Talk:2024 targeted assassination of Muhammad Deif

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Heavy pro-Israel bias

Pretty much the entirety of this page has been written with a pro-Israel bias, using biased news article as sources, as well as making false/previously disproven claims. The entirety of this page fails to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and should be rewritten in a neutral and unbiased manner. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also why is Hamas considered "unreliable " or "bad". What's wrong with hamas? It's all biased. 2A06:C701:44C0:DC00:19C5:C2B2:3819:EC5D (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify which text do you believe to be biased. Uricoh (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Result
While mainstream Israeli news sources and IDF sources believe that Deif was assassinated, Hamas denies the assassination. Hamas is known to be biased and unreliable. [dubious – discuss]"
How is Hamas unreliable? They are fighting the Zionist occupation. Settlers are settlers. 2A06:C701:44C0:DC00:19C5:C2B2:3819:EC5D (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See this and that Uricoh (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to feed into the disgusting statement above yours, but the UN, Israeli intelligence, and others say their numbers are reliable. We see it as reliable. The thing about the flaw is just a data thing, it doesn't completely discount the numbers. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait you're "Israeli"? Why are you in Palestine? Go back to Poland. Seriously why can't you go to Poland? Why do you do this? 2A06:C701:44C0:DC00:19C5:C2B2:3819:EC5D (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is disgusting and hateful. And also, no one said they were Israeli anyway. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming “Hamas is known to be biased and unreliable” with no sources provided.
Referring to the Gaza Health Ministry as “Hamas controlled” when unnecessary.
Constantly referring to Hamas as a terrorist organisation, which in itself violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Claiming Hamas is using civilians as human shields, and providing biased articles as a source.
Claiming Israel has been “using accurate bombs to avoid indiscriminate bombing” despite no source for such claim, especially considering that such topic is in itself being investigated.
The list goes on IiSmxyzXX (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Hamas is biased an unreliable according to the sources mentioned in the article.
2. It's necessary so readers won't be fooled to believe Hamas health ministry reports.
3. Hamas is by definition a terrorist organization, see 7/10.
4. The articles aren't biased. Prove otherwise.
5. See this
Uricoh (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. The sources you provided are written from an Israeli POV, in which it is entirely fair for us to assume that there is a natural bias. The articles you provided are also known to be heavily biased.
2. It isn’t necessary, and again, your claim has no credibility. By logic, “Hamas Health Ministry” reports are no more credible than IDF reports.
3. Hamas, by definition, is an organisation founded on resistance to oppression and occupation. Hamas is only referred to as a terrorist organisation by the nations which classify it as one. Also, October 7 isn’t a neutral source to provide for this.
4. Several of the news outlets you provided are known to not take into account both sides, and consistently provided information with an Israel-leaning bias. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. But Wikipedia accepts Al Jazeera, which is funded by Doha, as a reliable source.
2. Are you seriously comparing Israel to a terrorist organisation that has burned babies and committed unspeakable horrors, killing more than 1200 people in a single day?
3. October 7 is the best example of Hamas terrorism. Sure, they say Israel occupied Gaza, then why did they continue attacking after the 2005 disengagement? Because they want the state of Israel gone.
4. See 1
Uricoh (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Al Jazeera has been proven several times through numerous discussions on Wikipedia to be a reliable source.
2. Considering Israel and it’s forces have actually been confirmed to have committed those acts against Palestinians since October 7th (through several UN investigations), yes I am comparing Israel to Hamas.
3. Hamas continued attacking because Israel never stopped attacking either. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yeah, right, Qatar government being reliable, discussions aren't a reliable source in determining what reliable sources are.
2. Do you believe the UN that participated through UNESCO in 7/10? That's fake news.
3. Why would Israel possibly want war? We just want to live here peacefully. Uricoh (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Wikipedia-led discussions on source reliability are very much reliable in determining a sources reliability, thus the discussion.
2. A few lone members don’t represent the UN or UNESCO as a whole.
3. Nakba IiSmxyzXX (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Prove it.
2. It's not a few members, see UNRWA involvement in 7/10
3. It wasn't deliberate and was a long time ago. It's a result of Arabs not accepting the Nov. 29, 1947 partition plan.
Uricoh (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. A general consensus coming to an agreement on the reliability of a source is all the proof that is needed. If you’re refusing to accept that, then that’s simply your problem.
2. That article states that 18 UN/UNRWA members partook to some extent on October 7th. It also states that 10% have connections to the groups involved. Last time I recalled, 18 people didn’t represent the entire UN and one of its agencies. And also, when an entire population of 2,000,000+ people are trapped in the Gaza Strip, it’s almost inevitable for them to have connections to people involved in armed groups there.
3. “It wasn’t deliberate and it was a long time ago” is an absolutely disgraceful and disgusting excuse for the Nakba. And the Nakba was not a direct result of the Arabs rejection of the partition plan. Do your research. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Consensus among who? Wikipedia editors who don't know more than you and I?
2-3. You're justifying Hamas. Watch the movie "#NOVA". Uricoh (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about some of this, but I think both you and @Uricoh are coming into this with a biased mindset. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bunch of convos with non EC editors, don't even bother replying. Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I see a bunch of same editors editing the page in contravention of policy. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you have an article about an alleged assassination?

See above. Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Guardian) "The Saudi channel Al-Hadath reported that Salama, the commander of Hamas’s Khan Younis Brigade, was killed in the strike and that Deif was seriously wounded." Any more? Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All controversial moves should go through a RM.VR (Please ping on reply) 16:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 July 2024

2024 targeted assassination of Muhammad Deif → 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack – There are two distinct POVs here. Israel's POV is that they killed a mastermind of the October 7 attacks. Palestinian POV is that Israel massacred innocent civilians, including women and children. Wikipedia should not take sides. The title should be neutral, and all POVs should be discussed in the article.VR (Please ping on reply) 16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up a second there is July 2024 Al-Mawasi airstrikes already. Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would rather redirect this rather poor article there, salvaging anything useful (not much) from here in the process.Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article was created four hours later; I've redirected it here. There isn't much duplicate content, but I'll copy over what there is. BilledMammal (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I have undone that until there is a consensus what to do. To me, it's like the Nuseirat case and anyway the later article is much better hasn't been edited by non EC editors etcetera.. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if we want to Merge, we should open a separate discussion about it. At the moment when there are two separate articles, there is no reason to change the name of this article to a name similar to the other article.Galamore (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support given that the Israeli POV would limit the article's scope to the assassination attempt, while the Palestinian POV would enable the article to deal with both the assassination and the murder of civilians in the scope; we don't need two articles for this single incident. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, If the IDF did succeed, this is one of the most significant assassinations that have happened in the conflict in recent years. Eladkarmel (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on what that has to with WP policy? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2024_targeted_assassination_of_Muhammad_Deif"