Talk:Ahmed Yassin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Removal of Idiots

There are several posts that add nothing to the discssion but inane garbage. I don't see a need for them to remain on the page. The Talk Page should be cleaned up and stupid, irrelevant content removed.Jwwil 00:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk page archived. -- Avi 03:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] politician?

i'm not sure I understand on what basis this person was a "politician". He rejected peaceful democratic solutions completely and supported violence. Elizmr 15:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the source for antisemitism?

Hello, where is the source for antisemitism?Bless sins 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page. -- Avi 21:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Please put it here for all to see.Bless sins 17:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there no source for Yassin's alleged antisemitism?Bless sins 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Avraham, I will remove the category Antisemitism, unless you provide a source for it. I asked for the source weeks ago.Bless sins 20:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's there; please read the article. -- Avi 14:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you copy and paste the sentence, or the source that says this. Why can't you answer me in a straightforward manner?Bless sins 13:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you please respond to me at the "Where is the source for antisemitism?" section of this talk? Thanks.Bless sins 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read the article, this talk page, and your talk page carefully. You may have to check the histories. Good Luck! -- Avi 14:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So you don't have any source that claims Yassin was "antisemitic" except talk pages. If you did you would not be afraid to provide me with one. Finally, I have shown you why Hamas related material is OR.Bless sins 14:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
ROFLOL. Once again you are acting in a way which seems to indicate that you have trouble with the English language. Perhaps French is your native tongue coming from Canada, that may explain it. Regardless, your question HAS been answered before, and your re-asking of it does not invalidate the answer that was given. If you are either incapable or not-interested in looking for the answer given when you asked, or more importantly, reading the article, I feel badly for you, but that does not change the article and its supports. Good Luck! -- Avi 14:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not attack my language (English), and don't judge my country (Canada). If my question has ben answered before, then why don't you simply copy and past the answer. Why are you running away form the answer? I have read the article, and have not found a single mention of "antisemitism". And save your pity ("I feel badly for you") for yourself.Bless sins 14:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I could offer you a pair of glasses, I guess, but I will give you a hint. Read the article and the sources. -- Avi 14:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop making personal attacks? Now you're attacking my eyes. I have the read the entire article. Nowhere does it say "antisemitism".Bless sins 14:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I will try the Socratic method. What does Antisemitism mean? Here's a link to somewhere that might help: http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=anti-Semitism . -- Avi 21:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The only statement, made by Yasin, in the article which, as far as I can tell, can be construed as anti-semitic is the following : "Reconciliation with the Jews is a crime". In order to examine the context of that statement, here is the whole of the relevant paragraph, taken from the source which was provided in the article: "Reconciliation with the Jews is a crime ... If reconciliation means a truce and a cessation of fighting for a specified period of time, Islam allows the imam (leader) of the Muslims to undertake such a reconciliation if he believes that the enemy is strong and the Muslims are weak and need time to prepare and buildup. I single out Palestine in particular, because it is a land of holy places and an Islamic religious endowment (waqf) that cannot be conceded by any ruler, president or king. Nor may any generation concede it, because it is the property of all generations of Muslims until the Day of Judgement. As for the permitted duration of the truce, many Islamic jurists are of the opinion that it must not exceed 10 years." The Gnome 07:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems clear that, by the term "Jews", Yasin is referring to the state of Israel and not the Jewish people in general. Hamas and Yasin never recognized the legitimacy of the existence of the state of Israel. (Hamas and Yasin always refer to the state of Israel as "the occupiers", "the Zionist invader", etc.) Yasin, in the interview, outlines the terms of a potential truce with the state of Israel, but wants to avoid the names "state of Israel" or "Israelis"! This might be indicative of political shortcomings on his part, or also of a lack of realism. It might also be indicative of Yasin's unwillingness to negotiate a real truce, since he clearly considers it, not the prelude to eventual peace, but only the means of achieving military victory later on. (Nothing new there, really, as far as truces are concerned, in History.) Nevertheless, if we want to label Yasin an anti-semite, then clearly more is needed than that statement he made. The Gnome 07:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"It seems clear..." is original research on your part. Last I checked, Yassin had used the term "Israel" and "Palestine" in the past, and "Jews" is not a synonym for "Israel" in any language, outside of some right-wing anti-semitic skinhead and neo-nazi sites, I believe. So, are you saying that Yassin forgot how to say "occupiers" and conveniently remembered "Jews"? That's nothing more than a supposition on your part, I believe. -- Avi 04:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I'm still waiting for Avi to provide a source that accuses him of "antisemitism".Bless sins 04:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
And I'm still waiting for you to read the article and sources. -- Avi 04:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Saintly" Photograph

