Talk:Mohammed Deif

Survived 5 other attacks?

If this is true and not hearsay, a reference should be included.

Why is Hamas’ claims of him being alive given more weight than the IDF’s assertions he’s dead?

Hamas is a terrorist group that has nothing to gain by confirming his death. It will only hurt their morale. On the other hand, the IDF’s intelligence confirming Deif was eliminated in the strike seems pretty well supported. For what it’s worth, Hamas hasn’t confirmed Marwan Issa’s death either but that’s still confirmed according to Wikipedia. So why the double standard for Deif? 2401:D002:8705:D400:E947:7A4C:5443:534D (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Because it's Wikipedia. It's not supposed to make sense. 2600:1700:E255:10:5C12:F40:3B57:33BD (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

So true. 2603:9008:2101:E2F3:425:A6EF:6530:D9C3 (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hamas admitted it.

No reason for this discussion to continue.

Citation: https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-now-accepts-israel-killed-muhammad-deif-has-arrested-2-people-sources-tell-paper/

LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 17:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Awesome work, @LesbianTiamat. Thank you. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

When the idf can show us his body, and his exact picture at the moment they dropped a one-tonne bomb in an area where civilians were sheltering in tents then we can talk The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

His body was blown to smithereens, so it won't be showed. It would be much easier for Hamas to diffuse an audio or video proving he is alive, no? --160.78.149.35 (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Israel is the accuser. The burden of proof is on them. Their silly infographics won’t work and have numerous times proven to be false The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As always, history repeats itself! The article mentions how Israel claimed Deif was assasinated in 2014, which was disproven in 2015... I just think it will take time for Deif to be confirmed alive Deus vult fratres! (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The article currently states:

In August 2014, during the 2014 Gaza War, the Israeli air force attempted to assassinate him with an airstrike on the Deif family home in Sheikh Radwan in Gaza City. Hamas denied that Deif was killed, and his survival was confirmed by Israeli intelligence in 2015.

If Israel falsely claimed that Deif was assassinated, that should definitely be explicitly stated Jesse Flynn (pseudonym) (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Weird, I think I didn't read this on Wikipedia ... or that the article was edited Deus vult fratres! (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I love how you felt the need to bring up the civilians as though it's relevant to this too, lmao. Yeah you're not biased at all, Mule 2603:9008:2101:E2F3:425:A6EF:6530:D9C3 (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe because the people bombed were civilians? I don’t know, maybe where you’re at you’re taught Palestinians are animals that can be slaughtered in any number and not actual human beings. My bias (more like common sense really) doesn’t matter here The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Riiiiiight. Well, I won't say more since apparently your outrageous bias and false accusations are allowed here but responses to it get deleted, so I'll just wish you luck with that BS, Mule. 2603:9008:2101:E2F3:425:A6EF:6530:D9C3 (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I fixed it by writing into the infobox details about his death with the parenthetical statement that it's disputed by Hamas. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW Al-Arabiya has for a couple weeks had a report citing a "Hamas source" as having confirmed Deif's death. This would support your approach. PrimaPrime (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This sequence of edits (along with the edit summary) seems to establish a new standard that unless Hamas officially confirms the death of its leaders, Wikipedia will not use other references that do confirm a death. I would think that would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not a participant in that sequence, however for example leaders which Hamas did not confirm the assassination of are still listed as killed (most notably Marwan Issa, Hamas did not confirm his death).

the reason Mohammad deif’s “assassination” is so controversial is that there are two parties involved already clashing with each other on wether he was killed, the lack of conclusive evidence of this supposed assassination and most controversially the manner of this “assassination” where 90 civilians were killed because Israel dropped several 1-tonne bombs (gladly supplied by America) over areas where civilians were sheltering The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Per edit summary in this edit, Deif will continue to be shown on Wikipedia as alive until 2080, unless Hamas confirms his death before that.
But it may be possible that we could shave 6 years off of that, allowing Wikipedia to show Deif as dead as soon as 2074. The IDF obviously has evidence that Deif is dead, otherwise they wouldn't confirm his death — they would continue to put him on their most wanted list. As far as I understand, all military secrets in Israel are declassified after 50 years, so the evidence may be declassified in 2074 (but there may be a mechanism to extend the classifications of certain classified material by another 25 years, I'm not really sure).

