Talk:Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

'apparent Israeli attack' - in LEAD isn't supported by source given

The 'apparent Israeli attack' - in LEAD isn't supported by the source given. The source given is an speculative non-analyst oppinion peace and apparently not good/standard quality journalism. There ara only speculations sourrounding the attack that led to assasination of Haniyeh - and these speculation vary and change in time until today. This bullshit WP-statement must be changed; e.g. blamed on Israel by "Iran and the militant group" -- that would be supported by the mouth-piece source given -2A01:5241:345:E600:4A2A:FAAE:5ECD:A3FF (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Suspicious image

Does the Iranian propaganda poster inserted twice in violation of 1RR have any constructive value to this article or is it just a repetitive rambling that has already been mentioned throughout the article? Not to mention the fact that the source of this pic has had a history of inserting incoherent and POV writing. Borgenland (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: Hyperlink "Ansar al-Mahdi" to "Intelligence Protection Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps"; expand on what the Ansar-al-Mahdi Protection Unit is

The article contains two sentences referencing Ansar al-Mahdi:

1. "IRGC believes that three explosives were planted in three separate rooms of the guesthouse by agents of Iran's own Ansar al-Mahdi protection unit who were recruited by the Mossad"

2. "two IRGC members recruited from the Ansar al-Mahdi security unit as inside agents in charge of securing the building and its guests"

It would be useful if we provided some description for a reader as to what Ansar al-Mahdi is. According to this article from 2019, Ansar al-Mahdi is more formally the Ansar-al-Mahdi Protection Unit and is a subsidiary of the Intelligence Protection Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which is "responsible for the safety of high-ranking officials (with the exception of the supreme leader) inside and outside the country, and the protection of important state and religious buildings."

I'm too junior to make these edits myself. Mosi Nuru (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Partly done AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Potential undue weight

In section "Assassination" subsection "Method" there is a whole paragraph devoted to The Jewish Chronicles version which seems like a fairy tale if you read it while more reliable and notable sources like NYT have only half of that AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle is not RS generally, certainly not for these articles, which have an abundance of mainstream sourcesz to draw on.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the material for now, per this thread and WP:ECREE, which certainly requires more than a single source to present such claims. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2024

Much like in Ismail Haniyeh, this article's lede also indicates that the perpetrator of the assassination of Haniyeh is Israel, stating "On 31 July 2024, Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, was assassinated along with his personal bodyguard in the Iranian capital Tehran by an apparent Israeli attack", while referencing an AP source. The AP source only mentions that Israel is blamed for the attack by Iran and Hamas, it does not mention it as the perpetrator, "apparent" or otherwise.

This statement in the lede is also not supported in the actual subsection Assassination, which it seeks to summarize.

That part of the line has no foundation in the RS. Please correct it to state Israel is alleged by "Iran and [Hamas]" to have perpetrated it, per the RS; or remove it altogether.

77.137.37.166 (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Multple reliable sources[1][2][3] name Israel as the perpetrator, and Israeli admission isn't required for us to relay what RS say. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You may want to add these sources to the article, then. Because the current references do NOT currently support this assertion. 77.137.37.166 (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

The current analysis section is a violation of WP:NPOV. Kashmiri noted[4] that it was strongly POV and tried to remove it. In response האופה said "you are welcome to add other views" and reverted them. Yet, when I added such views, they either deleted those views or moved them to a different section[5], leaving the section quite pro-Israeli again.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Vice regent, you are welcome to add other views, really. But keep in mind that the "Analysis" part is usually dedicated to what analysts, journalists and leading outlets have to say on a topic. Government responses usually belong at the "Responses" section. HaOfa (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I would also ask you not to use terms as "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Palestinian" in Wikipedia discussions, they are really not constructive. We're dealing with what reliable, notable sources have to say on the matter. The section includes what BBC, CNN, as well as Yedioth and JPost have to say on the matter, all of those are reliable and prominent newspapers. HaOfa (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Please use a better source than The Jerusalem Post, especially for topics like this. See the RSN discussion and WP:NPPSG. C F A 💬 13:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

BBC, CNN, Yedioth, and JPost:

a British media outlet, an American media outlet, and two Israeli media outlets... doesn't strike me as a neutral selection of sources. Surely there are sources that come from countries other than Israel and its two major allies, for an article about the assassination of a Palestinian in Iran. Levivich (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Problem is most pro-Palestinian sources are regarded as "unreliable" here which leads to pro-Israel bias. AlexBobCharles (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• I would also ask you not to use terms as "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Palestinian" in Wikipedia discussions, they are really not constructive. We're dealing with what reliable, notable sources have to say on the matter. No, that's not correct. Per WP:BIASED and WP:DUE, part of our responsibility as editors is to consider the biases of sources; a source can be reliable but still have a bias, and in that case we must be careful, when writing, to avoid situations where we give undue weight to one particular perspective by relying too heavily on sources that are all biased in the same way, even if they are otherwise reliable. This is a slightly complex topic because WP:DUE depends on the proportion of weight in top-quality reliable sources; but if we're relying entirely on RSes biased in one way and ignoring equally reliable sources that don't share the same biases, then we're failing to balance due weight. This means that it's not only appropriate but often necessary to talk about whether sources are "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Palestinian", because in this case in particular there often isn't a clear academic consensus on key points of the conflict - meaning that it is generally inappropriate to rely too heavily on sources biased in the same direction. --Aquillion (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You distorted Nick Patton's opinion into saying this "challenges" Iran's sovereignty, while Patton wrote "the attack is clearly a grave violation of its sovereignty"[6].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

In other words, they violated the 1RR policy. האופה are you going to self-revert? M.Bitton (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The second diff doesn't seem a revert to me, all I was doing is to move text from one section to another. Please stop this. HaOfa (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Your call. @Vice regent: since they have no intention of self-reverting, I suggest you report them to the admins. Please ping me when you do. M.Bitton (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Guys, what's the issue? the content you say was reverted is still on the article. O.maximov (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You know what the issue is (it has been explained and doesn't need to be repeated). M.Bitton (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it has been moved out of the analysis/analyst section. Why can't sources critical of Israel be legitimate sources of analysis? Nothing says officials can't provide meaningful analysis.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any opposition to add sources critical of Israel. But you should add them at the right place. Oman's and Iraq's positions are international reactions. Analysis means something else. O.maximov (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why officials and foreign ministries can't engage in "analysis"? You seem to be reducing the WP:WEIGHT given to certain reactions by altering their placement.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what I have seen on many Wikipedia articles, I don't know how and when it started. Analysis is analysis, and international responses are international responses. By the way what you did there with moving the analysts under responses is really strange. I haven't seen any cases of this structure. Usually it is analysis and then responses from governmental/NGO/non-state actors. O.maximov (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Its also not clear to me why the reactions of certain writers are placed higher in the article[7] and therefore given more WP:WEIGHT than the reactions of government officials that are quite close to this. Why should the opinion of Avi Issacharoff be given more weight than opinion of Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, the man who has been mediating negotiations between Haniyeh and the Israelis?VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Vice regent Well it isnt anymore AlexBobCharles (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)