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)
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]"
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)
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
1. Consensus among who? Wikipedia editors who don't know more than you and I?
