Talk:Hamas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hamas article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Hamas is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 1, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
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.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Hamas as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Malayalam language Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives

Contents


[edit] European Union terrorist designation

There has been a dispute over whether the European Union designates Hamas a terrorist organization. It was removed based on the supposed point that the Council of the European Union is not the European Union itself. True, but the Council of the European Union is, in fact, a legislative body thereof, and, further, other sources ( http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=49 , http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6583080 ) confirm this. Thus, I am reverting it back. --Nate (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a better source from the EU themselves? I'm sure they maintain a better list than the funding document that's flouted here all the time... pedrito - talk - 14.03.2008 15:19
Hamas is a terror organization - including in the EU [1] Zeq (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, Zeq, thanks! That's exactly the document I was talking about. The one that does not designate them as a terrorist organisation but states that, in "view to combating terrorism" that certain people are subject to restrictive measures. The EU is usually not generally in the business of calling elected governments "terrorist". pedrito - talk - 14.03.2008 15:28
The Council of the European Union may have made such a designation, but that is not the same as saying "The European Union has designated..." This ground has been well-trodden in the past, so I suggest the naysayers spend a little time in this page's archives to get a refresher. Tarc (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
By that view, the EU doesn't designate ANY group as terrorists. Now, for those of you not familiar with the EU Structure, http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/treaties/selected/livre107.html , Article 34: "The Council shall take measures and promote cooperation...contributing to the pursuit of the objectives of the Union...To that end, acting unanimously on the initiative of any Member State or of the Commission, the Council may: (a) adopt common positions defining the approach of the Union to a particular matter..." etc. The source in question states: "the Council has concluded that the persons, groups and entities listed in the Annex to this Decision have been involved in terrorist acts within the meaning of Article 1(2) and (3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism..." Now, if we want to quibble over the semantics of the source, whether "...groups...[that] have been involved in terrorists acts" are "terrorist groups, I'm willing to acquiesce to a different wording. I'm going to add into the article, then, that the EU "lists Hamas as a group 'involved in terrorist attacks.'" Is this agreeable? If not, why?--Nate (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ideology: Islamic Democracy/Islamism

In a table at the beginning of the article, there's a line that reads: Ideology: Islamic Democracy

Understandably, many viewers object, and sometimes someone changes it to Islamic Theocracy. These changes are quickly reverted though.

I find the claim that Hamas' Ideology is "democratic" is contradictory to some of the content in the article, namely, "4.5 Crackdown on dissent and on the Press". A democratic ideology isn't just about accepting the rule of the majority, but also about allowing free press, and granting rights to minorities.

I changed "Islamic democracy" to "islamism". Looking at the Islamic democracy and islamism articles, I found that they refer to the same thing, while the first term is controversial, while the second is widely accepted. Seem like NPOV requires this change, even if Hamas prefer using the first name.

Cederal (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hamas participated in and won fair and free elections -- that makes them democratic. Calling them Islamist is far more controversial than calling their ideology Islamic Democracy. Any sources to back up your claim? pedrito - talk - 07.03.2008 13:46
I thought I was just omiting "democracy" (which is contraversial) while the "islamist" part was well-accepted. Here's a source: [1] Cederal (talk)
According to the Wikipedia article on Mahmoud Zahar, the guy quoted in your source, he is "one of [Hamas'] more stubborn hard-liners". Seriously, Islamic democracy and Islamism are two completely different things. One is a democracy (like Christian democracy) and the other is a fundamentalist Theocracy. pedrito - talk - 07.03.2008 14:24
I thought an Islamic democracy, is quite different from a democracy, but if that's what it means, I certainly cannot accept that this is Hamas' ideology. These actions can not be taken by a democratic movement:
Human rights groups and ordinary Gazans accuse Hamas of forcefully suppressing dissent. Hamas is using means which are criminal, including torture, political detentions, and firing on un-armed protesters who object Hamas policies.[2].
Hamas members have also been harassing and arresting Palestinian journalists in Gaza [3],[4]. On August 29, 2007 Palestinian health officials reported that Hamas had been shutting down Gaza clinics in retaliation for doctor strikes - Hamas confirmed that "punitive measure against doctors" who, according to Hamas, "incite others to strike and suspend services" have been taken. [5]
On September 6th, 2007 Hamas disbanded the Gaza Strip branch of the Union of Palestinian Journalists Union and arrested 5 journalists. [6]
On Feb 8, 2008 Hamas banned distribution of Al-Ayyam newspaper and closure of its offices in the Gaza Strip due to a caricature that mocked legislators loyal to Hamas[7],[8]. Hamas had later issued an arrest request for the editor[9].
Cederal (talk)

[edit] Points of reference... Sinn Fein and the IRA

I thought that I might point out that a similar relationship to Hamas and the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades existed between the Northern Irish movements of Sinn Fein and the IRA during the 70s, 80s and 90s. I think that these two excellent articles on Wikipedia perhaps offer a useful template for this article. In both of these articles, the introduction outlines the organisation broadly within its own terms, whilst the subsequent sections talk in detail about controversies and the views of others.

Interestingly, the UK - having dealt with Sinn Fein and the IRA - only officially consider the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades to be a terrorist organisation. But, perhaps that point should be saved for a different discussion -- 128.232.240.178 13:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas' own view

An interesting article in the LA Times by a Hamas official shows its own view:

Mousa Abu Marzook. "Hamas' stand", Los Angeles Times, 2007-07-10. 

—Ashley Y 00:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas is best know for....

I agree with Nbauman. Newspapers that are generally considered to be reliable sources cannot be considered to be reliable sources if they give opinions without supporting evidence. This is why a reputable journal like the Wall Street Journal is not regarded as a reliable source in the Global Warming article. They regularly publish editorials disputing the consensus on climate change. But they do not cite peer reviewed papers when they do that.

Basically the facts reported on wikipedia have to be verifiable. That means that if wikipedia refers to the Baltimore Sun, then I should be able to verify that fact from the Baltimore Sun. Which means that they should explain how they obtained that fact, e.g. a poll or they should cite a study published somewhere else. Count Iblis 20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood (or perhaps not read) WP:V. It says that sources are either reliable or not; it doesn't say that we have to be able to fact-check them ourselves, or that they suddenly become unreliable if we happen to disagree with something they've said. Regarding newspapers, the statements in question do not come from their opinion pages, but rather from their hard news pages. In addition, the sources used are not just newspapers; PBS, ABCNews, Time Magazine, and Der Speigel are not newspapers. And James L. Gelvin is certainly not a newspaper; rather, he is a recognized, highly respected, expert in exactly this field. Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV says: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions\u2014but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute..."
"Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources.
When you say, "It is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks" that's not a fact but an opinion, just like saying that the Beatles were the greatest band. You have to attribute it to the media, and you haven't done so.
You also have to support that with reference to a particular survey, or to something equivalent to the Billboard Hot 100. You haven't done that. That long list of citations is merely a collection of opinions, the equivalent of saying, "the Beatles were the greatest band." According to WP:NPOV you can't say that without reference to something like a particular survey.Nbauman 21:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The sections you are citing apply in the case of a single opinion. When you have a dozen different reliable sources all making the same claim, and none claiming anything different, then it is a simple fact and can be stated as such. Have you found any reliable sources that claim anything different? Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
One should be able to read from the sources how the conclusion was arrived at. Otherwise it is just an opinion and that should then be stated in the article. As for contradictory published opinions, you wouldn't expect there to be any, because Hamas being best known for X or Y is simply not an interesting topic for research.
Perhaps Hamas is no longer "best known" anymore for sucide bombings but rather for their takeover of Gaza. But assuming that to be the case, you wouldn't see a flood of articles that will write: "Hamas used to be best known for suicide bombings, but a recent poll conducted by X now says that Hamas is best known for the Gaza takeover." Can you imagine reading this somewhere? I can't, and this just shows that when people write about Hamas being best known for X or Y, they do that for literary purposes.
Such statements then can lead lives of their own, detached from future developments. Suppose that after 30 years there is peace with Israel, there is a Palestinian state and that Hamas is a repectable political party. Even then you would still have your old sources saying that "Hamas is best known for suicide attacks" and there would still not be any sources saying that Hamas is best known for something else. Count Iblis 23:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
"One should be able to read from the sources how the conclusion was arrived at". According to whom? Is there some part of WP:V you are referring to? In fact, using original research to try to confirm or refute reliable sources is a violation of policy. And you don't need a bunch of articles saying Hamas is not best known for suicide bombings, you just need reliable sources saying it is best known for something else. Regarding your final point, when that time comes, we will be able to say that it was best known for suicide bombings. There's no point in trying to pretend that the truth doesn't exist; Hamas is infamous for suicide bombings, and that fact is also verified. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that one has to perform original research to verify sources. If I read something in a newspaper about some event, I know that a journalist is reporting on facts. Unless that newpapaper is not reliable (e.g. known for inventing facts), we don't have to question that. But statements that are clearly not the result of observations or measurements must not be taken too seriously. I agree that Hamas is infamous for suicide bombings, that is pretty much undisputed. But very specific statements (in this case the word "best" in "best known" and "outside the Palestinian territories") requires additional evidence which simply does not exist. Perhaps this issue must be raised at the talk pages of WP:V and related pages... Count Iblis 01:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a fine line between "infamous" and "best known", and the sources do say "best known". And, as I've pointed out, they're not all newspapers. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"One should be able to read from the sources how the conclusion was arrived at". According to whom? Is there some part of WP:V you are referring to?
We're referring to this part of WP:NPOV:
we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey;
"the Beatles were the greatest band" must be supported by references to a particular survey.
Similarly, "Best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings" must be supported by references to a particular survey.
It's not sufficient to simply find many newspapers that describe the Beatles as the greatest band, just as it's not sufficient to find many newspapers that describe Hamas as "Best known" for its suicide bombing.
Therefore, that line about Hamas violates WP:NPOV. Nbauman 05:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you've read the responses above, which deal with what you're saying. It's not just one source that says they're "best known" for that, but a dozen. When a dozen diverse reliable sources say something, one cannot list every single one that says it; rather, one simply reports the fact. If you find reliable sources that say they are best known for something else, then, of course, one would have to report on both "sides". But right now, reliable sources support only one view. Jayjg (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several sources that say "Hamas is best known in the west for...etc etc". I think this is more NPOV as there are many Islamic communities/countries in the east that that dont have the view as well as many countries who probably don't even think about what Hamas is known for at all. Wayne 06:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

When an opinion on such a controversial subject is disputed, newspapers are no longer a RS as they usually conform to their governments POV. In fact they actually lie as was proved when FOX was sued and the courts ruled the media has no obligation to tell the truth even if they know what they report is a lie. If we use only Islamic newspapers I guarantee they will mostly say Hamas is best know for their humanitarian works but no one is suggesting we edit that in. I suggest using a RS that is an academic opinion for a reference to avoid the dispute. Wayne 17:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, to begin with, American and British newspapers do not, in fact, "usually conform to their governments POV". Second, we haven't quoted FOX here. Third, as explained many times, many of the sources are not newspapers. Since you seem to be ignoring my comments, which pointed out many times that it was more than just newspapers, I'm not going to respond any more to yours. I hope you don't mind. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've obviously read the responses above. You keep repeating an argument that violates the explicit words of WP:NPOV.
If you want to say, "The Beatles were the greatest band," it's not enough to get repeated media statements that The Beatles were the greatest band; you have to get a RS reporting a survey of people from, say, Liverpool, saying that The Beatles are the greatest band.
Similarly, if you want to say that "Hamas is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks," it's not enough to get repeated media statements; you have to get a RS reporting a survey of people from outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip saying so.
The example of The Beatles in WP:NPOV parallels the case of Hamas in every substantial way. You're violating NPOV and I'm going to change it.
I propose we take this to arbitration, since you simply deny that WP rules apply even when they clearly do. I believe that any unbiased reader of WP:NPOV will agree with me. Nbauman 18:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
But you keep inserting falsehoods into the statement; it's not just "Western media" who make this claim, and you still haven't found any sources that say they're best known for anything else. Also, the Arbitration Committee doesn't deal with content disputes, and doesn't in any event deal with disputes that have not first been through mediation. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that is about as clear as it can possibly be stated. Jayjg, Avraham, and any of the others who keep insisting on a unqualified version of the "best known" line are running afoul of the Assert facts, including facts about opinions\u2014but do not assert the opinions themselves bit of WP:NPOV. Tarc 19:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
As explained, oh gosh, 5 times now, we can't really list all the sources which say it, because there are a dozen now. At some point something just becomes fact. Of course, I have welcomed someone else providing a source that says Hamas is "best known" for something else, but so far there have been no takers. How about you? Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The number of citations is irrelevant. There are hundreds of reputable sources that contradict the scientific consensus on global warming. However, because they give opinions, mostly of dissenting scientists and do not give detailed scientific arguments (also there is no peer review in newspapers), such articles cannot be regarded as a reliable source for that article. I think that this case is much the same. You can have many articles making statements that can only be established using some research. But if that research (like conducting polls) is not done, then it is just an opinion.
With Jayjg's rule, the pseudoscience pushers would have a field day on wikipedia. There are a lot of them here on wikipedia who edit articles like theoneon Cold Fusion. They write about some observed anolay that has allegedly been observed, giving some citation to a newspaper article. You'll never be able to dispute that directly by citing some scientist who contradicts that, because they won't bother. The way to deal with this problem is to demand that the citation for a claim be of an acceptable standard. In case of scientific articles that would be the peer reviewed journals that have a high impact factor in the relevant field.
In case of this article, one has to make sure that if we present something to be a fact rather than an opinion, the literature indeed presents it in that way. But the sentence "best known..." in the cited articles is presented there as a vague opinion, not supported by any research. Count Iblis 20:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Your slippery slope argument does not apply, as "pseudoscience pushers" are not reliable sources to begin with. On the other hand, The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, and Mark Andersen are. And in any event, James L. Gelvin is certainly an expert on this topic. Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If it were only that simple. From time to time you'll read articles on, say, Cold fusion, in similar reliable sources that give the perspecive of someone who disputes the established scientific point of view. Let me give another example. Prof. Lindzen is an expert in meteorology, who regularly publishes his skeptical ideas on climate science in the reputable journal The Wall Street Journal Count Iblis 21:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
And you know what? He may be right. He's not the only respected scientist who is a climate science skeptic, at least regarding the current claims being advanced regarding the accuracy of the models being used, the attribution of causes, and the predictions for the future. However, that's completely unrelated to the topic at hand; there is no pseudo-science here, and no-one is claiming anything particularly outrageous or even that hard to believe. I think we're all agreed that Hamas is infamous for suicide bombings, so now it's just a tiny issue of degree, whether it is not only "infamous", but also "best known". As I said earlier, that's a very find distinction. I've already ignored some of the original waffle put into the sentence, where it says "outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip", even though almost none of the sources qualify "best known" in this way. Indeed, you can bet that Hamas is very well known for its suicide bombings inside the West Bank and Gaza Strip as well. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, if The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, all had articles saying, "The Beatles were the greatest band," without reference to surveys or other supporting material, would you say that we could then write in Wikipedia, without attribution, "The Beatles were the greatest band"? Nbauman 21:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have left off a couple of the sources. This doesn't surprise me. Have I been able to make it clear to you yet that James L. Gelvin says the exact same thing? That Gelvin is an academic expert? Try an analogy that includes that sort of source, then I'll respond. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I would have no objection if you wrote, "According to James L. Gelvin, Hamas is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks."
But my position is you can't say "Hamas is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks," and attribute it to Gelvin or anybody else in the footnotes.
Once again, I'm asking you: if The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, all had articles saying, "The Beatles were the greatest band," without reference to surveys or other supporting material, would you say that we could then write in Wikipedia, without attribution, "The Beatles were the greatest band"? Nbauman 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
But Gelvin doesn't say "outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip"; he simply says Hamas is "best known" for its suicide attacks. Would you be o.k. with that? How about if the article said "According to James L. Gelvin, The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, and Mark Andersen, Hamas is best known for suicide attacks"? Would that be a reasonable statement in your view? Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a statement that began, "According to James L. Gelvin," etc. would not violate WP:NPOV. Nbauman 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
But would it make sense to insert the sentence "According to James L. Gelvin, The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, and Mark Andersen, Hamas is best known for suicide attacks" into the article? Also, I'm very curious, as I can't seem to get an answer to this question: Is Hamas "best known" for anything else? Jayjg (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't make sense, but at least it wouldn't violate WP:NPOV.

