reputable newsorgs from Gaza. Bias does not mean unreliable, the recent RFCs for AJ were snow closed reliable. At worst, for something contentious, inline attribution might be appropriate. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that for anything contentious being sourced to this, inline attribution would be necessary. Al-Jazeera isn't an uninterest party here. Hog Farm Talk 04:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a problem in many articles about this war. Attributing them definitely makes sense given their bias, especially for contentious content.
Being the only media source in the area does not mean we should automatically take everything they say at face value. By way of comparison, foreign media generally don't have access to the the Ukrainian territories controlled by Russia but we still don't base our coverage on state Russian media outlets. Alaexis¿question? 22:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid comparison. Selfstudier (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this topic it is always good to triangulate sources, even with broadly reliable sources such as al-Jazeera. However, current version of article has a decent diversity of sources. No need for inline attribution to a-J unless claims are contested or extraordinary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AJ is considered reliable by Wikipedian consensus but if the source being used is coming from AJ’s liveblog, it should be used with caution per WP:NEWSBLOG “ Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online pages, columns or rolling text they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.” Wafflefrites (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overreliance on any source isn't good procedure. Overreliance on Al Jazeera is especially concerning given its stringent biases. Scharb (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to specifically dispute the use of a reference, then do that and explain why, but blanket prohibitions based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT won't wash, AJ was snow closed as reliable, inclusive for AI topics, in a recent RFC and bias != unreliability. Selfstudier (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Degree of functionality

[edit]

It should be a priority to follow the degree of functionality and how the siege affects hospital operations. In the October 2024 section, the following text or paraphrasing of it describing the degree to which the hospital was partially operational might be added:

On October 21, 2024, the World Health Organization released a statement describing the degree to which the already damaged and under-supplied hospital was on the brink of non-functionality:

Kamal Adwan Hospital remains partially functional but is struggling to meet growing needs due to intensified hostilities in the north and a shortage of medical supplies and fuel... Currently, there are 95 patients in the hospital, including 15 in intensive care (including four requiring continuous life support) seven of whom are children. Over the last two days, at least 200 severely injured people and 53 dead bodies have been brought to the already overwhelmed hospital. Damaged roads, combined with ongoing hostilities, are severely disrupting safe access to the hospital. If patients, ambulances, and health workers are unable to reach the facility, and partners cannot resupply it, the hospital may soon become non-functional. 

The WHO stated that despite receiving prior military approval, the resupply component of their mission to Kamal Adwan was suddenly denied by the army hours before they were set to begin delivering critical medical supplies on Oct 20. A similar mission received approval for both evacuation and resupply components, and was carried out by a WHO-led joint operation with partners including the Palestinian Red Cross Society on October 24. Even with those supplies, the World Health Organization said that Kamal Adwan's functionality could only be described as "at an absolute minimum" at an October 25th UN Geneva press briefing, describing overwhelmed staff with over 200 patients seeking care. The report mentions hundreds of internally placed persons seeking shelter near or at the hospital.

The section describing the siege should also include a statement about the effects of the siege on the operations of the hospital:

Of the 70 total medical staff present at Kamal Adwan at the time of the siege, 44 were detained and 30 were taken into military custody, per OCHA situation update. According to the Ministry of Health, cited in OCHA's report, "only the hospital’s director and one pediatrician" remain at the hospital as of October 29th, with no ICU, surgical, or anesthesia teams. At the time there were an estimated 150 injured in need of treatment at Kamal Adwan hospital.

Curlsstars (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]