Talk:Hamas most wanted playing cards

Sourced content

@Hydrangeans and Horse Eye's Back: I have not wasted my time trying to document the status of each individual mentioned here, to eventually see my edits removed by two beauties for no valid reasons other than their political stance. The content replicates what is mentioned in other similar articles such as U.S. list of most-wanted Iraqis, if you want to remove it here, then do it there as well, do not do mental gymnastics with me, as simple as that! Xxx2023 (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The comparison to U.S. list of most-wanted Iraqis is not one-to-one because that is not an article about a card deck but about a list produced by a nation state (really the more pressing issue is that I'm not sure if any of the sources cited in that article are actually about the list or verify it or its notability).

Please do not edit war the disputed content back into the article, especially after multiple editors—both myself and Horse Eye's Back—removed it on the grounds that the sources are not about the card deck. I will add that an edit summary like no one ever should dictate what should be written or not! reads as inflammatory. Bear in mind that this article falls under a contentious topics designation, per a decision of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, so special rules such as the one-revert restriction apply, in addition to a high expectation of civil and productive behavior. The status column in this article should be removed since it is supported only by sources that do not relate the status of the figures to their inclusion in the card deck. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans: Oh, please spare me the sanctimony. If you argue that a "nation" is related to the U.S. list of most-wanted Iraqis, what about the Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards as an example which clearly states the "Fate" of each individual, that demonstrates the invalidity of your argument. By the way, if this article falls under a contentious topics designation, then why did you decide to remove my content in the first place with an edit summary that blatantly reveals your political bias, stating "this is not an IDF checklist"? Let's talk about sources. The status column should absolutely remain. It's absurd to think that any source would report that an individual was killed and keep mentioning their connection to the card deck! As writing the four of spades was killed today! like really, is this your argument?! Your argument is flimsy at best. Keep the information and stop hiding behind procedural excuses. Xxx2023 (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's absurd to think that any source would report that an individual was killed and keep mentioning their connection to the card deck: That sources have brought up connections to the card deck is the reason why I have not removed "fate" column in the Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards article you pointed out. I went to take a look and was going to remove the column, but when I checked the citations, multiple sources about the individuals' status do directly bring up the playing cards, making it so drawing a connection between status and the cards is not WP:OR. That is not the case for the sources cited in this article's "status" column, which do not bring up the cards. I would appreciate you striking aspersions from your comment, such as your accusations that I am hiding behind procedural excuses. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans: So, you admit that you wanted to remove the "fate" column in the other article solely to invalidate the "status" column here! You provided only two sources mentioning the cards, despite many other related cases. Considering your initial justification for deleting the content, I find it hard to believe you genuinely think the additions were irrelevant. As previously mentioned, the content documents the current status of the individuals involved and does not serve as a checklist, which was your main concern. This is similar to the situation with the wanted Iraqis in the other articles, where the readers are informed about their fate. Xxx2023 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

you admit that you wanted to remove the "fate" column in the other article solely to invalidate the "status" column here!: What? But I didn't do that. You have now, whether inadvertently or otherwise, misrepresented my actions as an editor. You can look at the article history; I've never edited it. I was considering removing the column because I don't think Wikipedia is the U. S. military's checklist either because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what is found in independent reliable sources. When I found out that independent sources do actually connect the status of individuals depicted in the Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards to the cards themselves, I deferred to those sources. That isn't the case for this article's topic. You continue referring to it, but the existence of something else somewhere else on Wikipedia is not necessarily a justification for content in a current discussion. It's your choice to presume bad faith of me, but it remains that you have pushed the inclusion of this content against the edits of multiple other editors. However, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion of content in an article is on those seeking to include disputed content. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you don't understand WP:DUEWEIGHT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Scope of the topic

@Horse Eye's Back: In a summary for an edit restoring content about a different deck of cards, you expressed that the AfD discussion was based on a page which covered all decks (note that I actually challenged that in the convo and was corrected). However, I am not so sure you were corrected so much as disagreed with. That AfD is the discussion I referred to when I pointed out that the "Christian cowboy deck" content has been called clearly irrelevant material about an alternate deck of cards [that was] editwarred […] back in and an an irrelevant […] different deck of cards. I don't think that discussion produced a consensus that this article's scope includes multiple decks of cards, and the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

When the person who corrects you is right that means you have been corrected rather than disagreed with, lucky for others I have more sense than stubborness. You're welcome to disagree but it does look like the Cowboy deck has had real impacts on the actual IDF[1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)