I don't think it makes any sense to say in a purported objective, factual article that an entity is "best known" for anything. If there were an objective measurement such as polling data, it might (or might not) make sense, as in the Beatles example, but you don't have that objective measurement here. Nbauman 02:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the sources cited were probably talking out of their behinds when they came up with "Hamas is best known...". But honestly, who cares? Can't we just say "widely known", "well known", "notorious", etc? Yes, it's true that as an organization, Hamas does not invest a major portion of its resources into suicide bombings, and they've suspended their use of the tactic for at least two years now. Those facts should be mentioned, too, and prominently. But I don't understand why it's so important to split hairs over wording here. Can we just say "notorious" and leave it at that? Eleland 03:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not spliting hairs. It's an important principle that Wikipedia must stick to the verifiable facts. In using Wikipedia, we all agree to follow WP:NPOV and the other Wikipedia rules that prevent people with one particular ideology from taking over an issue and turning it into propaganda.
This Hamas article violates many Wikipedia rules, including NPOV, which is the most clear-cut and egregious.
Wikipedia absolutely must not say in the text that Hamas is a terrorist WP:WTA organization or that it's "best known" for its terrorist activities, without attribution. If Wikipedia allowed that, we would be arguing forever about for example whether Israel is a terrorist state. Nbauman 04:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with considering the aggregation of sources reliable, but I think it should be "Best known in the West for its sucide bombings" (or possibly "in Israel and the West"). I don't think the sources given support more than that. —Ashley Y 05:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ashley Y, please clarify. Do you mean you're fine with using the attribution, such as "According to James L. Gelvin, Hamas is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks."?
You agree that we can't just write, "Hamas is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks," right? Nbauman 10:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem we're having here is an administrator who is fabricating policy such as "at some point something just becomes fact". What the real policy states is that we are to assert the facts of the opinion (i.e. that many Western media/sources feel Hamas is best known for suicide bombings and such), and we are not not assert that opinion itself as fact (i.e. declaring that Hamas is best known for suicide bombings). Tarc 13:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Try to avoid comments which could be considered personal attacks ("fabricating policy"). I strongly suggest that this issue, which frankly strikes me as really, really stupid, be sidestepped. Describe Hamas as "notorious for" suicide attacks, or "well known for" if you insist that "notorious" sounds like editorializing. This article may have POV problems but laser-like focus on this single, fairly unimportant distinction between "best known", "best known in the West", "best known in the West according to (laundry list of reliable sources)" is a waste of time. Eleland 16:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, one of the sources says "infamous", I believe, and other editors here have agreed that the term is appropriate. The problem is that all of the sources actually say "best known". I suppose we could try "Infamous for its suicide bombings etc.", if everyone else agrees. It can't really be "best known in the west" because almost none of the sources make that qualification. It astonishes me how editors here are willing to insert all sorts of unsourced claims into the intro on this subject, but mightily resist the actual wording used by a dozen reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, I keep asking you this question and you haven't given me an answer: If The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, all had articles saying, "The Beatles were the greatest band," without reference to surveys or other supporting material, would you say that we could then write in Wikipedia, without attribution, "The Beatles were the greatest band"?
I'd like you to answer this question. Or if you can't answer this question, say so.\u2014The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nbauman (talk \u2022 contribs) 13:31, July 19, 2007 (UTC)
No, I asked my question first, so I'll expect an answer first. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I gave you your answer. You're obviously playing games with me. For the record, you can't or won't answer that question. I'll leave it at that. Nbauman 21:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No, you actually have never answered the question. Show me the post in which you did. And it's time for you to stop playing games; Wikipedia will report what reliable sources say on this topic, regardless of your determined attempts to whitewash this article. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You got your answer, and I'll answer again. The idea that Hamas has to be "best known for" anything is nonsense. Nbauman 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

Jayjg, how can "infamous" or "notorious" be a neutral point of view? Nbauman 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Because you are misunderstanding what neutral point of view means. It does not mean that the text has to be written as if by a lobotomized robot. It means \u201crepresenting fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).\u201d Here, fairly representing the views published by the LONG list of reliable sources brought in the article demands our use of terms similar to "best known", "infamous", etc. To do otherwise is to deny, or re-write, the evidence provided, which is a VIOLATION of WP:NPOV, besides original research. Here, I will bring a larger excerpt for your convenience, but I suggest that you re-read the policy on neutral point of view for your own clarification (emphasis added is my own):

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should each be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth," in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

– WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view

-- Avi 17:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What Avi said. They are, indeed, and without question, infamous for suicide attacks. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

One way to be neutral is to have balanced bias e.g. 'best known for suicide bombings and other attacks in it's war against Israeli attacks and occupation', but that doesn't seem to take things forward. I think it's meaningless to say what Hamas is 'best known for' as it shouldn't be reduced to such a limited description, especially one that is hardly unique, and controversial. --Flexdream 09:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responsible for\u2026

I think that is a reasonable substitution. -- Avi 17:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that it would be better. You see that sticking to the hard facts works both ways... Count Iblis 17:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Too bland, doesn't represent the sources properly. I've put in infamous. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course, but then there are other citations that can be used... Count Iblis 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that "best known" is amply supported. I also think that responsible for is an acceptable compromise. Consensus has not been reached for either one. I would like to know the arguments of those who do not believe that "best known" is appropriate, being that the literature seems to have used that statement. I would also like to know the argumets of those who believe "responsible" is insufficient. Thanks -- Avi 01:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah is best known for....

I can't find it in the Hezbollah article :) I'm sure that if I could find such statements in the lead, then that article would still have the POV tag on it and would certainly not have been awarded Good Article Status.

So, why not consider if we want to have difficult to verify statements (and I mean "verify" in the literally sense not in the wiki-law sense) that expresses certain opinions in the lead. In this case the statement is itself the opinion of people (that Hamas is best known for...) about which certain authors have expressed an opinion without doing any research to gauge that opinion. So, the dispute is whether it is an opinion about an opinion, or wheter it is a fact that it is "the opinion".

So, I would propose to focus more on the hard facts in the lead. Opinions about Hamas are facts too, but they are secondary facts. They must also be mentioned in the article, can even be mentioned in the lead if it is important enough. But any fact, whether it is a fact about the organization or a fact about the opinion of people must be presented fairly.

If we assume for a moment that Hamas is indeed "best known for suicide attacks" (e.g. suppose that a poll shows this), it would still not be a good idea to mention this in the lead. The suicide attacks themselves are then more important facts and these should be presented more prominently. In the lead you want to put the most important facts about the organization. So, one has to wonder why one would want to mention an opinion about the conduct of an organization in the lead, rather than the conduct itself. Count Iblis 17:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that Tarc inserted that falsehood about "in the Western media" again, which shows he hasn't even bothered to look at the sources or the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have, and the only one spouting falsehoods here is you I'm afraid. The sources are all examples of Western media, and the continued insertion of it is a clear NPOV violation. Hell, the "infamous" term is even worse, as now we're nose-diving into weasel words. Tarc 21:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Tarc, I have clearly pointed out several times that not all sources used are "Western media". I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself. Please review the sources and the Talk: page, and refrain from inserting original research falsehoods into the article again. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
All of the sources grouped together under note #5 are Western media and books by Western authors. Please stop distorting the facts. Tarc 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, it appears you tried to pull a fast one there. A book by a scholar of the Middle East, whose particular expertise is nationalism and the social and cultural history of the modern Middle East, is not "Western media". Please don't insert falsehoods into the article again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
In the context of the discussion, "Western media" and Israeli sources are one and the same. You should have known that, and if you didn't well, now you do! Whoops! Tarc 12:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, "Israeli sources" is not the same thing as "Western media. More importantly, you seem singularly unable to read; there are no Israeli sources used to support that claim. Whoops! You've been exposed again. Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Distinction without a difference, son. You're quite in the minority view here, so perhaps you should just quit while you're behind. Tarc 22:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, actually, there's a huge difference between a scholar on the subject and a "Western media source". By the way, were you able to find that "Israeli source"? I can't seem to locate it. As for "quite in the minority", I have 12 reliable sources and two strong policies on my side, which puts me in the majority. Jayjg (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best known for ---> Responsible for

I know that the sentence now reads a bit more awkward and that the citation needs t be modified a bit. Also, we may want to qualify this statement a bit more. But I think that this is better, given what I wrote above... Count Iblis 17:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've modified to something more realistic, "infamous". The sources actually support "best known", but I'm willing to compromise. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you're willing to compromise. We can compromise on something more neutral than "infamous", which has a clear bias and point of view. Nbauman 21:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned above, you have misunderstood what "neutral" means in the WP:NPOV policy. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nbauman has not misunderstood what "neutral" means. Administrator should cease from pushing POV in the intro to this article. The second paragraph is highly misleading. It states the obvious falsehood that Hamas is best known outside of Palestine for its suicide attacks. Nonsense. Everyone here knows that that is untrue, but one person is almost singlehandedly stonewalling efforts to insert reality into the second paragraph. I don't want to sound combative, but reading through the archives it's pretty clear that that is what's happening here. Please cease from pushing POV at the expense of reality. There is a near-consensus here, since the sentence with "best known for" is so clearly absurd. The weak argument that we are just going along with the sources doesn't hold water here, since the sources aren't based on polls, and since almost everyone here thinks the current phrasing is misleading. Let's put something in the second paragraph that reflects reality. The point of this article is not to make Hamas look bad by inserting whatever reflects our viewpoints at the expense of a reflective and accurate article. Finally, the editor who is downplaying the significance of this aspect of the intro might reconsider; with Gaza effectively starving to death right now, propaganda-pushing at the expense of fact and perspective is no light matter. Organ123 00:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In reality I think everyone here knows it's true, though some are publicly denying it because of personal bias. In any event, the material is properly sourced to reliable sources, and not one person has yet to come up with any other thing that Hamas might be best known for. Your argument that "the sources aren't based on polls" is a fundamental violation of Wikipedia policy; WP:V says we rely on reliable sources, we don't use our own original research to try to disprove them. Finally, the editor referring to "propaganda-pushing" would do well to avoid engaging in it in the future; that would be a nice change. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually we don't have a strict separation between reliable sources and non reliable sources. See the examples about scientific topics I gave above. This is not an Original Research issue, rather just demanding that the sources give facts rather than opinions (and if they give opinions rather than facts that we report it here as being an opinion). If a source is reliable they will tell how they got the facts they report on if it isn't obvious.
Anyway, I think the best thing to do is to avoid the issue altogether. If there are no objections then let's just replace:
"Best known for" ---> "Responsible for"
and replace the citation by the citations given in the section about military and terror attacs. Count Iblis 01:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You keep acting as if a) "facts" and "opinions" were completely different beasts, b) one could easily distinguish between the two, and c) Wikipedia policy insisted we should only deal with "facts". It's not our responsibility to decide what "THE TRUTH" is; instead, we repeat what reliable sources say. And in this case, reliable sources say "best known". There's no getting around that simple point. Oh, and what else is Hamas "best known" for? I'm going to repeat that question in every single comment from now on, until someone finally answers it, or publicly admits that they're best known for suicide attacks - something we all actually know, but which most of us has been reluctant to admit so far. Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2007

(UTC)

There is also a source that says "perhaps best known for". And I'm not really sure that people in Iran and Syria have this opinion (partially due to their state propaganda). And today Hamas may well be better known for the recent events in Gaza. The problem I have with the sentence is that in the reliable sources themselves they were never meant to be taken to be hard facts. You can't take one sentence quotes from articles and then say that because the journal in which it is published is a reliable source it must be taken to be the truth without question.
If you want to know what reliable sources say, then you must focus on articles that investigate this matter. It is wrong to take an article that reports on some totally different aspect and in the introduction makes a sweeping statement and then quote that statement.

Count Iblis 01:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But it's not just one source, it's a dozen, and it includes works by scholars and experts on the subject. And as far as Hamas being "best known" for what happened in Gaza, according to whom? Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
In astrophysics you can find many articles that write in the introducton that "the lightest supersymmetric particle is the best motivated candidate for the dark matter". But that's presented as an opinion. If I need to give a citation to the claim that it is well motivated in a research article, I cannot give citatons to these articles just because they make such statements in the intro. I must instead cite articles that discuss the viability of that type of particle as a good dark matter candidate.
Anyway, why do you object to mentioning that Hamas is responsible for suicide bombings in the lead? Count Iblis 02:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain again why one should replace: "Best known for" by "Responsible for". Suppose you think that the fact that Hamas is Best known for suicide attacks is very significant. But then the reason why Hamas is best known for that must be even more significant: namely that Hamas has carried out many suicide bombings. Therefore that would be the thing to mention in the lead. That then defines that aspect of Hamas that makes it "Best known for suicide bombings". This simply has more to do with Hamas itself. The perception this has caused in the minds of the public is a consequence of that. Count Iblis 02:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Count Iblis et. al. are correct. Administrator keeps mentioning WP:V -- but verifiability is exactly the problem with the "best known for" language. It's simply not verified without a poll, and, since there are obvious contradictions to the claim (see Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, etc), almost every single editor to this page has a problem with it. "Responsible for" is a much more verifiable claim, one we can all agree on. Is Hamas "responsible for" suicide attacks? Of course it is. Done. I suggest that Count Iblis enact his/her proposed language. Then we can worry about improving the intro, but at least we'll be dealing with statements that aren't obviously false. Organ123 13:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No, you've misunderstood WP:V. WP:V does not say "sources become unreliable if they haven't done polls". I'm restoring the properly sourced material, rather than the pablum that's currently there. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I haven't misunderstood anything. I'm asserting that a small minority of editors here are forcing the insertion of unqualified, unverifiable statements into an article, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the editors. Please see WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:RESOLVING DISPUTES. Organ123 23:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but your ad hominem and factually incorrect statements have nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia policy, except that they are a violation of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I have not violated WP:CIVIL, nor have I used ad hominem or factually incorrect statements. In fact I was stating a factual observation of what was occurring here, and suggesting that editors and administrators who were forcing the insertion of unqualified, unverifiable statements kindly refer to Wikipedia's policies opposing such actions. Please see WP:CIVIL and ad hominem for further information. Furthermore, I will not be put on the defensive about WP:CIVIL claims when I have been nothing but civil with an administrator who has been consistently uncivil towards me as well as other good faith editors who disagree with his/her viewpoints. Organ123 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The sourced material is just one sentence. I've changed that sentence and given a new citations supporting that new sentence. The mark up text containing all the old citations doesn't count as "sourced material" that should not be deleted. That would prevent anyone from making changes to the text, because you essentially fix what the citation should be for that sentence. That's a strange way to write an article, no one writes articles that way. Also, the old statement with the same refs are given further on in the article. So, the citations are still referred to in this article. Count Iblis 00:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This is thoroughly documented, but for some people no amount of sources will be enough. I suggest you stop this nonsense and move on. \u2190Humus sapiens \u043d\u0443? 03:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The statement is not backed up by valid evidence in the literature at all. Try to submit an article about public perceptions of militant groups to a peer reviewed journal. Write that Hamas is best known for suicide bombings while giving the references we give here :)
It would be better to focus more on the facts themselves. What is nonsensical is to protect a sentence like "Best known for X" and revert my edit that says "Responsible for X". Count Iblis 13:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Editors and administrators should adhere to WP:consensus and not force (obviously false) text into an article against the wishes of the vast majority of the editors, particularly when an alternative text that everyone agrees is true has been presented. Organ123 23:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It's bizarre that you keep claiming that something sourced to 12 reliable sources is "obviously false". The sources explicitly state it is best known for that. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It is clearly not "obviously true". We are taking sentences from articles that were never meant to be the very precise truth. That is very clear if you read these articles. The sentence just expresses the fact that Hamas is generally well known for suicide bombings. But to what extent exactly and where in the world is Hamas best known for suicide bombings is not rigorously determined.
If we write in this wiki article that "Hamas is best known..." while giving the refs, then to a reader that suggests that it has been determined that this is the case. That's outright misleading. If I did such a thing in a scientific article, that would be considered a big mistake, perhaps even outright scientific fraud.Count Iblis 20:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
When James L. Gelvin writes an academic book on the subject, in which he explicitly states that Hamas is best known for suicide bombings, he means it as a precise truth. Jayjg (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
If it is meant to be the precise truth, then there must necessarily exist research performed either by him or by someone else that shows this. It is not original research for us to actualy read a source and then see if he refers to other sources, in which case we would go to these other cited sources, or read in the source itself how the author determined the statement to be true.
But from my experience, not everything that is written in academic texts or peer reviewed articles is meant to be the precise truth. When we do mean something to be taken the literal truth, we always back up what we say using evidence, either by presenting results from research, or by referring to the literature. If we don't do this then that's an indication that it is an opinion or it could be common knowledge. It is therefore wrong to repeat such an opinion somewhere else by giving a citation to the article that gives that opinion, because then the presence of the citation at the end of the sentence suggests that it has been determined to be a fact.Count Iblis 21:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
But, in fact, it is original research for us to look at a reliable source and decide that we don't like his methodology, or sources, or reasoning, or whatever, and therefore reject his claims. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this. However, simply reading from the source to see if any sources are given or if there is any research presented at all, is not original research. This is what we are suppsed to do on wikipedia: Reading the sources and present the contents of the sources here. It is then important to present statements here on wikipedia with the same modality as they were presented in the sources. Count Iblis 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Best known for" versus "Responsible for"

As Avraham suggested above, let's hear the arguments of editors on why "Best known for" is not appropriate, or why "Responsible for" is insufficient. Count Iblis 20:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "Best known for" is not appropriate

The main problem I have with the "Best known" sentence has nothing to do with whether or not this statement is actually true or if it is well sourced enough to present it as a fact in this wiki article. I think that it is better to focus on the facts about Hamas itself in the lead. Facts about opinions on Hamas are of secondary importance and should be mentioned in later sections of the article. In the lead, you want to define the organization we are talking about. The facts presented there should be directly related to the organization.

Clearly, the fact that Hamas has actually carried out suicide bombings is something that belongs in the lead. The public opinion is not such a fact, because that could change even if Hamas doesn't change. The discussion above is evidence for this. Some editors dispute if we can take the sentence "Best know for suicide bombings" literally. E.g. is Hamas really best known for suicide bombings in Syria and Iran? I would say that Hamas would still be the same Hamas whether Hamas is best known in Syria for suicide bombings or not. So, it is irrelevant as far as defining Hamas is concerned.

And with the same argument one can say that it is not ok. to mention that Israel is "Best known" for the troubles in the Mid East in the lead, that Clinton is "Best known" for the Lewinski affair, that Bush is Best known for lying about WMD (and note that he could be best known for that, even if he didn't actually lie about WMD).

Then there are some specific problems with the "Best known" sentence that are problematic in itself. This sentence, as it is presented in the literature, is not meant to be taken as the precise truth. It is simply not presented that way, i.e. with citations or supported by evidence in the form of polls. This makes it problematic to write this sentence in this article with a reference at the end. Because that reference suggests that it is the precise truth and readers should see the reference for details.