Until then, let Deif live his life on Wikipedia. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

When the sole party alleging to have “assassinated” him has a track record of lying when they Bomb civilians and claim to target individual militants, then the thing someone with common sense would do is to treat their allegations as nothing more than allegations The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at the FAQ for a more detailed analysis. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Description of Mohammed Deif

In the first paragraph of the main article Mohammed Deif is described as a "militant". This is BBC language. He is/was a terrorist and should be described as such. His al-Qassam Brigades were nothing other than a terrorist group. Dori1951 (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, see MOS:TERRORIST. - Ïvana (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You can also take a look at One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Asharq Al-Awsat confirms Deif's death.

Here is the source linked to the Saudi Arabia owned newspaper: https://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/5077358-new-evidence-suggests-death-qassam-brigades-leader ULLIRALDMOOR (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Good work. I have incorporated this reference into the article. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hamas denied this per https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2024/11/03/hamas-denies-martyrdom-of-its-military-leader-mohammed-deif Pachu Kannan (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Both dead and alive

So we now have a source, Asharq Al-Awsat, saying that Hamas has acknowledged Deif's death, with another source saying that they are still denying his death. WP:RSP does not have a listing for Asharq Al-Awsat, so I don't know if there are reliability issues with it. Assuming Asharq Al-Awsat has no reliability issues, I would say that Deif should continue to be listed as dead, with Hamas disputing the reports that it has internally acknowledged his death. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think one newspaper citing anonymous sources is strong enough to state definitively in wiki voice that he is dead. Per WP:BLP, people are presumed to be living unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. The burden of proof lies with those making the assertions. This newspaper only mentions "sources close to Deif". Moreover, Hamas has explicitly denied these claims. So we're back to square one: the IDF (and now one newspaper) claim he is dead, and Hamas says he's not. In the absence of concrete evidence affirming otherwise, he should be presumed to be alive. - Ïvana (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we are back to square one. It's one newspaper saying that Hamas is privately acknowledging that he's dead. To the best of my knowledge, the newspaper has not recanted its story. Unless we can impeach the credibility of the newspaper, then there really is no dispute that he is dead. Hamas accusing the newspaper of falsehood is not an impeachment of the credibility of the newspaper. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

We have a newspaper asserting Hamas said something and Hamas explicitly deniying it. Why would the newspaper unverified claim have more weight that a statement coming from them? - Ïvana (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you read the reference, but the reference is quite unequivocal. Here are some key sentences from the reference.

1. new evidence points to the assassination of Mohammed Deif
2. Samples were taken from the body, and it was later buried in Khan Younis. Tests on these samples reportedly confirmed the remains likely belonged to Deif
3. after prolonged silence and a complete communication cutoff, Qassam leaders are now convinced Deif was killed.

Unless you can impeach the credibility of Asharq Al-Awsat, the article has to show him as dead with Hamas refusing to publicly acknowledge it. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I did read the piece. It boils down to the newspaper making unverified claims based on anonymous sources. The newspaper itself doesn't definitively confirm that he is dead; it only suggests that he likely is, citing al-Qassam, a confirmation that they explicitly denied making. This directly contradicts the claims made in the article. I don't think that's strong enough for a BLP and for us to say that he is dead as a matter of fact. The truth is that we don't know, and while his status is unconfirmed he should be presumed to be alive. That's how BLPs operate. - Ïvana (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

We do know that he is dead. There's a body, and the body has been confirmed to belong to Deif. That's really all that's required to confirm a death. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The article relies entirely on testimony Hamas has explicitly denied making, meaning the assertions in it are completely unreliable. - Ïvana (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You may be a little confused. The article relies on testimony by knowledgeable elements inside Hamas. It is the Hamas information ministry that is making the denials for public relations purposes.