Would it be at all possible to find a less "Saintly" photograph to post of this terrorist mastermind? - MSTCrow 15:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What evidence exists that Yassin was a "terrorist mastermind"? As I understood it his role in operational planning of attacks was basically nonexistent. I thought he was more of a figurehead, and more on the politico-religious side than the Izzadine Qassam side of things. Eleland 19:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
We could perhaps agree that Adolph Hitler surpassed Yasin in villainy. Note, however, that we (correctly) do not shy away from publishing pictures of Hitler which flatter him, or even make him out as a saint. This pre-supposes a minimum amount of critical faculties in the reader, because, otherwise, we are back to the days of Middle Age gullibility and idolatry. A huge number of people, and especially people who have suffered from the Nazis, or whose relatives have suffered, take offense by the mere sight of Hitler's picture, I'm sure -- but this is an encyclopaedia. This is a lab that aspires to be scientific. We examine both the "good" and the "bad" strain of the virus. That picture of Yasin is adequate. The Gnome 08:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is without doubt that the current image is biased in that it provokes a sympathy almost immediately. A more suitable image would make less of his disability and possess a better facial expression. For lack of a better word the current picture makes him look "simple", if not harmless and Yassin was certainly no simpleton, he was a founding father of a bloody popular movement and it would better reflect the man and the role he played in Palestinian politics if we were to seek a more flattering photograph. I agree that just because the image promotes sympathy, does not mean it should not be published, but I disagree with it being used as the main image, the image on which many users first make judgement upon. Superpie (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The image is pretty bizarre. It was taken a couple days before his death, so maybe it's best moved to the assassination section? I'm going to swap the images in the entry, I hope that's agreeable to everyone. DBaba (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly find it agreeable. Superpie (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OR

According to WP:OR, "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."

Thus every source in this article should be about Ahmed Yassin. If it isn't I'm going to remove it.Bless sins 18:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless it discusses Hamas, the organization he created and was the spiritual head of, in which case sources about Hamas will do. Please try to work with other editors. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, wiki policy OR is clear about this. A source that is not in relation to the topic should not be used. Please try to work in accordance of WP:NOR.Bless sins 15:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The topic is Hamas, Yassin's organization. You can't mention Yassin without talking about Hamas, it's the only reason he's notable. Jayjg (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That may be true, but there are source that are both in relation Hamas and Yassin. Infact, all the sources I've used talk about both. Please review the wikipedia policy regarding this.Bless sins 02:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please also refrain from posthumous whitewashing. -- Avi 16:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas

While saying that well-documented and well-cited information is "OR" is at best demonstrative of a complete misunderstanding of our policies and guidelines, and at worst, outright POV whitewashing violations, I agree that further explanation of Hamas, while important in understanding Yassin vis-a-vis the Israeli-Arab conflict of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, does not belong in the lead. As such, I have moved that text to the section of the article describing Yassin's role in the creation of Hamas. -- Avi 16:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


WP:OR says "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."

Thus every source in this article should be about Ahmed Yassin. If any content is sourced to reference that aren't about the topic of the article (which is Ahmed Yassin), then that contetn is OR. It belongs in Hamas not here.Bless sins 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Avi. Can you respond to my previous point? Thanks.Bless sins 14:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There seems little point in repeating verbatim chunks from the Hamas article. We know who Hamas is, and if we don't there are links to help us. This aside from the main flow makes the article harder to read and you might as well repeat them everytime the word Hamas appearing in a news article for example. The whole idea of an online encyclopaedia is that you can leave side notes for people who want to pursue them.