Just imagine that you would read this "Best known" sentence in an article about public perceptions of militant groups. If a citation to the literature is given, then the reader would expect that Hamas has been found to be best known for suicide attacks and that the evidence for that can be found in the cited article. But if the reader then reads the cited article and finds that the sentence is simply repeated there without a further citation or without evidence, then the reader will feel deceived. A better way to include that sentence is e.g. "according to some authors, Hamas is best known...". Count Iblis 22:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Hamas is unlikely to be best known for suicide bombings in Syria and Iran. The sources are all from the West and are implicitly referring to their readerships when they say "best known". However, I have corrected the article to say "in Israel and the West". —Ashley Y 01:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree with that. I think that you improved the sentence. But in the lead we should focus on "hard facts", rather than opinions... Count Iblis 02:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I wrote above, it should be clear why I disagree with the arguments given by Jayjg.

Jayjg: "The sources say "Best known for""

Reply by Iblis: The sources say many things about Hamas. Why would we pick one particular statement and not another statement for the lead? Clearly, in the lead we should focus on the most important facts about Hamas. The fact that Hamas has actually carried out many suicide bombings dwarfs facts about public opinion on Hamas.

About the accuracy of the statement: "Best known for" (without adding "in the West"):

Jayjg: "Literally a dozen reliable sources say Hamas is "best known" for its suicide attacks. These include scholars who are experts on the subject. Everybody recognizes and admits that Hamas is infamous for its suicide attacks, and we have no sources that state they are "best known" for anything else. If it were just one source alleging this, then we would have to specifically mention the source. When a dozen sources say it, and none contradict it in any way, then it is an undisputed fact. That Wikipedia editors here dispute it is irrelevant; only the disputes of reliable sources matter."

Reply by Iblis: There are sources that do say "Best known in the West" "Perhaps best known" etc. These sources do contradict the stratement "Best know for". Language is not the same as mathematics. In mathematical logic a statement like "Best known in the west" does not contradict "Best known everywhere", because "best known everywhere" is clearly consistent with "Best known everywhere". However, you wouldn't write "Best known in the West" if you believed that "Best known everywhere" were also true.

So, the sources do not agree if Hamas is indeed best known for suicide attacks everywhere in the world outside the Palestinian territories. But what is more important is that this "Best known" thing is not really the subject of the cited articles. There are no articles with a title like "Hamas is Best known for suicide bombings". This is simply not a "hot item" that is well researched.

As a consequence, if the public now knows Hamas best for their Gaza takeover, then you wouldn't expect to see articles saying that, say, "Hamas used to be best known for suicide bombings, but now Hamas is best known for their takeover in Gaza". Instead, all the articles that write somewhere that Hamas is best known for something will still be the same old articles that say the same thing.

Clearly the argument that it is an undisputed fact just because you can find the statement in a dozen or more articles is not valid in general. Count Iblis 02:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As stated before. it is a simple matter of adhering to WP:NPOV, particularly "Assert facts, including facts about opinions\u2014but do not assert the opinions themselves." The Wikipedia should state that the fact that there are those who believe that "Hamas is best known for suicide bombings". The article should not be making the declarative that Hamas is best known for suicide bombings. There is a subtle, yet extremely significant, distinction there. Tarc 12:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this argument. Count Iblis 02:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Jayjg argued: ."..if a group is "best known" for something, then it belongs in the lead. Why would you not immediately mention in the lead what they are "best known" for?"

My reply would be: Yes, but because the suicide bombings are what they are best known for, we should mention the suicide bombings, i.e that Hamas is responsible for suicide bombings. Hamas is not best known for being best known for suicide bombings :).

If some robot with no knowledge of Hamas were to read the wiki Hamas article and we were to ask to him some questions about what his impressions of Hamas are, he could say: "I know Hamas best for suicide bombngs. In my version he would have read about it in the lead and the reference for the suicide bombings are also given there.

In Jayjg's version, he would read that Hamas is "Best known" for suicide bombings in the lead and the references back up that "best known" fact, but not the actual suicide bombings themselves. Then he may not say: "I know Hamas best for suicide bombings but rather "Most people know Hamas best for suicide bombings". Count Iblis 02:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The sources say "Best known for"

Literally a dozen reliable sources say Hamas is "best known" for its suicide attacks. These include scholars who are experts on the subject. Everybody recognizes and admits that Hamas is infamous for its suicide attacks, and we have no sources that state they are "best known" for anything else. If it were just one source alleging this, then we would have to specifically mention the source. When a dozen sources say it, and none contradict it in any way, then it is an undisputed fact. That Wikipedia editors here dispute it is irrelevant; only the disputes of reliable sources matter. Jayjg (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the (i.e. my) current version, I think it appropriately reflects the sources. But I'll admit a bias: despite WP:NOTTRUTH, I think it quite likely that if you stop someone in the street and ask them about Hamas, they'll mention suicide bombing. —Ashley Y 02:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


Regarding the argument "even if true, why should be put that particular fact in the lead", it seems quite obvious; if a group is "best known" for something, then it belongs in the lead. Why would you not immediately mention in the lead what they are "best known" for? Jayjg (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we supposed to be putting counter-arguments in these sections? I didn't think so, otherwise the sections will become horribly muddled, and no different than the previous debates. Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, It's better to move my reply to the section above... Count Iblis 02:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Most reliable sources I see say that Hamas is best known for it's suicide bombings/attacks. So, I definitely have to concur with Jayjg WacoJacko 06:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I also believe that since it is what Hamas is "best known" for, it belongs in the lead.WacoJacko 06:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
But where do those reliable sources get their information from? Best known from what point of view? How would you not know they're best known for other things from another point of view? And from what I can see, this "best known" nonsense comes from "highly accredited" American news sources-- is that reliable? Is that neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafgreentea (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


"Best known for" is about the perception in (part of) the world, rather than about the organization itself. As it is interesting to analyze, for what the party are best known in the world, however, it can moved to a section "Public relations" or "Public perception" or "Media relations". Or changed to "Most in the news for" with a justification in which part of the world this is, or simply left out. Corailrouge-eng 00:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Responsible for" is insufficient

[edit] Islamist?

should we have islamist here? I think the term is controvertial, and some people deny islamism exists.

[edit] the hamas training kids to fight and to be terrorist

i think we must to add thet video to the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fKou3EgNTo people need to see the hamas nurture the hatred against israel, in these video these Palestinian kids swear to Jihad against israel, these kids in kindergarten, what you have to say about that?

We should use only reputable sources. I can't see the video from this computer, but note that "swearing Jihad" against an enemy that is oppressing you is perfectly normal, i.m.o. We don't tolerate other States even infringing marginally on our sovereignity. The US has even imprisoned a man to life in jail for spying for Israel. So, I can't imagine that US kids would not be taught to hate an enemy if the US were under occupation. In fact, teachers who told positive things about the occupying country woud probably be prosecuted for treason after the end of the occupation. Count Iblis 14:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, so if I understand your logic correctly, it is "perfectly normal" for the Mexican school system to teach hatred for Americans, and instill within young Mexican children the burning desire to aspire to kill themselves and take as many Americans with them as they possibly can because Texas is under US occupation? Granted, this is reductio ad absurdum but IMO, I beleive your argument is one based on an emotional reaction to a difficult situation, and not based necessarily on (perhaps cold and dispassionate) logic. -- Avi 15:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, ultimately what matters is how the population feels about the situation they are in. Clearly, the Mexicans don't care about Texas. But to give another example, the Serbs kept their national identity for centuries during the Ottoman occupation. People have nationalistic feelings and this can lead to problems whenever their nationalism conflicts with the nationalism of the state they are living in. Under these circumstances it is "normal" to see hatred. But then things that are "normal" don't need to be desirable.
Perhaps because we are humans, we have difficulties facing the ugly truth about ourselves. I would say that there is a clear pattern if you look at the war in Yugoslavia, Hindus and Muslims killing each other around the time of partition of India, Genocide in Rwanda, The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc. etc. What we tend to do is to blame extremists who play a leading role in the violence. To me it is a bit too coincidental that all these conflicts were caused by extremists who should be very rare to find in peaceful societies.
What really happens is that people tend to support more radical people when they feel (rightly or wrongly) that their rights are denied. So, if you re-run history without Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic when Yugoslavia fell apart, you would probably still have other people like Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic as leaders. Count Iblis 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not inherently wrong to discuss this kind of thing, as long as it's sourced properly to reliable publishing outlets. I'm just concerned that it will be taken out of context to promote the popular Western narrative of peaceful, democratic Israel versus irrational violent Palestinians. It should be noted that Israel maintains hundreds of not thousands of religious schools, which teach among other things that "Greater Israel" including, at the very least, every territory Israel has now, and in some cases territories as far afield as Western Iraq, is the divinely granted right of the Jewish people. Hell, they even have pre-military schools designed to make children better prepared for their mandatory military service. I know that there have been very credible academic studies on the official Palestinian schools which found a very careful program of avoiding incitements to conflict, to the point of ignoring or downplaying vital portions of Palestinian history. I'd be curious to know if any similar studies have been done on the Hamas schools...? Eleland 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Isreal stole someone elses land based on supernatural beliefs - surely they didn't expect to be loved because of that?. --IceHunter 14:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

More class Edutainment from hamas [10] because everyonr knows you've got to learn to abuse animals before you can move up to humans. (Hypnosadist) 21:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
How does your theory explain that Adolf Hitler loved animals and was a vegetarian? Count Iblis 21:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Try reading about serial killers, the abuse of animals as a child is standard part of thier development (in most cases) to the point it is diagnostic. But to you the crimes of the little satan make it ok to swing cats by thier tails. (Hypnosadist) 22:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
PS wikipedia is not a chatroom, i'll be adding the PETA criticism tomorrow when i have some time but it looks like we need a new page for this TV channel and its family viewing. (Hypnosadist) 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli embassy editing this article

According to Wired's article about Wikiscanner, somebody from the Israeli embassy made this small change to this article.

Someone from the same url made this change too. Nbauman 22:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as proper sourcing is added, there should not be a problem, and, since, in these cases, proper sourcing was not added, it was properly reverted regardless of the source of the edit. So, what is the particular issue that you are trying to highlight here? -- Avi 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
AI've found a lot of minor edits on controversial articles are made without sources and ones by biased parties are particularly hard to get rid of if they are POV due to support by those with an agenda. NPOV editors dont tend have a similar network of friends to call on for support to get rid of such unsourced edits. Nbauman is probably letting us know to be vigilant. I have no problem with the Israeli embassy editing anything as a long as it's sourced but I'd prefer they not do it as an anon. Wayne 19:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Understood; however, I'd caution that everyone deserves the assumption of good faith, whether we have any (true, false, or otherwise) reason to believe that they may have personal opinions on the matter. Now, in the face of contravening evidence, AGF does dissipate, of course, but at this point, there should be no problem. Furthermore, as we are discussing on the admin incident noticeboard, such use of wikiscanner is increasingly being felt as harrasment, a violation of privacy, an assumption of bad faith, and overall rude, and should be avoided. -- Avi 20:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Some people have said that on the Admin noticeboard. But there is no official Wikipedia rule right now against the Wikiscanner, correct? Nbauman 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
As there are a number of admins who do see it as harrassment, a violation of privacy, and the lack of AGF, all of which, are official wikipedia policies, does it matter? . There has been a long discussion on the e-mail list I beleive as well. -- Avi 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
On the talk page of COI, I argued some time ago that this policy should be deleted, basically because the edits matter, not the editor (who almost always is anonymous anyway). Perhaps someone should put this COI nonsense on AFD... Count Iblis 21:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's an admin who loves WikiScanner.
Signpost/2007-09-10/Jimbo interview
WS: Finally, what is your opinion regarding WikiScanner? With increased press attention toward the potentially bad edits made by corporate entities, how can we balance press attention back toward the positive areas of Wikipedia?
JW: I love WikiScanner in general; I am hoping that we could find a way to warn people who are about to make an edit from a corporate network that their edit will be public. And encourage them to be good. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbauman (talk \u2022 contribs) 03:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More problems with the first paragraph.

The third sentence reads: "Following the Battle for Gaza in June 2007, when Hamas used force to take control of the Gaza Strip after Fatah refused to hand over control to the new government, elected Hamas officials were ousted from their positions in the Palestinian National Authority government in the West Bank and were replaced by rival Fatah members as well as independents.[3][4]"

Reference 3 fails to support the idea that "Fatah refused to hand over control to the new government."

Reference 4 provides no quotes but only supports those claims basically by means of heresay.

The closest the reference gets to supporting the idea that Fatah refused to surrender some power to "legitimate" authorities is a quote by Sever Plocker, an editor at the daily Yedioth Ahronot, who wrote:

""It is not very pleasant to admit it, but in the battle for control of the Gaza Strip, Hamas was in the right. Hamas is cruel, disgusting and filled with hatred for Israel, but it was victorious in democratic elections, and all it wanted was to reap the fruits of its victory...

Hamas did not 'seize control' of Gaza. It took the action needed to enforce its authority, disarming and destroying a militia that refused to bow to its authority."

To summarize my complaints about the first paragraph. The second sentence is a blatant falsehood. The third sentence is basically un-sourced opinion and editorializing with a strong POV.

I will wait until tomorrow for enlightenment from senior editors. Then I will edit.

Cyclopiano 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracy in first paragraph.

From the first paragraph: \u201cIt was elected in January 2006 as the government of the Palestinian people.[2]\u201d

If you follow the link, to the BBC article, you find: \u201cPreliminary results give Hamas 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber.\u201d

I don\u2019t see how a political party having a 57% majority in parliament amounts to that particular party being \u201celected as the government.\u201d

I suggest that the sentence \u201cIt was elected in January 2006 as the government of the Palestinian people.[2]\u201d

Be replaced by

\u201cIn the 2006 election, Hamas won 76 of 132 seats in parliament, a 57% majority.\u201d

Cyclopiano 20:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


I have heard no objections from senior editors RE my proposed edits to the first paragraph. Still, I need to sleep on it.


67.40.179.48 03:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I would appreciate discussion of why my edits are being reverted.

I have made the effort to explain that references 2,3, and 4 actually contradict the text that I have chosen to edit.

If a wikipedia article claimed that the sun was powered by giant hamsters running in giant hampster wheels and then used as references an astrophysics article that claimed the sun was powered by nuclear fusion wouldn't some editing be called for?

It is policy that encyclopedia articles not make claims that are unverifiable, or worse which are patently false.

Zero evidence has been provided that Hamas was ever elected "governnment of the Palsetinian people."

and zero evidence has been offered to support the claim that "Fatah refused to hand over control to the new government;" Not even Hamas claims that.

In fact zero evidence has been provided to support the idea that Hamas was ever legally entitled to "control of the government." They just won a legislative majority.

So please, whoever keeps reverting my edits: Please be gentlemen and explain your reasoning.

Cyclopiano 02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you check the article history, you'll see that the revert belongs to User:Tom harrison, and administrator who has done the same thing over over at Hezbollah lately, unfortunately.
As for the Hamas and Fatah content, your version seems to be more factually accurate at the moment, yes. I'm curious as to why you've deleted the ISBN numbers from various refs, though. Tarc 03:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi Tarc...What's an ISBN number and how did I delete them? I didn't edit any refs on the article page--on the talk page I just typed in the ref number.

Cyclopiano 03:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

ISBNs are numerical codes used to idenify books. They have since been restored by Count Iblis, but on your last edit some of the citations changed. e.g.
  • "This dismal place was (and remains) a breeding ground for Hamas, the fundamentalist group now infamous for their suicide bombings." (Andersen, Mark. All the Power: Revolution Without Illusion, Punk Planet Books, 2004, ISBN, p. 178)
changed to
  • "This dismal place was (and remains) a breeding ground for Hamas, the fundamentalist group now infamous for their suicide bombings." (Andersen, Mark. All the Power: Revolution Without Illusion, Punk Planet Books, 2004, ISBN, p. 178)
Tarc 14:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tarc,

Those weren't my edits--unless my changing the sentence I described above could somehow have done that?

Cyclopiano 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How can I contact Tom Harrison?

He is an administrator who has reverted my edits, and I would like to engage him in conversation about that. I feel like it would be rude to edit his user page--is there a way I can just send him a message and ask him to read and respond to my comments on the Hamas talk page?

Cyclopiano 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to contact him. Just edit the page again (make sure that the references are displayed properly). Count Iblis 13:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This page is on my watchlist, so I see changes to its talk page. In general, you can contact people by editing, for example, User talk:Tom harrison to leave a message. Count Iblis is right; I reverted your edit[11] to restore the ISBNs to the references. Tom Harrison Talk 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Destruction of Israel

Hamas has never called for the destruction of Israel. There is not even a citation for it. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.22.39 (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but if they blow up one bus and hotel at a time, what's the difference? They're just slow about it? \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.58.254 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the Covenant of Hamas suggests that Hamas believes it has a religious duty not only to destroy the nation of Israel but also to kill every Jew in the world. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclopiano (talk \u2022 contribs) 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


no. as long as Jews don't have political power in Israel Hamas will be happy. They don't care if the place is called Palestine or Israel as long as jews don't control it and most of them leave. Zeq 18:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"and most of them leave"...doesn't make sense with what you are saying \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.51.9 (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hamas has called for the distruction of Israel many times in the past. They are very carefull about what they say to the western media, so you wont find any quotes in English. I will translate some and edit in a few days, with the relavent sources of course. AviLozowick 22:00, 24 February, 2008. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by AviLozowick (talk \u2022 contribs) 22:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel quite often, even in public. One instance that springs to mind was the discussion of their electoral platform. Have a look at http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD107906 and read the full "Hamas Election Platform Does Not Include Eradication of Israel" paragraph. TerminusEst (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/1509327/Extracts-from-the-Hamas-charter.html) reports these extracts from the Hamas Charter:

"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."

"Hamas believes the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf [land] throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. . . Hamas is a distinct Palestinian Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of life and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine."

"When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, Jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims. In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad."

Sure sounds like "Destruction of Israel" to me. "Every inch" of Palestine makes clear that even if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders and gives up the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall, Hamas will accept that only as a first stage, using the temporary cease fire it wants to arm the territory it has received as a launching ground to take over the rest and kill all the Jews in Israel.GreekParadise (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should there be a category called "islamic terrorism" or this is name violates wikipedia rules ?

