it says "Analysis an Investigation" not "Analysis and investigation" Chart Barkley (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

How about just this as a slimmed down version of the third paragraph?

On the night of the incident, Israel struck the outskirts of the "Kuwaiti Peace" tent camp with two U.S. made GBU-39 missiles. The strike ignited a fire in the camp, trapping and burning the residents inside. Israel claimed that the strike targeted a Hamas compound near the camp, and that the fire was "unexpected and unintended".

The suggested changes are mainly

• Plainly state the strike location as a matter of fact, since it seems uncontroversial.
• Remove the mention of "igniting ammunition". Israel mentions it as "one possibility" being investigated, while NYT casts doubt on it by saying they were unable to find evidence. It just isn't a significant or interesting controversy, with noone making strong assertions in either direction.
• Don't imply a contradiction between the claimed targets and the strike location. There's no obvious contradiction, since Hamas targets can reside in tents. Perhaps "compound" was misleading for a couple men in tents, but I don't see this point being made in the sources, presumably because the wording one spokesperson used just doesn't warrant much scrutiny.
• Remove "deliberately targeted civilians", because this is based on some very brief statements which don't elaborate on what they mean or how they arrived at the conclusion. Are they suggesting there were no actual Hamas targets, or just that Israel knew some civilians would be at risk? Maybe something else? Is there evidence or just speculation? We should avoid repeating such ambiguous statements.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

1 and 3. Israel said it was a Hamas compound away from the camp. Watch the official IDF video: [1]. The video said the strike was 180 meters away from the camp. And Israel also claimed at one point that the strike was 100 meters away from the camp. We have to imply a contradiction, and that is what the sources are specifically meant to do.

2. Seems reasonable.

4. Mostly reasonable. However, Times of India claims that Israel targeted the camp, and Aljazeera claimed Israel targeted the camp and emphasized the civilians there. I think we can safely say that some sources claimed Israel targeted it.

We can include the outskirts part, but later. As said, we must include that Israel claimed it was targeting a Hamas compound outside but near the camp that accidentally started the fire. We don't need to mention the ammunition part as it isn't a solid claim.

Here's what a possible paragraph could look like:

On the night of the incident, Israel struck the neighborhood with two U.S. made GBU-39 missiles. The strike ignited a fire in the "Kuwaiti Peace" tent camp, trapping and burning the civilians residing in it. Israel claimed the strike targeted a Hamas compound near the camp, accidentally causing the fire. However, analysis of satellite images showed that Israel bombed the outskirts of the camp. Some sources claimed Israel targeted the camp itself.

Personisinsterest (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

After watching the IDF video, there seems to be agreement about the geographic location, with the IDF showing the same location as that satellite image.

There seem to be some different characterizations or interpretations of that location, with the IDF pointing out some "shelters" that are 180 meters southeast, but not mentioning the structures (tents?) closer to the strike.

This seems to leave a few open questions -

• Was the strike literally inside the Kuwaiti camp? This image indicates yes, but AFAIK it's just from Twitter. Many reliable sources say the Kuwaiti camp was set fire, so that suggests the strike was at least very close to it, but I'm not sure if any reliable sources have confirmed where the Kuwaiti camp is exactly.
• Did the IDF say anything false? It seems like there may have been a misleading omission, with them not commenting on Kuwaiti Peace Camp or whatever the closest structures were, AFAIK.

I think the main question here is whether reliable sources have established that there is some kind of contradiction or controversy? If not, I think we should avoid framing it that way, to make sure we don't run afoul of SYNTH. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Israel claimed it was away from the camp regardless. It doesn’t matter if it’s true, that’s their narrative. And we must be truthful. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In the “What Israel said” section of the NYT article: “Though he said there were “no tents in the immediate vicinity” of the targets, satellite imagery from the same day shows more than 60 tents and other makeshift structures within 500 feet, inside the range given by U.S. military reference guides for risk of death or serious injury. … The Times’s analysis shows that the site targeted was within the borders of the camp, and suggested Israel had failed to take adequate care to safeguard civilians. The camp was well-known, the metal sheds were spaced just over a meter apart, and there were tents in the area.” This implies a contradiction. And this is the most in depth analysis of the event. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks, hadn't seen that bit. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Np Personisinsterest (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Re 4, the current text simply says deliberately targeted civilians, a stronger claim that Al Jazeera doesn't make directly, but attributes to the Palestinian presidency. If we keep it, should we attribute it to the Palestinian presidency?

Though I would argue that we just shouldn't include it, per above, since it's unclear what was meant and what evidence or reasoning was behind the claim. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, but its fact checking agency does also say Israel targeted the camp. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the claim that Israel deliberately targeted the camp sheltering civilians similarly ambiguous? The article doesn't mention the Hamas targets at all, so if we read between the lines it seems like they may be insinuating that there were no legitimate targets, just the civilians in the camp. But the statement is ambiguous enough that it could be backed up to "the target was in the camp".

I also think the lack of elaboration or substantiation makes this not a good statement to reference. I.e. there's no mention of what kind of knowledge or insights the Palestinian witnesses, or Sanad, had which led them to a certain conclusion (whatever that might be) about Israeli command. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I guess you're right. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS:: the lede changes you reverted had been discussed pretty thoroughly, here and in previous threads. If you don't agree with them, please join the discussion here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and I wasn't aware of this discussion. The NYT source is very clear however, as can be seen from the quotations I added to the reference, that the strike was done in/on the camp and not "on the outskirts" of the camp. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I would interpret the outskirts as still being in the camp, though perhaps "outskirts" is questionable since sources aren't saying that explicitly. In the spirit of sticking very closely with the source, should we repeat the NYT's wording within the borders of the camp? I'm nitpicking a bit here, but the camp was struck itself might suggest a more central strike location, as if the location was picked to maximize tents in the blast area, while the NYT's wording might suggest something more toward the outskirts.

That aside, please also see the concerns about no evidence of secondary explosions (or igniting ammunition) mentioned above. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The NYT source, whose reference now includes multiple direct quotations, is very clear that the strike was "in the camp" and on structures that were "part of the camp". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"Outskirts" may be unnecessary, but I think the paragraph is fine either way. The main problem I have is the secondary explosions thing. We already decided on not including it for multiple reasons. First, Israel hasn't directly accused Hamas of this. They said it might be ammunition and that their weapons couldn't have caused it alone, but that isn't direct confirmation. And the IDF released a (supposed) recording of Hamas guys saying it was a weapons dump that caused it, but they didn't directly come out and say that was true. And it can fit in the revised paragraph too. Striking the Hamas compound near the camp and accidentally starting the fire can imply ammunition was there if you read further down. Personisinsterest (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we should get back to this. Based on my reasoning above, can we please just take out the secondary explosions part? Personisinsterest (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed it from the lede for now. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS Please respond. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)