--BozMo talk 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamas's being a terrorist organization is critical to understanding Yassin's role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I have condensed the in-article sentence and listed the various countries in the references. -- Avi 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Its cool well done.--BozMo talk 18:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I still disgaree. Anything that falls under original research is not permitted. I'm sorry, but I tend to be strict about OR. WP:OR says "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."
Thus unless the source is about the guy "Ahmed Yassin", it should not be included at all. If you think I'm misinterpreting OR, please tell me how.Bless sins 02:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Everything in that sentence has been previously published in the sources brought. They are relevant to Yassin to explain his critical role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. You're welcome. -- Avi 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Do the sources say that they "explain his [Yassin's] critical role in the Arab-Israeli conflict". Yassin's "critical role" is your OR, unsupported by the sources in question. Please find sources that are actually about Ahmed Yassin.Bless sins 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying that Yassin did not create Hamas now? -- Avi 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The sources certianly aren't. The sources you keep on inserting do not say that Yassin created Hamas, (although I'm not sure why you think that is an important). Please find sources that are in relation to the topic of the article [Ahmed Yassin], as WP:NOR requires.Bless sins 02:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Goodness gracious. How about you click on reference #1 and read the introductory paragraph: "Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder and spiritual leader of Hamas…" Once again, in order to maintain the possibility that you are not engaged in a pointed effort at historical revisionism, I will have to assume you have read neither the article nor the sorces, be it by lack of ability or lack of choice. Of course, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain that possibility, being that your posts on various talk pages do indicate a decent command of the English language… -- Avi 04:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, did you realize that I'm NOT removing reference number 1 (the BBC one). Once again, I'm NOT objecting to reference # 1. The references I object to are listed under #4 in this version. Do any of those references even mention Yassin? (I know only one of the references does).
BTW, Avi, do you not understand my arugment here? It seems so. All I'm saying is that eveyr source needs to be about Yassin, else I should be in this article.Bless sins 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrectly interpreting WP:OR. WP:OR states (emphasis added is my own):

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

– WP:OR

It is hard for me to understand the validity of the claim that Hamas is not directly related to Ahmed Yassin. -- Avi 03:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The official Israeli announcements, including the announcement of the operation that led to Yassin's assassination, use the term "head of Hamas" when referring to Yassin. The term is broad enough to imply the involvement of Yassin in all Hamas activities. However, Yassin is considered to have been the spiritual leader of Hamas - and not its operational leader. Although he was accused by Israel of "[being] responsible for numerous murderous terror attacks", his role in the activity of Hamas could only have been directional and, in a sense, strategic, (in addition to providing support for the ideological foundations of the organisation) rather than anything involving specific operations. Yassin decided if it would be war or peace -- and he also decided (or, at least, approved of) the manner in which the war would be waged, e.g. bombings of civilian targets. The specific planning and carrying out of war operations was the responsibility of Hamas officers. The Gnome 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
As of now every source, when it declares Hamas as "terrorist", does NOT mention Yassin. Why? Perhaps because they don't feel Yassin is responsible for Hamas' activities.Bless sins 04:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
"It is hard for me to understand the validity of the claim that Hamas is not directly related to Ahmed Yassin." Similarly Sharon is directly connected to Israel. Yet should we mention (in his article) the allegations of apartheid leveled against Israel during his rule?Bless sins 04:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

...and he also decided (or, at least, approved of) the manner in which the war would be waged, e.g. bombings of civilian targets.

– The Gnome 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And this means that he is not a terrorist because....? -- Avi 04:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] “Western”

Being that it is banned in Jordan (see the references) wouldn't "Western" be too restrictive? -- Avi 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Guess so. --BozMo talk 20:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can find a better description for the list of countries tell me and I'll put it in (perhaps tomorrow though I'm off now). Or you could but I don't want you to inadvertently wander over 3RR and another conseq edit by me wouldn't count. --BozMo talk 20:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paraplegic or quadriplegic?

The intro says that he was paraplegic but the "Early life" section says that he was quadriplegic. Could someone please correct whichever one is wrong? --212.219.230.62 (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)