I honestly don't know but as long as we do hamas seems to fit this category. maybe the category should be renamed to islamic militantsim ?

Hamas is both charity, a political and militant organisation. It's action in Gaza recently could be qualified as terror not just against israel but Palestinians as well. Zeq 14:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The argument by tarc to revert was that Terror is part of WP:WTA so this means the whole category is wrong. He should file a CFD instead of reverting here. Zeq 04:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What I should or should not do is not a concern of yours, really. The category apparently has practical applications. such as for self-identified terrorist groups al Qaeda or definitive terrorist incidents 2002 Bali bombings. I don't believe that it belongs here, though. Tarc 12:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Your argument was that the word "terror" can not be used. If so this argument does not apply here but in a place where the category is defined. Zeq 13:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It should not be used here, in my opinion. Clear? Tarc 15:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
that much is understood but explain why ? so far you gave a reason that apply else where (in general) and not sopecifically here Zeq 17:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
/sigh
Zeq, read WP:WTA#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter, especially the "X says Y" part. Tarc 18:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • this is a gain an argument about the name of the category. Once the category exist : hamas belong there. Zeq 18:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't. No, they do not. I'm really unsure as to how this can be explained to you any better than it already has been. Perhaps others can toss in their two cents. Tarc 19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The article states that Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by several countries. Terrorist is not a word to avoid in this article, per WP:WTA#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter. (SEWilco 20:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
No one is saying that there should be a blanket ban on the term, and that isn't what WP:WTA says either. What the article should avoid is declarations of a "Hamas is a terrorist organization..." nature, and should follow the "Nations X Y Z list Hamas as a terrorist organization, because..." guideline. The same rationale should be applied when choosing between Category:Organizations designated as terrorist and Category:Islamist terrorism. Tarc 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can a good article about organization/group/country X not mention the assassination of its leader?

I made the same comment here. In case of Hezbollah this is more problematic, because the article is supposed to be a "Good Article" and we want to to get it to FA status. In case of the Hamas article, well, there is a reason why the POV tag hasn't been removed yet.

Anyway, whatever one's personal opinions, one cannot justify not mentioning anything about the assassination of a leader of organization X by country Y in an article about organization X, especially if it devotes a lot of space on the conflict with Y, mentioning attacks on Y, even hostile rhetoric of X against Y. Count Iblis 14:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Levitt / Sara Roy

Not a topic I'm currently interested in working on (I think I'd be doing a disservice in getting involved in editing this article without reviewing a lot of past discussion), but I recently read an article that might be of interest for those who are. Its a book review, and I think the reviewer's disagreements with the book reviewed put in a nutshell some of the disagreements about Hamas by its moderate critics (Roy) and harsh critics (Levitt). Probably something citable in the review and/or the book

"Pull quotes":

  • \u201cWhile there can be no doubt that, since its inception, Hamas has engaged in violence and armed struggle, and has been the primary force behind the horrific suicide bombings inside Israel, Levitt\u2019s presentation reduces this increasingly complex and sophisticated organization to an insular, one-dimensional...entity dedicated solely to violence...and Israel\u2019s destruction.\u201d
  • \u201cThe ability of Hamas to reinterpret itself over time through processes of radicalization, de-radicalization, de-militarization, and re-radicalization is a pronounced and common theme in its historical evolution.\u201d

As I say, at least worth a read. (I first encountered this reprinted in Index on Censorship.) - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas being Sunni Muslim

Section 4 of the charter of Hams states "The Islamic Resistance Movement welcomes every Muslim who embraces its faith, ideology, follows its programme, keeps its secrets, and wants to belong to its ranks and carry out the duty. Allah will certainly reward such one." This statement says that it is a Muslim group, and not a sunni muslim one. I believe that this should be changed to say it is a muslim group. Thanks for your time.--SJP 13:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using children in combat

The link in the article doesn't support the claim. If nobody can find a good reference, I will delete the claim. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 02.11.2007 10:39

This needs a clean-up, and the recent IP editors comments and speculation removed, which will happen in a moment. The WPost article mentions a 16-year-old who was pressed into suicide bomb duty. While certainly a grossly inhuman act, 16 is not a "child" by any stretch of logic, and its usage here is a serious attempt at POV-swaying. Tarc 12:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it's better now, but the article doesn't say it was a suicide bombing. There also doesn't seem to be any further information available on Wissam al-Sheik Khalil, the victim. I think this whole subsection is a case of exceptional claims requiring exceptional sources, as per WP:ATTR, and should thus be removed. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 02.11.2007 13:15
I believe the current version is sufficient, please do not delete it. Zeq, please do not restore the older, poorly-written, POV version. Thanks. Tarc 15:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That is not a good reason. "poorly written" "I believe" etc... are not arguments we use arounf here. Zeq 18:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the linked article didn't even verify the claim, it just reported that the kid said it. It's equally possible he was a Tanzim volunteer who saw the propaganda value in telling a Western reporter that the other party's militia conscripted him. It's a totally inadequate source for the claim being made. <eleland/talkedits> 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Mind you, I should add that Hamas considers 16+ to be adult, and recruits them to fight, carry weapons, suicide bomb, etc. (IDF also considers 16+ noncitizens to be adult for the purposes of detention, etc.) <eleland/talkedits> 22:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Eh, according to Human Rights Watch, Hamas has made statements against using people under 18 in their operations, so obviously they recognize the problem themselves. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/childsoldiers0104/childsoldiers.pdf TerminusEst (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Section "Shelling and rocket attacks on civilians"

This section on the Hamas article has no sources that I can see. It should be sourced. Something like this needs to be sourced.--SJP 17:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a common knowledge and Hamas does not bother to deny it. They even called their rocket on the name of their terror brigades - Qassam. MathKnight 16:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Presumably they are both named for the sheikh, rather than one for the other. <eleland/talkedits> 22:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HAMAS IS A TERRORIST ORGINIZATION

ok.. why am I reverted when I change palestinian militant orginization to terrorist orginization? Hamas commits suicide bombing on innocent civilians. That makes them a terrorist orginization.. anything they claim to be is second fiddle to the FACT they commit suicide attacks on civilians. Terrorist orginization is exactly how it should be labeled. -24.253.46.31 16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is because of this Wikipedia guideline. You can read there how to handle it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
well in this case insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan would be people in a stuggle against the governement and fighting the government..someone who targets/kills innocent civilians as method of inducing fear and forcing (through terror of the populace)the govt to change there ways.. which pretty much defines hamas..as they love blowing up loaded buses with civilians.. they are the very definition of terrorist..-24.253.46.31 18:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That may be, but there are guidelines to follow here; this is an encyclopedia, not a right-wing, rant-filled blog. What we do is describe the activities of Hamas, detail what nations/organizations/entities designate Hamas a terrorist organization and why, and present this to the reader. What we do not do is simply declare "Hamas is a terrorist organization" and leave it at that. If that is what you are looking to do here, make blanket declaratives, then you are in for some sore disappointment. Tarc 18:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good source

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2937105.ece --Zeq (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rjection of UN resolution by Hamas

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546761142&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Zeq (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas terror

it is a certain fact that Hamas is an organisation that kills inoccent Israelis every week. Yet for some reaso this information does not arise in the artical. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by SchlindlerLeo (talk \u2022 contribs) 21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hamas#Militancy and terrorism -- Avi (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] request transition word

I request a transition word at the beginning of this sentence.

Australia [11] and the United Kingdom [12] list the militant wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization.

Thanks --Kushalt 01:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Zionist propaganda =

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us Contact Wikipedia Straight away we are launched into Terrorism this terorrism that.... Not until the fifth or sixth paragraph do we become aware that Hamas is actually the elected party of Palestine.

Now that doesnt read very neautral to me. We need some balance here.

Yes, I also think that this article isn't neutral, just like the "free media" in the western countries about this case. The Israelian regime, for instance, isn't described as a fundamental terror organisation, although they are constantly using outlawed (also chemical) weapons, - not to mention the ethnical cleanings in occupied palestine, not to mention the illegal settlements, the threats. Israel is demonstrably based on racist laws, and we can see clearly that it is not their purpose to live togehter in peace with palestinians. In the middle east, pro- palestinian propaganda is common. But we must not spread israelian propaganda here. Neutrality must always be the main aim of wikipedians and Wikipedia. --Englishazadipedia (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I just finished reading the latest NG and it mentions multiple times that Hamas has not conducted suicide bombings for some time and actively discourages it. I looked it up and apparently Hamas banned suicide bombings in early 2006 and it is mainly Fatah-linked organisations and Islamic Jihad continuing the violence! I just read this article and not only does it not mention this but it uses language to imply it still does it on a regular basis. To fix the article will require some work changing tenses and rewrites of a lot of sections so how about we fix it? Wayne (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hamas just claimed responsibility for the latest bombings. They described it as very positive prior to the acceptence of responsibility (which I think is not correct) but it at least shows what they think of such bombings: they aprove of them. Zeq (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I need to correct you on several points. Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed it was responsible. Later the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades claimed it was responsible (they are Hamas affiliated but are not actually Hamas). They are likely lying as the attackers came from Hebron which is Fatah controlled. However it doesn't change the fact that there have been no Hamas suicide bombings for almost two years and the article needs to reflect this. Wayne (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You can correct me as much as you want but If hamas TV say they did it I take their word. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3503160,00.html Zeq (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to believe what you want but I prefer to rely on multiple sources rather than the only one that supports my own beliefs. Only this morning Hamas officials said they have no idea who did it. Even if you are right it makes no difference as the article still gives undue weight to suicide bombings. Wayne (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Add'l source? How about Reuters' 'Hamas statement says it carried out Israel bombing' http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL04122121220080205 '"The Izz el-Deen al-Qassam claims full responsibility for the martyrdom Dimona operation," Hamas's armed wing said the statement, referring to Monday's bombing in the southern Israeli town of Dimona.' The report goes on to say that 'The last time Hamas's armed wing claimed responsibility for suicide bombings inside Israel was August 2004, when 16 people were killed and 100 wounded in explosions on two buses...'69.129.124.251 (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thx for the source as it backs up exactly what I'm saying. Wayne (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't back up _all_ that you were saying, exactly, but I'm not going to quibble. It would appear that the Hamas ceasefire on suicide bombers, if it existed (suicide bomber by proxy), is now a moot point:
'In a statement on Hamas' website signed by the organisation's delegate to Iran, Dr. Abu-Osama Abed Al Ma'ati, the suicide attack that occurred earlier this week in Dimona was described as the beginning of a new wave of similar actions..."The Dimona attack is a message. That message is that Iz Al Din Al Qassam has renewed the suicide attacks," the message said, referring to the Islamist organisation's military wing. Senior Hamas officials have said that the organisation uses such online announcements to declare a change in tactics or policy. Hamas' spokesman in Gaza said the organisation will continue to mount "resistance" and carry on with the suicide attacks.' [12] 69.129.124.251 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The BBC reports that it was a joint operation of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, but it was "prais[ed by] Hamas".[13] --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any obvious reason that wikipedians should believe the BBC over Hamas in this matter? 69.129.124.251 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not the BBC vs Hamas, it's the BBC quoting the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and the PFLP vs Reuters quoting Izz el-Deen al-Qassam. And considering the positive impact of the responsibility claims on the popularity of these organisations in Gaza and the West Bank, I don't think the claims themselves should be considered as reliable, regardless of the publisher's reputation. Bastc (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas: genocidal, no?

I would like to propose the following addition to the first sentence of the article: Hamas is a genocidal Palestinian Islamist militant organization and political party. This is because of the following passage from the Hamas charter [14]:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

Also, there is a statement by a Hamas official saying that "We are a nation that drinks blood and there is no blood better than the blood of Jews." [15].

Does such a change sound reasonable? Victoriousturnip (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure the word "genocidal" is apporipriate in the lead. if you find other sources who discuss the Hamas call for genocide you should add it to the article text. Otherwise let the reader read what hamas say this is clear enough without further charaterization.
Tarc, if you think hamas is not genocidal - you should find sources who sya so. Wonder if there are such sources. Zeq (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I should find sources that say Hamas is not genocidal so we can justify the word not being in the article? Please, do not waste my time with patently absurd statements such as this. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
OK I'll find sources for you if you don't want to spend the time: [16], [17],[18] - do you need more ? Zeq (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Several nations list Hamas as a terrorist organization, but that does not mean you get to refer to it as "...a terrorist Palestinian militant organization" in the article. There are guidelines and polices that one must follow in the Wikipedia which you are quite familiar with. Or shoud be, at any rate. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hamas charter is irrelevant as it is not policy or enforced (according to Hamas). Also I expect genocide to be a bit more destructive than Hamas is. The last few years Hamas has been all talk and bluster. How many people have Hamas killed in the last few years? 10? 20? thats not genocide. The word should be reserved for real acts of genocide or it will lose meaning. Wayne (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for dismissing the core document of this oragnization.....excuse me if they did not cancel it I still take it very seriously... same go for threats of genocide...Zeq (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just gone through the references used for the page and the Hamas Charter information is outdated. The page several times states the Charter is "still in effect" yet in 2006 it was effectively replaced by the Hamas Manifesto. They are basically the same but the Manifesto removed calls for the destruction of Israel and the article should reflect this by reducing the weight given to the Charter. Wayne (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not Hamas mentioned the destruction of Israel in the election manifesto is irrelevant, as it was not meant to replace the charter. The charter is unchanged, and quite seperate from the manifesto, as illustrated by the quotes here: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD107906 TerminusEst (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitism

What exactly makes Hamas antisemitic? This statement seems VERY POV to me. --85.1.231.55 (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't say they're antisemitic, but we do report the significant accusations of that. I've reverted the edit removing the entire antisemitism reference. Superm401 - Talk 17:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but does this belong in the header of the article, and not rather in a subsection that explicitly treats the international/israeli opinion(s) on Hamas?
And Hamas is primarily a political party, and not a "militant organization". --85.3.145.123 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

i dont think the word anti semitic has any place in this article because for one thing palestians who make up hamas ARE semitic people and are not against semites in general so if you are to go by definition of the term they are probably you could say anti-jewish but anti semitic is the wrong word and seems to be in use here as a loaded word out of its proper definition as per the wikipedia definition of semitic thanx \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.78.250 (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but i still insist on removal. There are many opinions and views out there. Some groups are calling Israel (and/or the US) "(neo-)fascist". So? This too would not belong in the header of these articles. --85.3.149.107 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genocidal

I am removing the statement:

The [[Charter of HAMAS] is described as "Genocidal" by Association for World Education - an NGO in a letter to the UNHCHR [19]

since, besides being ill-formatted and grammatically dubious, it is undue weight and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. One NGO led by a pro-Israeli lobbyist does not merit inclusion in this section.

Before starting an edit-war, please remember that anyone could find at least 10 NGOs calling Israel a fascist or apartheid state, but none of them would merit inclusion in the article on Israel, for quite the same reasons.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 05.03.2008 13:17

Damn, looks like someone beat me to the punch. Anyway, the reasoning still holds. Thanks User:Tarc. pedrito - talk - 05.03.2008 13:18
There is an article on israeli apartheid. Do we need an article on "Genocidal hamas" or can we use the Hamas article. I don't agree that there is anything exceptional in chartrizing a racist charter as gemocidal when it is so. The quotes are clear in the source. Zeq (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have enough good sources and you can make a point that the whole genocidal characterisation is itself notable and not just some fringe view, then feel free to start an article on the topic. Please be aware though that some of your comments regarding the article Israeli apartheid might come back to haunt you. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 05.03.2008 14:51

here is another source. The hamas clearly calls for genicide: [20] Zeq (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I just read the speech that letter, which is OR anyway and not a RS, is refering to and the guy asks God to kill the Jews and Americans. It may be hate speech and innapropriate to verbalise it but I feel that it is a significant difference to asking people to physically do it. If we are going to label an entire country on the basis of one nutjobs prayer to God there will never be peace and this will never be a good article. Wayne (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said, if you have enough good sources and it is notable, go ahead and start an article. This discussion is closed. pedrito - talk - 05.03.2008 16:57
Weisntal cenetr is WP:RS source which is also notable. Zeq (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that they are a RS. However a form letter for a mass mail campaign is not and especially when it misrepresents what was said to serve a political purpose. Being a RS does not legitimise everything they do. Wayne (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not an issue of legitimizing it is an issue of how various organizations charterize Hamas. Just as some organizations charaterize Israel in some ways and they get to be mentioned in Israeli apartheid I ask again should we have an article called Hamas genocidal intentions ? or we mention in an NPOV way how various notable groups see Hamas. ???? \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeq (talk \u2022 contribs) 05:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I will not dignify any Israeli apartheid strawman arguments with a response here; if you have concerns about that article, then bring it to that specific article's talk page, not here. As for this issue, I am a bit skeptical of "Genocidal" as a defining characteristic of the Hamas organization, and if a collection of NGOs calling them such are notable or relevant. Tarc (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't "dignify" anything. what you are doing is called "double standard". Zeq (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, what I am doing is not being suckered in by your logical fallacies. This is why the slew of "allegations of..." articles failed because the creators attempted to tie their existence to that of the israeli apartheid article, when they really should (and eventually were) evaluated on their own merits. So if you would, discuss issues relating to Hamas here, and discuss issues of israeli apartheid over there. Thank you. Tarc (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV disputes

This article seems to me to be heavily biased towards exonerating the Hamas from guilt for the continuation of the conflict. For example, it says:

"...that while Hamas is willing for a ceasefire with Israel, its long term goal remains: Israel must withdraw from all land occupied in 1967"

Implying that the organizations long term goals had always been that israel withdrew from the territories captured in 67', while the Hamas' long held views (written in their charter) are that the whole of Palestine must be freed (all territories captured in 48').