The Hamas information ministry does not invalidate the reliability of the source. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not mentioned at all in any of the articles linked above so it sounds like WP:SYNTH. al-Awsat says Hamas sources have indicated that new evidence points to the assassination of Mohammed Deif and later that those sources are close to Deif. Nothing more than that. And the Star says Hamas has dismissed a report by the London-based Asharq al-Awsat newspaper and Hamas said in a statement on Saturday (Nov 2) that the report is untrue and called on all media outlets to act accurately and professionally. The reaction came after Asharq al-Awsat, citing Hamas sources, alleged that the movement had confirmed Deif lost his life. So my point remains valid. - Ïvana (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Official Hamas statements are put out by the Hamas Information ministry. Sounds like you are doing some WP:SYNTH of your own when you say that Hamas is contradicting itself. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm quoting directly from the articles. Both mention Hamas sources without much detail. There's no evidence of contradiction; al-Awsat says Hamas confirmed one thing, and then Hamas officially denied it. - Ïvana (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

We are in agreement. Hamas is internally acknowledging that Deif is dead, but publicly denying it. Both are listed in the article.

Since samples reportedly confirmed the remains likely belonged to Deif, there is no more presumption that he is alive, which is why the article shows him as dead and notes that Hamas is officially disputing it. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I'm talking in circles. Both articles only mention Hamas sources. The entire report from al-Awsat relies on testimony provided by these sources, testimony that Hamas has stated it did not give. What's confusing about that? You're assuming that the parties providing the testimony and denying it are different, but that distinction doesn't come from any of the articles. They only refer to Hamas. - Ïvana (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this will clear things up for you. The reference saying that Hamas is denying the report in Asharq Al-Awsat relies on an official statement from Hamas. The report in Asharq Al-Awsat does not claim that it came from an official statement from Hamas. It cites sources within Hamas.

It is therefore a WP:SYNTH on your part to presume that the sources in Asharq Al-Awsat are the same as the ones who composed the official statement from Hamas. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously if the report from al-Awsat was based on an official statement from Hamas we wouldn't be having this discussion. Hamas didn't make two contradicting statements. The newspaper claims Hamas said one thing, and Hamas put out one statement denying it. There's nothing SYNTHy about that interpretation. - Ïvana (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You're still missing the point.

The newspaper claims Hamas said one thing.

No, Asharq Al-Awsat did not attribute anything to Hamas. The newspaper attributed their findings to sources within Hamas. There is a big difference between official statements that come from Hamas, and statements made by individual operatives. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly going nowhere. I linked this discussion in the BLP noticeboard (and pinged you there) to see if any uninvolved editor with experience in BLPs feels like giving their two cents. Hope that's ok. - Ïvana (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that as the next step. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@The Mountain of Eden if you want to see an example, go to Massoud Rajavi, someone who has been both death and alive for two decades.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

A person who has disappeared is not the same as this case in which a person has been confirmed to be dead, but there is a group that continues to deny the death. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ïvana is right. Anonymous "Hamas sources" is nowhere close enough to be able to definitely confirm that Deif died. Moreover, I challenge the reliability of Asharq Al-Awsat because "Although published under the name of a private company, Saudi Research and Marketing Group (SRMG), the paper was founded with the approval of the Saudi royal family and government ministers, and is noted for its support of the Saudi government. The newspaper is owned by Faisal bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family." Given Saudi Arabia's generally poor relations with Hamas, and the fact that Saudi Arabia is one of the worst countries in terms of freedom of the press, I'd have to question the reliability of any media organization from Saudi Arabia, especially when it comes to politics. Skornezy (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that the ICC issued an arrest warrant for him today is also relevant. According to them they are "not in a position to determine whether [he] has been killed or remains alive" which is the same position we should be assuming. Which means we should not be asserting in our own voice that he is dead. - Ïvana (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Skornezy (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Bizarre English and incorrect article link

Pseudonym is a common enough word in English lexicon that it should be used over the French presented here. Additionally "US banknotes" were only a thing until the early 20th century. He was holding US dollars. The linked wiki article makes this seem like he got a hold of unusable currency. The dollar facing the camera contains the large head enhancement from the early 21st century.

This feels like it was created by someone using a poor translator. Happy to help edit but it's protected. If there's a way to submit a draft, please let me know. I'm new to protected articles but this was too egregious. Ieditthethings (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ieditthethings: I changed banknotes to dollars as you suggested, but kept "nom de guerre" because it specifically denotes an alias adopted for use in militant activities, so it seems more appropiate. The word is wikilinked anyways so any doubt can be cleared up by reading the linked article. - Ïvana (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)