Talk:Mohammed Deif

Survived 5 other attacks?

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

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)

Personally, I think all evidence points to the fact that this guy is dead. Until proven alive, let's just leave him at presumed dead, but not confirmed by hamas themselves. Oriential Smith (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrientalSmith (talk • contribs)

That's not how it works tho. According to WP:BLP everyone is presumed to be alive until a RS can confirm their death. It is not our responsibility to prove that he's alive, but rather for the IDF (or anyone else) to prove that he is dead. A person could be missing for 50 years and still be considered alive under BLP. Per WP:BDP, someone is only presumed dead if they are over 115 years old. Deif is 58/59 so he has quite a bit of time left. - Ïvana (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Coming here from WP:ITN. From what I can see in the article's body and discussion here, the death date should nowhere be near the infobox or short description here (in any form [alleged etc.]); no one except the IDF has acknowledged his death. A lone newspaper report confirming his death, regardless of its reliability, notwithstanding.

Also compare the reactions to the 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack to Reactions to the killing of Osama bin Laden, where in the latter multiple third parties acknowledged his death, in the former the reactions are more about allegations of war crimes absent any mention of Deif.

He might very well be dead but Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and a teritary source has to weight the sources and a proclamation of his death by us so prominently is not supported by the sources and is as of now WP:UNDUE. We can and should wait for any third-party confirmation (US, EU etc.); instead we have international bodies saying they cannot confirm the IDF's claims. Gotitbro (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Also note that newspapers reported his death in 2002 which turned out to be false; he was also reported to be dead in the 2014 Deif family killings which again was untrue.

This is why third-party confirmation (not mere newspaper reports) becomes important and necessary. Gotitbro (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok well even if Deif isn't confirmed dead, could we at least change the 'is' in the first sentence to 'is or was' since it could be misleading to some of them. Oriential Smith (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

No, we always wait for a confirmation of death before changing tenses (e.g. the numerous missing persons on enwiki who are strongly suspected to be dead but are still listed as alive pending any final confirmation). Gotitbro (talk) 06:27, 24 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)

While I don't really care about the change, "US banknotes" very obviously refers to Federal Reserve Notes, i.e., "bills". "Dollars" are currency but are not exclusively banknotes. The money in your bank account is also in dollars, but not in banknotes. WP Ludicer (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll concede. When I first read the Banknotes of the United States dollar page, I only saw the references to the 1700s. I did not realize it expanded into current banknotes as well.

My mistake. Ieditthethings (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Official list of casualties from Hamas health ministry

Does anyone have access to the official list of fatalities provided by Hamas? I was just wondering if Sinwar and other prominent figures were on the list, and maybe accidentally Deif. Alternatively, I wonder if a "martyrs and missing persons" form was filled out and if this information is published for public viewing. 2405:6E00:421:BF7F:3CFA:3E38:C579:97CF (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The Gaza health ministry death toll is based mainly on medical records, so it’s safe to assume most if not all of the deaths reported by them are civilian as militants killed in battle would be on the battlefield

the last publication of the Gaza health ministry was 31 August, 649 pages with 34,000 names including cases with notoriety like Hind rajab

this is the PDF of the names

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16dyrQ5sEm4KkLx1bXyjsLW16fH-hXhBF/view The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. I guess it's too outdated to be of use.

I don't understand what you mean by "militants killed in battle would be on the battlefield" rather than on the list. If the list was current, surely Sinwar would be on the list since Hamas has confirmed the death? Those submitted as "missing" wouldn't be on the list under their official ID, but unidentifiable bodies should be, under a new ID: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2024/10/13/why-the-gaza-health-ministry-s-death-count-is-considered-reliable_6729264_8.html. I haven't read any news to suggest that if an unidentified body is somehow attached to weapons it would be excluded from the list. An identified person killed in battle could be intentionally excluded but I have not seen this confirmed in English-speaking news.

The following is the official "martyrs and missing persons" form:

https://sehatty.ps/moh-registration/public/add-order

I imagine a Hamas official has submitted Sinwar by now through this form or other means (since this form seems intended for families more so than hospitals, where there is a field to indicate a hospital was previously notified).

I don't speak Arabic but maybe by "battlefield" you meant "buried under rubble"? According to Google Translate, الأنقاض is the closest translation I could find, but is doesn't seem to reverse-translate into battlefield. If your news sources are in Arabic, I can try translating those pages myself.

Shukran 2405:6E00:2EE:F0EB:A122:8FB0:DE50:F117 (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Section heading

There is nothing alleged about the attempted assassination of July 13, 2024. Hence, the word "alleged" is inappropriate for the section heading. Since Israel claims that the attempted assassination was successful, they are not going to attempt to assassinate him again. Hence, the most accurate way to characterize the attempted assassination of July 13, and distinguish it from all the other attempted assassinations, is "the last attempted assassination". The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Deif is dead

This was confirmed by genetic and dental tests on his body found in Rafah. Any attempt to deny his death is denying reality. צחי (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I second this. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Please show source stating genetic and dental tests confirm the death. DGtal (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source and not simply unsourced rumours to make this change. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't have proof, they have not shown a body and the DNA test is not admissable evidence, we have to assume he is alive until its actually proven that he is dead, so don't go around updating wikipedia pages with unconfirmed information. Ilipopgamer (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Mohammed Deif/FAQ. This is not about denying (nor confirming) reality. This is about following policy in case when the death of a person is disputed. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Uhh, nothing is on that talk page. So there is no way to confirm his death. 2600:1702:5870:5930:3CF8:49D1:19C0:7F88 (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)