Also, it quotes "Hamas is prepared to offer a hudna [broad cease-fire] to Israel if it [Israel] withdraws from the lands occupied in 1967 and respects all the Palestinian rights." but it doesn't say that Palestinian rights, according to the Hamas, include the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to Israel. And that this will result in the dissolution of the jewish state. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by Cederal (talk \u2022 contribs) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You must realise that these are (quite important) statements made by Hamas, thus worth mention in the article. Considering the following paragraph, I wouldn't say the article was biased toward exoneration. The claims to land (pre-1948) are mentioned there, as well as Hamas' refusal to recognize the state of Israel. I can't see how the article would be less POV by removing official statements made by Hamas, nevermind if they intend to live by them or not. TerminusEst (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
One thing that should be said about Hamas is that they work toward their long term goal as expressed in their Charter. If you read carully the Charter does not talk about an independent Palestinian state. Hamas is Islamic organization not a nationalistic one. However Hamas see all of the land known as Israel (what they call Palestine) as an islamic Wakf land which can not be ruled by non mulsims. To that end they want to remove the jews from that land. They would not mind if some jews would stay as Dhimis. just read their charter it said it all. btw, Hamas is not in a rush - they would not mind 20 years ceasefire if that helps them build their streangth as they already do in Gaza. Zeq (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
But the Hamas charter was written twenty years ago, when they were a very different and much smaller organization. There's no guarantee that it reflects their present thinking. It says nothing, for example, about electoral politics (precious little about politics at all) even though they got into that in a big way. Judging by their public statements, the leaders accept a de facto two-state solution, whatever daydreams they may feed their supporters about eventually driving Israel into the sea. <eleland/talkedits> 17:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In all fairness, since they won the election, who can tell? While I have no illusions about their views on the state of Israel, I do believe that the Hamas leaders are fully aware they've shot themselves in the foot with the charter. In '88 they never realised that they could one day actually win an election and hence, never realised that they might be expected to sit at the negotiation table with Israel. Obviously, they can't just shift into reverse and ignore their charter, but I think they realise they need to soften up somehow. Otherwise what would be their reason for the election manifesto? TerminusEst (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not something new. Mahmoud al-Zahar was in Australia a few years ago and was interviewed for a current affairs program. He said then the charter was no longer enforced and that Hamas would recognise Israel if they recognised a Palestine state within the 1967 borders and gave right of return which is probably the main sticking point. Wayne (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's the problem with Hamas. One leader says one thing, another something completely different. A couple of years back, Zahar himself said that Hamas would never recognize or negotiate with Israel. During the elections, I might add. TerminusEst (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone who has been following peace negotiations between Israel and the PLO (as I am sure Hamas' leaders have) know that Israel will never accept the right of return of Palestinian refugees. It is therefor very easy for Hamas leaders to say they're willing to accept ceasefires with that condition. Israel will never follow up on them, and they will never have to live up to their peaceful claims. My point is that such statements, made to westen press sources, are just a PR stunt, and that displaying them in the article without due criticism is POV. Cederal (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What you've been told about Hamas's official stance is simply not supported by the facts. The official Hamas position, expressed in official accords, is in line with the "PR stunts":

Those gathered agreed on a program for the year 2005, centered on the continuation of the atmosphere of calm in return for Israel's adherence to stopping all forms of aggression against our land and our Palestinian people, no matter where they are, as well as the release of all prisoners and detainees.

Cairo declaration, 2005 [21])

The Palestinian people in the homeland and in the Diaspora seek and struggle to liberate their land and remove the settlements and evacuate the settlers and remove the apartheid and annexation and separation wall and to achieve their right to freedom, return and independence and to exercise their right to self-determination, including the right to establish their independent state with al-Quds al-Shareef as its capital on all territories occupied in 1967, and to secure the right of return for refugees to their homes and properties from which they were evicted and to compensate them

Palestinian Prisoners' Document, 2006
I don't disagree that we should include information about Israel's skepticism of this stance, but it's not merely a PR stunt for Western ears only. These documents, especially the Prisoners' Document and the 2007 Mecca accord reaffirming it, were written in Palestinian blood. <eleland/talkedits> 13:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, we should take into consideration that whether or not the ceasefire offered by Hamas is realistic - it has been offered. Regardless of the Israeli response. I do feel that's too significant to be ignored, all things considered. But yes, perhaps some elaboration on the subject would be in order. TerminusEst (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
We should also mention

[edit] Robert Wistrich quote

As per this diff,

This quote has several problems:

  • The quote presented does not substantiate the claim that "[o]ther articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews."
  • The quote itself is factually false, since the Hamas Covenant refers to the Protocols exactly once (check it out here).
  • The source itself is heavily parsed and the quoted statements appears in an ellipsis, and is hence probably not part of the statement to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
  • The original, unedited statement is itself not catalogued by the United Nations. The only two documents in which the author, Robert Wistrich, is mentioned are here.

In summary, this is the case of a bad source used to drive home a point not contained in the source. If indeed the point is pertinent, then I'm sure User:Zeq will have no trouble finding a better source for it. Otherwise, I will delete it again.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 11.03.2008 08:30

You are arguing with the source - this is called Original reserach. Clearly it is not a bad source as you try to present it - it is simply a source that you don't like. You are free to bring other sources. --Zeq (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not arguing with the source. I'm arguing that the source does not meet the criteria set out in WP:RS (heavily parsed source from a non-mainstream outlet) and that it is being used to prove a statement it does not make (i.e. it does not say that "[o]ther articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews"). That's two points against Wikipedia policy, not WP:OR. If you feel this is not so, please tell us all why instead of mindlessly reverting. Otherwise I will continue removing it for the same reasons as before. pedrito - talk - 13.03.2008 10:30
With all due respect you can not say that you are not arguing with the source when you clearly placed your logic, your knowledge, your coomon sense Vs that of the source. what you can do is find a different source and have both sources in the article. You can not just make (powerfull indeed) original arguments here in talk and based on that remove the source which does not fit the logic of your own arguments. This original thought of yours is indeed powerfull so maybe if you find a publisher we can include your view once it apear on a good source. Zeq (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Zeq, stop waving that red herring around or you're going to end up slapping yourself with it. My points were, and remain:
  • The source is a heavily-parsed letter by Wistrich in which the quoted statement is in an ellipsis and thus not his own. Attributing that statement to Wistrich is wrong.
  • The source is used to back the statement "[o]ther articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews". This, however, is not what the source says.
Zeq, stay on the ball, will you? Please address these two points. Otherwise, I'll have to assume you're avoiding discussion and settle this administratively. pedrito - talk - 14.03.2008 07:30
Actually, I've decided not to wait and have put-up a request here. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 14.03.2008 08:32

[edit] Use of the term "Ethnic Cleansing"

[edit] The term "Ethnic Cleansing" should not be used in this article to describe the origin of the Palestinian refugees.

My reasoning is as follows:

(1) "Ethnic Cleansing" is a vague, imprecise term In the words of Andrew Bell-Fialkoff (Wikipedia article on Ethnic Cleansing): "[E]thnic cleansing [...] defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of a population from a given territory." Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, "A Brief History of Ethnic Cleansing", Foreign Affairs 72 (3): 110, Summer 1993

(2) "Ethnic Cleansing" is not a nuetral phrase. It is a code-phrase created by proponents of racist genocide and expulsions and used carelessly as a euphemism by others. The implication of the phrase is clearly racist ie that a particular race is "dirty" and that an area of land will not be "clean" until they are either killed or expelled from it.

See, for example: "Its typical usage was developed in the Balkans, to be a less objectionable code-word meaning genocide, but its intent was to best avoid the obvious pitfalls of longstanding international treaty laws prohibiting war crimes." (Wikipedia article on Ethnic Cleansing).

(3) Even if the general understanding of "Ethnic Cleansing" were to be assumed ie "Ethnic cleansing refers to various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory in order to create a supposedly ethnically "pure" society." (Wikipedia article description of "Ethnic Cleansing") this is an historically innacurate description of the origin of the Palestinian Refugees.

Of course, the number and the origin of the Palestinian Refugees is contaversial and uncertain.

(a) There is, however, no evidence of an attempt in 1947-48 to create an "ethnically "pure" society" in Israel with no Arabs; on the contrary the declaration of 1948 states that "it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations." Declaration of Independence (Israel).

The subsequent actions of the State of Israel further back this up in that Arabs were permitted to remain bacame citizens of the new state and today some 1 million Arab Muslim citizens of Israel have the vote and carry an Israeli passport.

(b) The refugees in Gaza largely come from or are descended from refugees from what is now Israel, but the number directly expelled by Jewish forces is a minority.

The best reference for facts on this is the research done by the Israeli academic & Cambridge Phd Benny Morris (since unjustly vilified by both sides!) in "The birth of the Palestinian Refugee problem, 1947-1949" (Cambridge Middle East Library) a full length historical study which sets out through academic research into contemporary documents & primary sources to investigate this question.

He divides up the wartime Refugees of the hundreds of de-populated Arab villages and towns of what is now Israel into: E Expulsion by Jewish Forces A Abandonment on Arab orders F Fear of attack or being caught up in fighting M Military assault on the settlement by Jewish troops W Haganah/IDF "whispering" campaigns (ie psychological warfare geared to obtasining Arab evacuation) C Influence of fall of, or exodus from, neighbouring towns. and he lists the results of his research in detail.

He concludes: "The Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design, Jewish or Arab. It was largely a by-product of Arab and Jewish fears and of the protracted, bitter fighting that characterised the first Israeli-Arab war; in smaller part, it was the deliberate creation of Jewish and Arab military commanders and politicians." ("The birth of the Palestinian Refugee problem, 1947-1949" Conclusion. (Cambridge Middle East Library) )

It is therefore incorrect (and also misleading, careless use of language and not a NPOV) to write:

"Hamas does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state because it was formed by ethnically cleansing the native Palestinian population, unlike the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which has recognized it since 1988, and calls it the "Zionist entity".

I suggest that this should be changed to :

"Hamas does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state calls it the "Zionist entity". Politically, hundreds of thousands of Muslim Arabs, now Hamas supporters living in Gaza, lost their homes and land in the 1947-48 Arab-Israeli war and these refugees and their descendants have not been permitted by Israel to return. Ideologically, as an Islamist group Hamas takes the line that Islamic territory (Waqf) cannot be conceded. This is stated in the Hamas charter '...the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day.' and '... it, or any part of it, should not be given up.'" (Ref. Hamas charter). In this they differ from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which has recognized it since 1988.

--Sam 11:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the term myself as it has both a nuetral meaning and a pejoritive one. However we need to come up with a very good alternative as a term with both meanings can not be replaced because one is pejoritive. "Politically" just doesn't do it so find something better. I suggest "Hamas does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state because it was formed by the forced emigration of the native Palestinian population". Mention of the 1947 war specifically is not accurate as the forced immigration had already started before then.
The second half of that paragraph is also inaccurate as Hamas DOES NOT take the line that "Islamic territory (Waqf) cannot be conceded". For years they have stated they will recognise Israel within the 1967 borders if Israel recognises a Palestinian state. You cannot refer to the Charter for Hamas policy as it is not enforced in it's entirety. Wayne (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Quoting Al-Zahar himself in 2006: "We do not recognise the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our neighbour, nor to stay (on the land), nor his ownership of any inch of land\u2026. We are interested in restoring our full rights to return all the people of Palestine to the land of Palestine. Our principles are clear: Palestine is a land of Waqf (Islamic trust) which cannot be given up." As for the charter, I cannot find one single source to verify it has been abandoned. However, I can (and did earlier) point to Hamas sources stating the direct opposite.TerminusEst (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no source listed that "explains" the Hamas position opposing a Jewish state as resulting from supposed "ethnic cleansing" in 1948 and thereabouts. So that entire sentence is unverified--the author is attributing a motivation where none is documented except the Hamas Charter as quoted in numerous posts above. So not only does it violate NPOV it's also not verifiable. Hence I have removed the dependent clause. Drmikeh49 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why not write that "Hamas is responsible for suicide attacks" instead of Hamas is "best known" for this?

Some time ago I suggested making this change. Many reliable Western sources write from a certain perspective and you cannot always take vague statements too literally. So, why not just focus on the acts themselves which are undisputable? Count Iblis (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --GHcool (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Delad (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
What a strange suggestion; a dozen reliable sources specifically use the phrase "best known"; why would you have the article say something the sources do not? I'm restoring the wording that satisfies WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. Just because Rolling Stone may call Pearl Jam "the greatest band in the world" doesn't' mean that we report that at fact. You have been wrong on this point in the past, and you are just as wrong now. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Okay\u2026 so twelve rock solid sources aren\u2019t enough to define the organization? Tough crowd. The arguments for including that phrase are overwhelming, arguments against consist solely of \u201cYes, I know there are twelve excellent sources supporting the idea that Hamas is best known for suicide bombings, but what if those twelve sources did not use methodology I approve of? What then?\u201d I\u2019d love to see this in the evolution article. \u201cYes, I know virtually every reputable scientist on the planet believes in evolution, but I personally have a problem with their methodology.\u201d Actually, I think this very thing has happened, and eventually those people get laughed off the article (though it takes far too long for that to happen, IMO).
I recognize that there are grey areas, especially in I-P articles. This is not only not one of them, it is extraordinarily, mind-numbingly obvious, from a WP policy point of view, that Hamas is best-known for suicide bombings. Is it literally \u201ctrue?\u201d I think it is, but could be wrong. My opinion doesn\u2019t matter; all that matters are sources that meet WP:RS. And please spare me the \u201cBut Syrians don\u2019t think they\u2019re best known for that\u201d line. Statistically insignificant (and also unproven, AFAIK) exceptions to most people\u2019s overriding perception of Hamas as a group that engages in suicide bombings is irrelevant.
Oh, and Tarc, to your point about why we don\u2019t quote Rolling Stone saying that \u201cPearl Jam is the greatest band in the world.\u201d It\u2019s because they haven\u2019t said so, because Pearl Jam aren\u2019t. But if they, for example, referred to some other, random, band, say\u2026 The Beatles, in glowing terms, the article might reflect it, saying something like \u201cThey are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed bands in the history of popular music.\u201d
This one is game, set and match for including the phrase. IronDuke 23:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The point sailed completely over your head, I'm afraid. Whether or not a source says "best known for" doesn't actually mean that they ARE "best known for". Just as in the valid Peal Jam analogy, which you also fail to get. Tarc (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to say \u201cWow\u201d again. I write this whole disquisition, not realizing that you could reduce my arguments to a pile of rubble merely by writing, \u201cDude, you are so wrong.\u201d I don\u2019t know what else to say. I stand humbled by your rigorous logic. Was there anything else? IronDuke 23:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what the footnote says:

That pretty much clinches it; best known or infamous for suicide bombings, as confirmed by over a dozen reliable sources. I'm restoring the wording per WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above, Jayjg, I'm not sure sourcing is generally the best way to choose specific phrasing. The problem is that the sentence reads like an editorial. The question about sourcing, I think, would be whether this should later be introduced as an additional point of its own, but using this kind of phrasing to introduce the idea doesn't come across as neutral. Mackan79 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not understanding your point. When over a dozen reliable sources, including highly respected historians, make this specific statement, why is it an "editorial" or not "neutral" to point this out? Over 64,000 Wikipedia articles use the phrase "best known"; why do we shrink from stating this obvious, cited, and informative fact about Hamas? Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure you've shown it to be the most common way to cover this issue. Even so, I think a comparison to other encyclopedias might make for the more useful analogy. I suspect on contentious or loaded issues like this, you would generally find something more straight forward and factual, leaving the superlatives to later in an article where they can be attributed. It actually sounds informal in this context, to be honest, which I think is partly why people are taking issue. Mackan79 (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Most western sources say "best known" so it should stay but for accuracy the sentence should be editted to read "In many countries Hamas is is best known for.......". Especially since there has been only one or two attacks in the last 3 years it needs the qualifier to avoid undue weight. I also suggest deleting the sources that say "infamous" instead of "best known" as they do not have the same definition and some would see their use as POV pushing. Wayne (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That would read as more descriptive, and would be an improvement. It still seems hard to know whether most Western sources describe the issue in this way, however; if I search books for references to Hamas and suicide bombings, I doubt the most common sentence will be that they are best known for this. I have no problem with adding this as a fact having to do with broad perception, as I said, but only with making it the introduction to say in effect that this is its primary feature. Some people will read it as straight forward, but I think many will also read it as editorializing. Mackan79 (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Wayne and Mackan, I appreciate your points and I would go on to say I suspect that you are correct; there are some parts of the world where Hamas is probably better known for something other than suicide bombings. Unfortunately, however true that may be, there are no sources to support it that I can see. If y'all can rustle some up, I'm sure we could work into the article the idea that not every every country in the world feels that Hamas is best known for bombings in some way, though it will probably end up as a fringe opinion, as the sources quoted above are pretty overwhelming. IronDuke 22:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There are several problems with the phrasing and the methodology being used to support it, some of which have been covered above -
  • Media sources which employ field journalists, fact-checkers and professional sub-editors, while in principle reliable for issues of fact or for reporting of quotes etc, are obviously less so for descriptive phrasings. Media outlets all have editorial stances, and individual journalists are of course prose writers, with their own opinions, as well as simply (supposed) recorders of facts and events. As a result journalists use adjectives and phrases, and suggest interpretations that shouldn't necessarily be simply carried across into a encyclopedia, even if they are used frequently. None of the articles above seem to involve a journalist reporting on an accredited poll of world opinion on the matter. Unfortunately this seems to happen quite a lot in Wikipedia - people seem to feel they have "proved" their own interpretation of an issue, or backed up their preferred phrasing, if they can find one or more journalists who have at some point used similar wording, however casually.
  • As noted above, these are all or mostly Western sources. And there are also 100s of Western sources and media reports which do not say Hamas "is best known" for suicide bombings, or indeed whether it is "best known" for anything in particular at all. Also I'm not sure we need to wait until we find non-Western sources which suggest Hamas is best known for something else before we qualify the statement; otherwise we're just extrapolating from several Western media articles and making assumptions about what the rest (and majority, as it happens) of the world thinks.
  • Also of course the context here is important. Most of the articles referred to are over a year old, and date back to the period around the Palestinian elections. What most of them are actually saying is that Hamas - which won political power in those elections - was "best known" for suicide bombings up until this point, ie they are saying that this is likely to change. Hence they don't actually support the assertion that's been put into the lead.
Saying that Hamas "was best known in the West and Israel for the suicide bombings carried out in Israel by its military wing" would probably be a fairer summary of the sources brought forward so far. And even that's pushing it. --Nickhh (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Despite the fact that these are mostly Western sources (that's what you usually find in English), it could hardly be said that these sources are in any way "anti-Palestinian". The fact that other sources do not specifically state what Hamas is best known for does not imply they disagree with the statement. And note, included among the sources are two books published by respected presses. The wording you have suggested is original research, which attempts to have the sources say what you think they should have said. Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You're calling it original research to say that Hamas is responsible for suicide bombings? I find it hard to believe, but even apart from this article I'm concerned this general approach is hurting WP:ENCYC. Mackan79 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It's original research when the actual sources say Best known for or Infamous for, and you change that explicit wording to something else. Regarding comparisons to other encyclopedias, Wikipedia has about a million articles that wouldn't be found in other encyclopedias, and I'm concerned that leaving out this simple fact (and well-sourced) fact about Hamas will be hurting WP:NPOV. NPOV is policy, by the way, unlike ENCYC, which is an essay. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't believe that's a correct understanding of WP:OR, unless you can point to the part that says we should directly copy from the sources that we choose. I don't disagree with the rest, but would suggest that a neutral introduction should describe Hamas' basic features before getting into public perception. Mackan79 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that's begging the question. According to the sources, suicide bombings are a basic feature of Hamas. IronDuke 13:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, I don't recall ever suggesting that English language sources wouldn't be mostly Western (although lots of non-Westerners do speak and write in English of course, they're good like that) or that any of the sources you have selected to back up your preferred phraseology were "anti-Palestinian". I'm not objecting to the "best known" phrasing due to any NPOV issues, I'm simply saying it's inaccurate and a pretty lazy assumption, based on no hard evidence whatsoever. For example, as I've already asked, what poll of world opinion have these journalists cited to back up their use of the phrase? And in any event, if we are going to go down the road of copy-pasting casual phrases from journalists and authors into Wikipedia leads as if they were uncontested fact, perhaps we should a) read the sources properly; and b) check to see if there are other sources that say something different. On point a) for example, the Guardian leader you cited specifically says "until now" Hamas "was" best known for suicide bombings (ie the direct opposite of the present tense phrasing you prefer); the PBS cite refers to "the outside world"; the ABC cite says "best known abroad" etc etc. On point b), see this, which qualifies with "in Israel"; or this, which claims it is better known for other things among Palestinians. It's not me conducting original research here and getting the sources to say more than they actually say. --Nickhh (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Nick, most of the sources used are from the 2004 on, they're hardly ancient. Two significantly post-date the elections, and although some qualify the term as "in the West" or "outside Israel", others do not. Perhaps it would be best just to use the term "infamous", which is true regardless of the time frame, and requires no qualifiers. Here's another source that uses the term: "Infamous for its reliance on suicide bombers in the Palestinian struggle for independence from Israel, Hamas continued to play an important role on the extreme right wing of Palestinian politics well into the twenty-first century." (Delanty, Gerard, and Krishan, Kumar. The Sage Handbook of Nations and Nationalism, Sage Publications Inc, 2006, ISBN 1412901014, p. 185.)Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Nick, with respect, you are falling into a trap many smart people fall into on WP, which is questioning whether the sources have done all they might to back up their assertions. The fact is, we don't and can't know, and it's not up to us to judge: if the sources meet WP:RS, then we cite what they say. We can't engage them intellectually, we can only use them or not use them. IronDuke 02:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:Reliable sources is a baseline, ID, but it doesn't resolve what should go in a lead paragraph, or how specific material should be used. I think both of Nick's points are important, in regard to where and when Hamas was best known for this; I would be very surprised if as many sources continue to say this, for instance, after its election victories. Among other things, increased prominence in this way means it's no longer necessary to start off by announcing what the group is known for.
For that matter, I think the entire lead actually leaves a fair amount to be desired in terms of giving people quick information on Hamas. The second paragraph already jumps into broad summaries, that probably should come toward the end of the lead where people will tend to look for these. Reorganizing the lead might be a more useful path toward improvement. Mackan79 (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Mackan79, to be honest, it has been extremely difficult to get simple facts into the lead of this article - every time one tries, they are reverted and then weighed down with a huge amount of "counter-views" that are, frankly, not at all suitable. For example, it's quite jarring that the second sentence of the article says In January 2006, Hamas was elected as the parliament of the Palestinian Authority. That's something that should go near the end of an introduction, not the beginning, once we've explained a little about what Hamas is, but some people feel its important to put all the "good stuff" first. For that matter, you can't imagine how difficult it has been to get the lead to note that Hamas's purpose is the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic State. In the end we were forced to move the information down, and say only that its charter calls for the destruction of Israel, because of all the mind-boggling apologetics about Hamas not really meaning what it said, and really just wanting to have a peaceful separate Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza. By contrast, Britannica has no trouble getting to the point, in its first sentence: "Hamas: militant Palestinian Islamic movement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state in Palestine."[22] There you go, straightforward, maximally informative, right to the point. The second sentence is quite straightforward too: Founded in 1987, Hamas opposed the 1993 peace accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Now try to get anything resembling that into the first sentences of this article. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the informative response. I don't mind the information as included; my problem was just with starting the sentence "Best known for," which for me suggests a sort of primer for a group that the reader is expected not to have heard of. I'd accept most other formulations to get rid of this, though I do think it tends to make sense to provide information on what the organization is before getting to what it is notorious for. Of course the notoriety, and its basis, is also very important for the reader. Mackan79 (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset) Well to be honest it's hardly a key issue for this article, and I - and others - have probably gone a little overboard on arguing the point as a matter of principle. However it was one of those phrases that jumps out at a casual reader; and when you then examine the supposed "rock solid" sourcing behind it you find that in fact all editors have done is trawl the online media and a couple of academic books, and picked up a very casual piece of phrasing which happens to appear in some of them (and which is contradicted or qualified in many others, as Jayjg acknowledges). I notice this kind of cherry-picking a lot here, and it's always excused by the simple "it was in an RS, so that's the end of the matter". Well fine, but as I've pointed out, very different statements are being made in equally valid sources - so where does that leave us? Wikipedia would be a very odd place if we extracted and inserted every assertion, comment and phrase that's written in a newspaper into the lead of articles and claimed them as incontrovertible fact. Not least because half the time they're going to contradict each other. --Nickhh (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Nick, it's not "contradicted" in any, and it's qualified in a minority. Most of the sources do not qualify it in any way. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see where the problem with the sourcing lies; are the academic sources bad? The well-respected news outlets? You write "Wikipedia would be a very odd place if we extracted and inserted every assertion, comment and phrase that's written in a newspaper into the lead of articles and claimed them as incontrovertible fact." But no one is suggesting we do this. IronDuke 12:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's enough reason for someone to slap a "worldwide view" tag on, if only sources external to the area where Hamas is best-known are used. Relata refero (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so at all. Unless you can demonstrate that a large portion of the world knows Hamas for something other than suicide bombings, which I think is likely not true--you'd have your work cut out for you to match the sources above. We don't "slap tags" on things just because we think maybe someday, maybe somewhere, a source will come along and justify it. IronDuke 12:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. All I have to demonstrate is that Hamas is better known in area X than area Y, yet almost all our quotes are from area Y, not area X; and bring one source to the table about the difference in perceptions in X and Y. That's all. See WP:BIAS. Relata refero (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Not at all the case. Hamas, for example, is most probably best known in the PA, but that doesn't mean Palestinians have to know it best for suicide bombings in order for the above quotes to be the commanding ones. The quotes we have are referencing a... worldwide... view. That's what "best known," in a general sense means. Not "best to known to every person in all places throughout the universe." You are setting the bar extraordinarily high for something already very well-sourced, and quite low for the contrary view. IronDuke 00:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, never mind. If you haven't noticed yet - quite apart from any debates about such a generous reading of WP:RS - that only 8 of the 16 sources cited above actually say "Hamas is best known for suicide bombings [no qualification as to where]" you're not going to anytime soon. The issue and the wording here really aren't that important, but you might have thought more generally that accurate reading of sources was. --Nickhh (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. If you don't feel you can respond to the substance of my points, you certainly are not obliged to. And since you don't think it important, you can always bow out if the discussion is frustrating you. IronDuke 00:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Nick, you seem to have left out the 5 sources that said it was infamous for suicide attacks. As I said before, I'm fine with changing the wording to "infamous". Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Infamous is a little sweeping, isn't it? I don't think a serious encyclopedia would use such a word. How about "notorious," would you accept that? <eleland/talkedits> 02:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, the sources don't use "notorious"; they use "best known for" and "infamous". Infamous is also likely the most accurate term of the three. And, for example, The Sage Handbook of Nations and Nationalism uses the term "infamous", and it seems like a reasonably serious source. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

May I suggest that most recent edits on this article have amounted to edit warring that does little to move the article forward. It would be a lot more productive to put in some work here on the talk page to see if you can find some consensus wordings for some of these matters, and don't worry if for a day or two the article says something you think is shaded incorrectly. - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christians in Gaza

There are numerous news reports of Christians fleeing Gaza after the Hamas takeover. I have cited several of them in my edit of the sentence that states that "Although it should be noted that a sizable minority of Palestinians are Christian and live in peace with their Hamas neighbors." (this is also a phrase and not a sentence). Given that Hamas insists on Sharia law, in which case all infidels either are eliminated, or tolerated if they pay the Jizya tax, this should not be a surprising development. Drmikeh49 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources you gave don't support that interpretation. I quote from the sources: "We are not afraid of Hamas because as a government they are responsible for protecting people...We are afraid of those who are more extreme than Hamas" and "many Christians, frightened of the new extremist groups and desperate to escape the worsening economic situation in the Gaza Strip, are seeking to emigrate". As it is not Hamas or Sharia law forcing them out and the "worsening economic situation" is a result of the sanctions, the sentence is not relevant. Wayne (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
There are many sources which describe the tension and terror gaza chrstian population is under: [23],[24], [25], [26],[27],[28], [29],[30], [31] " Still, a number of Gaza's 3,000 Christians have privately expressed concern about Hamas' intentions."... We should not forget that Gaza is not aplace where people are free to talk to the press on any subject (unless they want to blame Israel) Zeq (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This is nonsense. Hamas won the election by specifically campaigning on NOT instituting an Islamic state with Sharia law. The violence against Christians in Gaza has been conducted by criminal gangs, not by Hamas. Nobody, not even the Washington Times (which has a record of making false claims about Christians being persecuted by the Palestinian government and is run by an evangelical cult), have said that Hamas is persecuting Christians and instituting Islamic law. You guys who get your information from hack polemicists and forum postings on Free Republic should lay off the Wikipedia editing. <eleland/talkedits> 23:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I only had the patience to look through half of those links and only one (the JP article) associated Hamas directly as a source of tension (and that was by reporting a claim from another group). I'm assuming they are representative of the second half of the links. If so, then they fail miserably to prove the argument that Hamas is responsible for the violence perpetrated upon these Christians. Maybe the argument you're trying to make is that Hamas allows this violence to occur or that the current state of affiars is the responsibility of Hamas (ie taking control of Gaza) and any violence which occurs due to these circumstances is also their responsibility. Delad (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, that IS the argument. I never stated that the Hamas themselves perpetrated the violence. However, if Christians and Moslems did live in peace for centuries in Gaza, as the previous version indicated (and I am not challenging that statement)and the circumstances changed since the coup in which Hamas took power, the reader can draw his/her own inferences about what a Hamas-led state would be like. Note that I did not include my own opinion in the talk paragraph above in my edit. Eleland's statement about why Hamas won the election is both irrelevant and unsubstantiated. If violence against Palestinians in the West Bank committed by extremist Israeli settlers is the responsibility of the Israeli Government, then violence against Gaza Christians by Islamic extremists in Gaza is the responsibility of the governing power in Gaza--Hamas. Hence I have re-placed the sentence; if you want to revert it again, provide a better reason than the ones given above. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmikeh49 (talk \u2022 contribs) 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
also moved that sentence to a more relevant location--directly after the quote describing how Hamas believes that Moslems Christians and Jews will also coexist peacefully in a Hamas state. The fact of the Christian exodus is extremely relevant in the context of that quote. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmikeh49 (talk \u2022 contribs) 18:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
as requested on the page, will those who keep reverting my edit please have the courtesy to discuss the rationale on this page? Tarc claimed that "this was not the place for original research or synthesis of unrelated information"; does anyone else believe that the status of Christians in Gaza is unrelated to the beliefs, philosophy and goals of Hamas vis-a-vis the Jewish population of Israel? Drmikeh49 (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not relevant as they are largely economic refugees. The economic problems are outside Hamas control. Israeli settlers are the responsibility of the Israeli Government because they are "supposedly" law abiding citizens but it is wrong to assume Hamas is responsible for a criminal group any more than Israel is responsible for the so called "Israeli mafia". Wayne (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The statement "they are largely economic refugees" is contradicted by the references that I cited. The same statement has been made about many fleeing political persecution in Latin America. Supposedly the extremist Moslem groups that committed those acts were otherwise "law-abiding citizens" as well, (as were the KKK in the American South). "I expect our Christian neighbors to understand the new Hamas rule means real changes. They must be ready for Islamic rule if they want to live in peace in Gaza," said Sheik Abu Saqer, leader of Jihadia Salafiya, an Islamic outreach movement that recently announced the opening of a "military wing" to enforce Muslim law in Gaza. Jihadia Salafiya is suspected of attacking a United Nations school in Gaza last month, after the school allowed boys and girls to participate in the same sporting event. One person was killed in that attack.http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3414753,00.html. So-- if I wanted to place information about the status of the Christian population in Gaza, how would you suggest wording it-- separate paragraph entirely? I am open to advice. Drmikeh49 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a reprint of an article from WorldNetDaily, a far-right conservative news website. The author, Aaron Klein, is an unsavory type who hangs out with Kahanist settlers and pushes swift-boat style smear campaigns against US Democrats. And if you read down to the bottom, you get a much more plausible explanation (since the criminal gangs in Gaza were all linked with Fatah) - they were just criminals who vandalized the church during a robbery in order to embarrass Hamas. In any case, this is an article about Hamas, not about the social situation in Gaza. We shouldn't be including sources that have little or no actual coverage of Hamas. <eleland/talkedits> 16:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am at a loss what your argument is (except WorldNetdaily bashing) . can you clarify if your argument is one of those two:
  1. Chrstians in Gaza are doing great
  2. Chrstians in gaza are suffesring but Hamas is not responsible for the security situation in Gaza

btw, The issue of "muslim law" or not is not the issue here. Hamas campaigned on creating a secure streets in Gaza and indeed it now has total control - even on the criminal gangs. Since Hamas took over the attcaks on chrstians have intensefied greatly. The sources are very clear on that. Zeq (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the topic was already opened by a previous editor's inclusion of this passage "He also "didn't rule out the possibility of having Jews, Muslims and Christians living under the sovereignty of an Islamic state, adding that the Palestinians never hated the Jews and that only the Israeli occupation was their enemy".[56] Therefore, I propose that we remove that quote from the article as well. And Eleland, are you implying that Israeli media have "little or no coverage of Hamas"? Drmikeh49 (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Why, is there an NPOV issue ? if so find the sources that describe the state of Chrstians in Gaza after hamas came to power on Jan 2006 or the take over at June 2007 and include info based on these sources. see links above. Just do a good job of writing in a bbalanced way according to wikipedia policies. Zeq (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Best known

I wanted to try moving the lead around to avoid the POV issue, but thought it would be best to propose it here first:

Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada. The organization has been widely involved in Palestinian politics and social services, but has become best known for multiple suicide bombings and other attacks[2] directed against civilians and Israeli military and security forces targets. Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in effect) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[3] The organization is widely described as antisemitic.[4]

I'm taking my lead here from the formulation of CFR.org;[32] the idea is to make the same point while attempting to raise less flags. Mackan79 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "We will knock on the doors of Heaven with the skulls of the Jews"

I have frequently heard this line -- "We will knock on the doors of Heaven with the skulls of the Jews" -- as having something to do with the Hamas' charter or anthem. Does anyone know the full English text of both of these? Frotz (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems not to be a part of the charter, but of the folklore, as it were:

--Avi (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Another fascinating study in I/P propaganda. Here's what happened: according to a report from some "media monitoring" site, which was then picked up by the Forward, the website palestineinfo.com (?) which is apparently affiliated with Hamas ran an anti-Sharon cartoon with the caption reading "We will use Jewish skulls to build a bridge to Heaven". (A slightly different version is visible in this book preview.) This was then printed out in the Territories and passed around by word of mouth, as it were, till one of their suicide bombers death videos featured it, only slightly changed. This revised version had two things going for it: the bomber in question was Hamas' first woman, and it translated to "we will knock on the doors of Heaven with the skulls of the Jews", which has better metre. Because of this, it seems to have been picked up in its revised form by several different websites, and attributed variously to a sermon by Sheikh Yassin, a wall in East Jerusalem, Arafat, a letter to the editor of a campus newspaper, and, apparently, their Covenant.
There, that's quite an interesting story. By our apparent standards in this area, practically enough for an article. --Relata refero (disp.) 03:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Folklore 101 :/ . Regardless, it does not seem to be official Hamas doctrine, but it is espoused by many members and supporters of Hamas. -- Avi (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charter "no longer enforced"?

An editor has added to the lead the claim that the Hamas charter is "no longer enforced" based on these two sources:

To begin with, these sources (in particular the second) are hardly official pronouncements of Hamas policy. Even worse, as should probably be obvious, neither source even mentions the Hamas Charter, much less claiming it is "no longer enforced". I refer editors to WP:SYNTH:

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

If there is a reliable source out there that explicitly states that the Hamas charter is "no longer enforced", please bring it forward. Jayjg (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also important to keep in mind that hamas speaks in more than one voice. They have ouitside leadership (Mash'al in Syria), they have a prime minister in gaza who is not fully in control, they have military leadership in gaza and several more. Even the same group may say different things on different days but all together none of them has ever denounced the charter. In fact they continue to work the long term goal of erudicating any Jewish rule on what they see as mulsim wakf of Palestine. During this long process Hudnas (until such timeas hamas think they are mire noumerous or stronger) are possible. Zeq (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an interesting point. Here's a member of the PA assembly saying the charter is considered outdated. (For those who remember Arafat and the fuss about the PLO's charter being outdated in the mid-80s, this is all eerily similar.) A summer 2007 statement that the charter "wasn't the Koran" was widely quoted, and formed the basis of a cover story on changes in Hamas in the New Statesman, IIRC. The ]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1137605900679 JPost says] those Artful Villains are "blurring" the extremist bits of the charter, though of course its all conniving doubletalk. And of course there was the 2006 Jpost report that the charter was being rewritten to take the Protocols out, though I presume that that has stalled because of the Rigors of Government.
There are a ton of other sources that claim the Charter is generally irrelevant, but I can't find any major academic ones. There is an Oxford MPhil thesis online, though I can't seem to find the link now, that has as its central argument the fact that the focus on the charter in Western sources matches a disconnect between rhetoric and reality, but until that argument is made in more places, it doesn't deserve to be in the lead. (Though it would be nice if it could be fit into the article somewhere.) --Relata refero (disp.) 08:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a hamas founding charter. If they want to change it surly they know how to do it. On such charter there is not any issue of "enforcment" it is what define Hamas - how they define themself. If they change it we will refelct this in the article. Zeq (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It is dishonest, a violation of WP:BLP and POV to state the Charter is still in force when over the past few years so many HAMAS spokespeople have stated objectives that are contrary to it. Most recently and comprehensively I watched a series of interviews on 60 minutes where it was claimed by Hamas that the Charters core belief of resistance to occupation is still valid and the only significant change is that HAMAS will now accept an Israeli State but this article actually emphasized that this was the main part enforced. It was implied that the charter has not been updated because of resistance by the Palestinian public most affected by the Israeli reprisals. Whatever "double talk" HAMAS normally does doesn't change the fact that they are likely to now actually be willing to accept an Israeli state. Probably it would be more accurate to say "no longer enforced in it's entirety" but then we would need to detail exactly which parts are and are not which is too difficult due to ambiguity. therefor "no longer enforced" is the best way to write it atm. Wayne (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Wayne, I think my statement was clear enough. If there is a reliable source out there that explicitly states that the Hamas charter is "no longer enforced", please bring it forward. Until then, please review WP:SYNTH. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Wayne, don't accuse other people in "dishonesty" this is a violation of WP:AGF. I trust your good faith but I can not understand how someone who decalre himself as jain (a peace loving religion) can be so out of touch with what the hamas represent. Hamas wants an Islamic Khalifate over all the middle east. in the mean time they are willing for many "hudna" or other arrengments. This does not imply any acceptence of israel's right to exist as a homeland of the Jewish people. Zeq (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
They were always willing to accept "an israeli state" their problem is with a Jewish rule over parts of what they call "wakf of palestine". They don't care that Palestine will be called israel as long as muslims are the majority .... Zeq (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I never accused editors of being dishonest as many still believe the claim, it is the claim itself. Jayjg asks for a RS that the Charter is no longer enforced but I say show me a RS that it is. There are many RS that report actions and claims that are contrary to the Charter and I have previously provided a RS that states the Charter is not policy so it is clear it is not entirely enforced. If this is Synth then claiming it is still in effect is also Synth. I am fully aware of what HAMAS represents but being a Jain means this is irrelevant and I can not allow the evil they do to influence how they are described. I am obligated to see the good they do as much as the bad. Wayne (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you asking for a source saying this is the Hamas charter ? check out the verb "is" - this is present tense so no need to provide you with more "sources". The Charter is hamas charter, this is how it was founded and there was never a change to that charter. Zeq (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Wayne, you're the one who wants to insert unsourced arguments into the article, not me. The current version of the lead is quite well sourced, but I'm happy to add more if you want. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that "no longer enforced" should be in the lead, as there is insufficient sourcing for that. Perhaps if Wayne could be shown reliable sources indicating why the Charter itself is in the lead, he will be satisfied. --Relata refero (disp.) 01:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There are three there already. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but none of them indicates that the Charter is central to Hamas' notability. No other organisations that I looked at had their equivalent document name-checked in the lead. Not even the UN. So we must have a reference telling us that its important, right? Not just references mentioning it? --Relata refero (disp.) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This might give some indication of its importance. This too. It's not every organization whose charter quotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact, and contains quotations about killing Jews. Only one that I can think of. Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course, its noteworthy for that very reason. But can we have a reference saying that it is relatively central to Hamas' notability or to impressions of Hamas? That will satisfy all those in the future who don't want it in the lead? Naturally, merely the number of gbook hits doesn't help... --Relata refero (disp.) 05:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You're asking for a standard for the lead that I don't find in other articles, or, indeed, in this one. Can you prove that the 2006 election win is central to Hamas's notability? How about its "hospitals, education systems, libraries and social services"? Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
And, as I've pointed out before, the very first sentence of the Britannica article on Hamas mentions this fact, and doesn't even mince words: "Hamas: militant Palestinian Islamic movement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state in Palestine."[33] Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Then why attribute it to the charter? That line sounds better, the charter's a red herring. Just summarise the "beliefs" sections (should that be "aims"?) without mentioning the charter. --Relata refero (disp.) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the irony; it's quite obvious that Hamas's goal is the destruction of Israel, but that statement is the kind of things that brings up all sorts of editors trying to whitewash the organization, insisting that they don't really intend to destroy it. Thus, referring to the Charter calling for Israel's destruction was seen as a way of appeasing those apologists, by pointing to a more neutral and less controversial fact. Of course, I don't think anyone expected someone to insist, based purely on his personal opinions, that the Charter was no longer enforced. Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, that is unfortunate. Still, at least we have reasonable references for saying that destruction of Israel is central to Hamas' notability, and so deserves to be in the lead. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Couple more sources to consider: [34],[35],[36], [37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43] --Zeq (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Hamas Charter, adopted in 1988 and still very much in effect, defines the land of Palestine as "an Islamic Waqf" (trust territory) consecrated for future Muslim generations. It adds: "Until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it" (Article 11).

The Charter's preface states "Israel will arise and will remain existent only until Islam eliminates it as it has eliminated its predecessors." Furthermore, it defines the enemy explicitly as an ethnic-religious group - the Jewish people. Hamas officials continue in their refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist.

--Zeq (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of all those sources you quoted only ONE is a RS for the claim you are making and even that is ambiguous in that it says HAMAS is divided on the issue and suggests the hard line support for the Charter will lose to the moderates. All the other sources are either decades old or are statements by Jewish organisations/sources.
The Britanica article is incorrect when it says "dedicated to the destruction of Israel" as Hamas statements over the last few years sometimes contradict this. Why is it so hard to accept the first positive thing HAMAS have ever said on the topic? Take a minute to sit back and read what you are writing and ask yourself....how would you view editors writing about Israel that way? Wayne (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(The connection between Jain religion and Hamas still cracks me up) anyhow: You still think that if you are asked to provid a source for your claim that the charter is "no longer enforced" there is a need to find a source that say exactly the opposite. I have explained to you and will do it again (for the last time). The text in the article describe what the Hamas charter is . This text is properly sourced as there are many sources on that charter. This is the end of discussion about sources to describe the charter. Now if you want to present updates on the issueof if the charter is enforced or not - you are welcome to find sources claiming one or both sides of that argument and include them in the article. Zeq (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Zeq, when you say things like "this is the end of the discussion", it only serves to pique my interest in something about which I don't actually give a damn. Which is an achievement, as words cannot express how tiresome I find this wrangling.
To point out something you appear to miss: the charter is certainly sourced. It is certainly still in effect de jure, as it has not been superceded in any way. A mention about the various attempts to do so, however, would not be ruled out by WP:UNDUE.
Whether it belongs in the lead is another matter. I note my sensible idea, in line with WP:LEAD, of summarising the "beliefs" section - and, in fact - reworking it into an "aims" section, per the standard for such organisations - has been summarily ignored by all, presumably as it is too sensible.
Wayne, please note that if some reliable sources say one thing and others say another, the most you can hope for is a note that sources are divided. It is unsurprising that the sources are divided, as Hamas, (like Jeremiah Wright?) is quite capable of speaking in two levels, rhetoric and reality. For a useful reading list dividing the sources into "pragmatic" Hamas and "ideological" Hamas, try this link, which gives you some idea of what an encyclopaedic rundown should actually look like. Presuming, always, that people actually are interested in representing what the sources say and not find sources that represent what they want to say. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If there are sources I don't mind Wayne will use them. Please let him present sources, (from both sides since Hamas is not only a terrorists organization but also a charity - so it is normal than they speak in more than one voice) . We should maybe explore more what does Hudna really mean etc... see discussion below of what Hamas core views are and the fact that those views are unchanged since the time Hamas was founded. Zeq (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Why is it so hard to accept the first positive thing HAMAS have ever said on the topic?"

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia but I will answer WLRoss: You really have no idea what does Hamas mean in what they say. If you just look for postive I will share your positive thinking and tell you this: You do have to listen since Hamas is honest and say exactly what they mean. When they don't mean something they don't say it. have you heard their wilingness to live side by side to israel as a Jewish state ? They don't. They don't mind waiting even 20 or 50 years but their goal is to control all the land they call palestine as an "islamic Waqf". Their understanding of the Koran does not allow them to give up any part of that land to be controlled by anyone who is not muslim. Do you know that a muslim that sell land to Jew is exceuted ? It is really nice you have nobel Jain ideas and I am sure that if you want to come up with a jain interpretation to the Koran it will be a best seller in Gaza. (woops, they burn libreries there since they carry the bible so maybe try again in few years....) Zeq (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, NOTFORUM. I've recently suggested redacting all talkpage posts that don't specifically talk about changes to article content, defined narrowly. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In 2nd though it is highly relevant. Please see this is as my understanding of the situation. We can not off couse use it but I am sure that if we better understand we can know how to find and present the sources that do speak about it. So I offer this as clarification for Wayne. Zeq (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Where do you get your information? Mashaal has several times stated HAMAS will accept an Israeli state within the 1967 borders. What has "a muslim that sell land to Jew is exceuted" to do with it? I'm sure i can find similar discrimnatory Israeli laws to justify HAMAS but I don't throw them around as the core issue is reality not what you think is the situation. I'd also like to know why you make fun of my religion. What exactly "cracks you up" about it? Wayne (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Wayne, is this an argument or you seriously want to understand the middle east ? I'll assume good faith and explain: Mashal' speaks in English and in Arabic. When he speaks in English he speaks to the west. What he say is as important as what he does not say. Hamas has Yassin "prophesy" that in 20 years they will concur all of Israel. hamas can wait they have time on their side. They are willing for Hudna now in 67 borders and will wait 20 or 50 years until they are stronger. They also want "refugees" to return into Israel so that they will help become a Palestinian majority inside Israel. So if Hamas really willing to accept israeli/Jewish rule on part of palestine they can say so, in English and in Arabic. Please try to find such source. In fact their charter specifically fobeeds them from giving up even part of the islamic Waqf of Palestine.. I hope you understand if not I think this is enough as I am not trying to convince you. You can think what ever the sources you find tell you. best, Zeq (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that we can't use "what he doesn't say" in the article. That HAMAS will reinstate the charter in "20 or 50 years" is OR. That the Charter has the same weight to HAMAS as the Quran is OR.

Hamas accepts the existence of the state of Israel but will not officially recognize it until the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, according to Khaled Meshal, a Hamas leader in Damascus.
In comments to reporters, Meshal softened his anti-Israel rhetoric, suggesting that Hamas does not seek the destruction of Israel as written in its charter.
He said that Israel is a "reality" and "there will remain a state called Israel -- this is a matter of fact."
"The problem is not that there is an entity called Israel. The problem is that the Palestinian state is non-existent," he said.
Ahmed Yusuf, an adviser to Haniya, said that Hamas recognized Israel's de facto existence but was not going to recognize it officially.
"Israel is there, it is part of the United Nations and we do not deny its existence. But we still have rights and land there which have been usurped and until these matters are dealt with we will withhold our recognition," he said.
Meshal's comments (show) little substantial divergence from other Hamas statements.
The Guardian, Friday, Jan 11, 2007

Wayne (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather unsurprisingly, various Hamas members say all sorts of things, depending on the audience:

"Underlying that theme, [Hamas leader] Zahar promised that Hamas 'will not change a single word in its covenant,' which calls for the destruction of Israel." Levitt, Matthew. Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, Yale University Press, 2006, ISBN 0300122586, p. 248.

In any event, do you have any reliable sources saying the Charter is no longer enforced? Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any that say it is? I have provided several so far that indicate it is not although none specifically say the words "it is not enforced" which is apparantly the exact wording you want. You can't just keep saying Arabs lie so you can't believe them when they say things contrary to the Charter. Wayne (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wayne, can we cut this endless fruitless debate ? No one need to show that a "charter is enforced" . I am not sure even what it means to "enforce a charter". The charter is the founding charter of hamas. Key verb here was explained to you again and again is the verb "is". This is the Hamas charter and this is what the wikipeia article say based on sources. end of story unless you find good sources that say anything else on the charter. So far, you have not found any good sources that say Hamas have ammeded the charter. To the contray, there was some talk about it but none has come to frution and you surly know why: The charter is based on the Koran and as such no muslim scholar can change it. Zeq (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wayne, you've made a claim, no-one on the page else supports your claim, nor do any of your sources. Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charter, pt 3

OK, I've been lurking in this discussion, and I basically agree with Jayjg et al; we can't go drawing our own conclusions about whether Hamas's charter is "enforced," whatever that means, because it's original research and it's not neutral.

However, this article devotes disproportionate weight to the charter (which it calls "the covenant," a nonstandard but oh-so-useful translation,) and vastly downplays basically everything Hamas has said since 2004. It seems determined to portray Hamas as a crazy religious cult rather than a nationalist political party. Every statement regarding Hamas' peace proposals is immediately followed by some random interjection about jihad and awqaf. It's amateur theologizing unbecoming an encyclopedia, and it's something we would never do to an Israeli party, no matter how beholden to religiosity and extremism.

Yeah, "pro-Israelis" like to claim that Hamas doesn't mean anything they say, except for the parts that justify refusing to negotiate with them. We get it. It's appropriate to describe and attribute that view in the text. It's not appropriate to push that view into every other sentence in the article in a manner which drowns out all other views. <eleland/talkedits> 13:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of other "nationalist political parties" whose charter opens with a discussion of "our struggle against the Jews", cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as factual, and "aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise" that "the Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."? Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, referring to the charter as something no longer enforced is every bit as much OR, unless you source it. I can't find any Hamas officials making any statements regarding such changes. TerminusEst (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll be glad that we treat all wikiepdia articles the same way. allegations of Israeli apartheid is also an article that give undue wieight to facts I see as meanigless or near meanigless. In any case the founding charter of hamas - especially since attempts to change it have so far failed (see sources above) is clearly an important document to anyone wishing to read an encyclopedia article about this organization. Zeq (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source to consider

[44] Zeq (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[45] Zeq (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: Why is there no mention of external leadership, specifically Damascus, Syria? JaakobouChalk Talk 09:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Those sources are quite useless for this article; Zeq has a habit of posting irrelevant links to videos and the like into talk pages in this manner as "sources to consider." Well, I'm "considering" reverting all of them as spam. Jaakobou's question is much more relevant and identifies a very obvious shortcoming in this article - it contains essentially nothing about Hamas' internal politics, structure and organization, or relationships with other Palestinian / Arab groups. <eleland/talkedits> 02:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meir Litvak and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

I have removed the quote from Meir Litvak's interview published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. According to the center's own Wikipedia entry (emphasis added):

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) was founded in 1976 by Professor Daniel J. Elazar, as "an independent, non-profit institute for policy research and education serving Israel and the Jewish people." It has produced hundreds of studies by leading researchers on a variety of topics about and/or relevant to Jews and Israel. It's focus is \u201cthe main issues affecting Israel's security and international standing in order to wage the war of ideas in global opinion.\u201d JCPA maintains it has "developed and implemented an array of cutting-edge programs to present Israel's case to the world."

This pretty-much disqualifies it as a reliable source. If the sentiment quoted from the article is indeed a broad opinion, then better sources should be available.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.04.2008 12:22

Agreed, good catch. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how appropriate that is. JCPA is certainly a hasbara organization representing the Israeli political right, but at the same time, it is scholarly. If Wall Street Journal editorials are considered reliable sources then JCPA should be, as well, at least for the purpose of giving a partisan opinion from one side of the debate. 99.250.52.219 (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, they're entitled to an opinion, but how reliable is their opinion on the feelings and motivations of an enemy of Israel? How reliable would you consider Hamas' or the PLO's (or even Electronic Intifada's) opinions regarding the motivations behind Israel's actions to be?
Again, if their opinion is wide-spread, there will be better sources out there. If not, then this is WP:UNDUE and/or exceptional claims requiring exceptional sources.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.04.2008 14:36
Well, if you exclude JCPA then the Journal of Palestine Studies will be next. And I would support the use of an official PLO statement or an Electronic Intifada article to comment on the motivation behind an Israeli action, yes. Wiki-link the JCPA in the inline citation, serious attentive readers will either know already what their biases are, or they will click the link and discover it exists to "serve Israel and the Jewish people" in the "war of ideas" to "present Israel's case to the world."
This article is of course terrible, and tells us virtually nothing about Hamas's internal politics, history, relations with other Palestinian groups, or really anything relevant. It is a blatant coat-rack upon which to hang various cherry-picked embarrassing quotations and virtually unreadable laundry lists of incidences of Jew-bashing and blowing shit up. I just think you folks have picked an odd place to start improving it. 69.159.87.67 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "a charge the organisation itself rejects."

A claim has been made that Hamas rejects the charge of antisemitism, based on this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/31/comment.israelandthepalestinians I've looked through the article, but don't see the word "antisemitic" or "antisemitism" in it at all. Have I missed something? Jayjg (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The passage in question is

Our message to the Israelis is this: we do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us - our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.

This is the same passage quoted in the Antisemitism section. Please self-revert.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 08.05.2008 06:04
I see; so based on this individual's statement you are advancing the argument that Hamas rejects the charge of antisemitism? Please find a source in which they actually directly reject that charge. Jayjg (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I see; so based on all those quotes you mined you are advancing the argument that Hamas is "widely described as antisemitic"? Please find a source which actually directly makes this claim, i.e. that Hamas is "widely described" as anything. Cuts both ways. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 08.05.2008 12:10
Well, actually it was you who claimed that "widely described" was original research, while simultaneously inserting claims about Hamas and antisemitism from sources that nowhere mention antisemitism. In any event, many sources are provided, and many more are available - but the sources themselves just say that Hamas is antisemitic. We should probably remove the "widely described" qualifier, and describe Hamas simply as "antisemitic", as they do. Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hoo boy. Jay is now apparently claiming that accurate summarizing and paraphrasing one source is actually WP:SYNTHezing multiple sources in order to advance a position which is not supported by the sources individually. This is a new low. <eleland/talkedits> 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NOR#Reliable_sources states quite clearly "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research; see below." The bolded text is right in the policy, and the "below" links to WP:SYN. Now, does the source directly and explicitly say that Hamas rejects the charge of antisemitism? That would be a neat trick, I would think, for a source that doesn't even mention antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

\leftarrow Ok, I've adjusted the text according to the comments and concessions here. Everybody happy? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 09.05.2008 06:12

No you haven't, you've POVd it in a way that is unsupported by the discussion here. You may be able to get away with this kind of misrepresentation on the Lieberman article when you are dealing with Jaakobou, but rest assured, I will not accept it. You have 10 reliable sources stating it Hamas antisemitic, so you find one source from one Hamas members that is related to the topic only by your original research, then insert it first to construct an argument against all those reliable sources that say Hamas is antisemitic. This kind of policy violation is completely unacceptable. I have removed the word "widely", in recognition of your objections, though its inclusion is entirely justified by the source. And "best known" and "infamous" mean the same thing in this instance, please stop removing reliable sources on entirely spurious grounds. Jayjg (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
(EC) User:Jayjg, now you've got several issues going...
  • "infamous" and "best known" mean the same thing? Here's the Oxford English Dictionary's complete definition (without quotes):

    infamous, a.: 1. Of ill fame or repute; famed or notorious for badness of any kind; notoriously evil, wicked, or vile; held in infamy or public disgrace. a. of persons, their attributes, etc. b. of things. 2. Deserving of infamy; of shameful badness, vileness, or abominableness; of a character or quality deserving utter reprobation. (One of the strongest adjectives of detestation.) a. of persons, etc. b. of things. 3. Law. Of a person: Deprived of all or certain of the rights of a citizen, in consequence of conviction of certain crimes. b. Of a crime or punishment: Involving or entailing infamy.

Now, since I assume you will harp on the word "notorious", here's that definition as well:

notorious, adj. and adv. A. adj. I. With neutral or favourable connotations. 1. a. Of a fact: well known; commonly or generally known; forming a matter of common knowledge. Cf sense A. 5a. b. Of a person, place, etc.: well or widely known; famous; (in later use) esp. noted for a particular quality or feature. Cf. sense A. 5b. 2. That may be generally or openly known; publicly knowable. Obs. 3. Conspicuous; obvious, evident. Obs. II. With depreciative or unfavourable connotations. 4. attrib. a. Of a criminal, sinner, etc.: noted or well known in that capacity; infamous. b. Of a reprehensible action, fact, etc.: noted or well known for its egregiousness; flagrant. 5. Well known on account of something which is not generally approved of or admired; unfavourably known; noted for some bad practice, quality, etc. a. Of an action, fact, etc. b. Of a person, place, etc. 6. Discreditable or disgraceful to a person. Obs. rare. B. adv.= NOTORIOUSLY adv. Obs.

Nope, sorry, no "best known" there either. Do you have a dictionary source making that link?
  • You've got quite a case to make regarding quoting a text directly being WP:OR... If the head of Hamas says, verbatim,

    "Our conflict with you [Israel] is not religious but political,"

    then how is the phrase

    "Although Hamas claims its conflict with Israel is political and not religious"

    original research? Or, in relative terms, how is it less WP:OR than synthesising a list of sources to infer a global opinion?
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 09.05.2008 12:19
As pointed out below, the problem with the material is that you're using an interview to construct and argument regarding the charge of antisemitism - but the source itself does not actually address that charge. Of course that original research. Find a secondary source that says Hamas is not antisemitic, if you feel you must counter this claim - though it's hard to imagine why one would bother, when one actually reads the Hamas charter. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Pedrito, I don't know if this is your first experience of a Jayjg spin-session or not, but I think you're taking it too seriously. Neither your first edit ("a charge the organization itself rejects") nor your revised version ("Hamas claims its conflict with Israel is political and not religious") comes anywhere even close to violating WP:SYN or WP:NOR, as every experienced editor here (including Jay) knows.--G-Dett (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, you promised to turn over a new leaf, and to stop filling pages with un-civil comments. Comment on content, not on the contributor. I am deadly serious about this; don't make any comments about me on any article talk: pages. Regarding your actual point, original research occurs when "an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position." In this case Pedrito is trying to counter the charge of antisemitism by using statements made by a Hamas member in an interview; a primary source, and one individual, used to construct an argument. As every experienced editor here (including me) knows, this is forbidden, by policy. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Jay, please don't quote the original research policy to me; that's pageant, and as such rather disruptive. I know the policy well, and so do you, and you and I both know that Pedrito's edit came nowhere close to violating it. Writing from sources is the essence of Wikipedia. You have ideological reasons for obstructing it in this case, but your SYN and NOR and "primary-source" arguments are ridiculous and disruptive. If you make the effort to use talk pages in a serious way, a way that doesn't insult the intelligence of literate people, you'll find your fellow editors willing to accord you a level of respect that won't leave you crying "WP:CIVIL!" eighteen times a day.--G-Dett (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, I am explaining exactly why the inserted material was original research, as it quite obviously was. It was put there to counter multiple sources claiming the group is antisemitic, even though it never actually referred to antisemitism itself. As for the rest, Comment on content, not on the contributor. As I said, I'm deadly serious about this. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If you'd make a stab at being intellectually serious instead of "deadly serious," it would be less deadly boring and more constructive, not to mention more grammatical (the idiom is 'dead serious'). There was no original research. If you're keen to avoid discussing editors, then stop speculating about their motives, which in this case you've badly misread. The point of including Hamas' denial is not to "counter" other sources, but rather to tell the reader something interesting and relevant about Hamas, specifically, about their rhetorical equivocation, the way they blend extremism with the occasional olive branch. This, you may not have noticed, has been the story about Hamas in the months and years since their election.--G-Dett (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

here is a link where Yassin denies the charges. Imad marie (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Which not only has a direct quote from Yassin, but is also a secondary source specifically interpreting that quote as being a denial of anti-semitism. Perhaps the wiki-lawyering on this can stop now? --Nickhh (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a good source, and directly related, unlike the other. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
My goodness, Jay, you must be a major player in the propaganda wars, because only six days after you assert that Hamas does not head-on deny charges of antisemitism, Hamas head-on denies charges of antisemitism! It's good to see Hamas is taking you so seriously ;)

[...]instead of support and solidarity from the western media, we face frequent attempts to defend the indefensible or turn fire on the Palestinians themselves.

One recent approach, which seems to be part of the wider attempt to isolate the elected Palestinian leadership, is to portray Hamas and the population of the Gaza strip as motivated by anti-Jewish sentiment, rather than a hostility to Zionist occupation and domination of our land. A recent front page article in the International Herald Tribune followed this line, as did an article for Cif about an item broadcast on the al-Aqsa satellite TV channnel about the Nazi Holocaust.

In fact, the al-Aqsa Channel is an independent media institution that often does not express the views of the Palestinian government headed by Ismail Haniyeh or of the Hamas movement. The channel regularly gives Palestinians of different convictions the chance to express views that are not shared by the Palestinian government or the Hamas movement. In the case of the opinion expressed on al-Aqsa TV by Amin Dabbur, it is his alone and he is solely responsible for it.
[...]
It should be made clear that neither Hamas nor the Palestinian government in Gaza denies the Nazi Holocaust. The Holocaust was not only a crime against humanity but one of the most abhorrent crimes in modern history. We condemn it as we condemn every abuse of humanity and all forms of discrimination on the basis of religion, race, gender or nationality.

<eleland/talkedits> 04:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Eleland! Could we elaborate more on Hamas's beliefs somewhere instead of picturing it as a terrorist organization who is seeking to destroy Israel for no reason? Imad marie (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Eleland, it's not me that says Hamas is antisemitic, it's over a dozen reliable sources that do. It probably has something to do with their charter adopting conspiracy theories based on the antisemitic literary forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That, and quoting hadith that call for killing Jews. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Jay, I'm afraid you must have your wires crossed, because you've introduced a completely unrelated question into the discussion. We haven't been arguing about whether or not Hamas actually is antisemitic (of course their organization and membership are pervaded with antisemitism...) it's about whether Hamas denies the charge that it fights Israel because it is antisemitic. Of course there are reliable sources making that claim; if there weren't, what would Hamas even have to deny? Ignoratio elenchi will not get you very far here, O fellow Wikipedian. <eleland/talkedits> 10:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Imad-- shouldn't the article summary introduce the reasons why Hamas is anti-Israel, (aka, more about instead of just stating that they blow people up and are considered to be a "terrorist" organization? People passing by the article casually can be easily influenced by the lack of neutrality in the summary. It's shocking, really. If the conflict is political and not religious, this seriously should be developed upon in the summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafgreentea (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
In fairness it is not entirely well-established, at least for Wikipedia purposes, that the conflict is "political and not religious." However I agree that it's fairly stupid to have a very long lede which doesn't say anything about Hamas's political positions and ideology. <eleland/talkedits> 15:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Call to attack United States targets

I've added the POV tag to the section, Hamas has always rejected attacking American targets, maybe some official sometime stated that they should attack American targets, but this is not a reason to title a section with this as it would be POV. Imad marie (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the section, Hamas has rejected attacking American targets through its history, having a section with this title is POV. Imad marie (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm restoring it but I'm going to balance the Jerusalem Post source with other sources like this one. Hamas's statement was ambiguous and interpreted differently. <eleland/talkedits> 10:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Far more neutral :) Imad marie (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well-poisoning in the lead

Ironduke, you reverted to a version of the lead that looks to me a lot like well-poisoning. The material in question reads –

Hamas's view of Jews, as outlined in its charter, is based in part on the conspiracy theories of the antisemitic literary forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the organization has been described as antisemitic, a charge the organisation itself rejects.

Is this appropriate material for the lead, and is it neutrally presented? Those are separate questions. I think the answer to each is no, so I removed the material citing UNDUE and NPOV. You restored it saying "the previous edit would seem to be well-supported by the sources in the footnote, therefore not violating UNDUE or NPOV." Aren't you conflating RS with NPOV?

If the lead of Likud were changed as follows (new material in boldface) –

Likud (Hebrew: ליכוד‎, lit. Consolidation) is a major center-right political party in Israel. Founded in 1973 as an alliance of several right-wing and liberal parties, Likud's victory in the 1977 elections was a major turning point in the country's political history, marking the first time the left had lost power. However, after ruling the country for most of the 1980s, the party has won only one Knesset election since 1992, though its candidate, Benjamin Netanyahu, did win the popular vote for Prime Minister in 1996. After a big win in the 2003 elections, a major split in 2005 saw Likud leader Ariel Sharon leave to form the new Kadima party, with Likud slumping to fourth place in elections the following year. The party now leads the opposition in the Knesset.

Likud's view of the occupied territories, as outlined in its constitution, is that the Israeli claim to them is a "perpetual right that cannot be challenged," and that a fundamental goal of the party should be, accordingly, "the establishment and development of settlements in all parts of Eretz Israel and the imposition of the State's sovereignty over all of them." Likud's views have been described as bigoted and their policies as a serious obstacle to peace, charges the party has itself rejected.

– on what grounds would you object to the new material? Would it be that it was well-poisoning, non-neutrally presented, and disproportionately foregrounded in the lead? Do you doubt that sources could be gathered so that the material was "well-supported?"--G-Dett (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, G. Well, I may say without irony that I am very tempted to engage the Likud analogy, but I've found it's best to take each article as a separate entity, with rare exceptions. Hamas and Likud are not the same thing, I think, would be the easiest way to express it. If you really think your version above is an improvement, I will have no objection to your visiting the Likud talk page and proposing it. As for my conflating RS with NPOV, it will not surprise you to learn that I don't believe I am. If there were a number of RS's that trumpeted Hamas' putative love and respect for Israelis/Jews, then it might be a violation of NPOV, and UNDUE to mention their reliance on the Protocols. I have seen no such sources. Rather, what I see are arguments like, "Yes, but perhaps such sources exist, therefore, 'balance' requires that we omit this criticism of Hamas." For me, the sources are paramount.
While I have your attention, I must also take issue with your criticism of Jayjg for the use of the phrase "deadly serious." The phrase is perfectly acceptable, and means essentially what "dead serious” means. "Dead" in this context is an (often old-fashioned) intensifier, meaning "very." [46] (see entry 38). "Deadly," in this instance, has a slightly more ominous undertone, but also means "completely." [47] (See entry 8.)
Like I said, it's all about sourcing. Cheers. IronDuke 23:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you may be tempted yet. No, Hamas and Likud are not the same thing; nor, however, are comparisons and analogies. Heads don't compare to hands, at least not without the aid of poetry or aphasia, but even the deadly-dullest schoolboy will tell you that –

Head is to hat as hand is to glove

– is an analogy. So is this:

Likud's founding constitution is to its actual stance toward Palestinian self-determination what Hamas's charter is to its stance toward Israel, the Jews, and the West.

Analogies help us think. Contrary to popular misconceptions, they do not, when managed by an alert and scrupulous intelligence, introduce "moral equivalence."
No one is saying, "Perhaps such sources exist, therefore, 'balance' requires that we omit this criticism of Hamas." That's a strawman. What we're saying is that the material as such is well-poisoning, non-neutrally presented, and disproportionately foregrounded in the lead.
"Deadly serious" – unless we're talking about lugubrious poets, moony-eyed suitors, and cocktail-party bores – is an example of what linguists call overcorrection. Just between you and I.--G-Dett (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As always, I enjoy reading your lucid prose. Irregardless, I think you’ve side-stepped the major point: there are sources aplenty which attest to Hamas’s use of the Protocols as a justification for their antisemitism. Could other organizations/people in the Middle East also have negative things written about them, based on reliable sources? I’ve no doubt they could. This does not mean that Hamas is therefore immune to this specific criticism, even if certain other entities have entries that are, by some measures, insufficiently scathing. Though other articles fail, that does not give license for this article to fail. Hamas is an organization that has demonstrated an adherence to classic antisemitic tropes. I don’t see a problem in pointing this out, seeing as it is sourced to the hilt.
I may also point out, an analogy is an illustration, not a point of logic. While your first analogy is obvious, your second is not – especially without a source.
As for Deadly Serious, I note that there is even a small press with that very name: http://www.deadlyserious.com/. (Not to mention over 300 hits on Google news alone. And over 7,00 on Google Scholar. You aren’t going to argue with Google Scholars now, are you?). Overcorrection? I don’t know… redundant, perhaps. But no more than the (ab)use of the word “very.” IronDuke 04:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Duke, I don't think I've sidestepped your point about sourcing. As I've said several times in several ways, the fact that something is sourced does not make it appropriate for an article lead. I'm not suggesting that other articles are "insufficiently scathing"; on the contrary, other articles on controversial political parties conform to the norms of Wikipedia neutrality that this one so markedly violates. The other articles don't "fail" in that regard; this one does.
There are also "sources aplenty" that attest to the bigotry, religious chauvinism, rejectionism and territorial expansionism of Likud, as reflected in their constitution (which they've never revised, not even as Sharon shifted toward acceptance of the peace process and the two-state solution), but I do not think these would be appropriate sources for the lead of that article.
That small press publishes murder mysteries, Deadline News, and the Deadly Directory. Their name plays on a second meaning of "deadly serious": menacing, hazardous, lethal. That meaning and the meaning I already mentioned – witless, dull, lugubrious – comprise all of entries I've checked in your Google Scholar list:

Even Soviet broadcasting was deadly serious broadcasting, missionary broadcasting...

This is a serious problem, but it has now become deadly serious with the arrival of increasing numbers of patients with tuberculosis...

Probably the most useful entry in that Google Scholar list is the following, written by a humorist who knows well the difference between "dead serious" and "deadly serious," and plays one off against the other to describe his encounters with dull-witted readers:

Sadly, I have occasionally run into people who did not perceive that it was a style and an affectation: people who apparently assumed that everything I wrote was dead serious, and who wanted to respond to it in a deadly serious vein. Once (as mentioned and embroidered upon in chapter 8) I found that some of my columns had been picked up and reviewed in an abstracts journal as if they were serious papers...

There's also a pretty good bit by an Old Testament scholar, who describes Yahweh as "dead-serious about his intent still to punish [the Israelites] for their disobedience" in an episode from Judges, which in turn is introduced as an example of how "miscommunication can be deadly serious ... downright fatal."
Yes, witless apparatchiks and lugubrious poets, cocktail-party bores and Communist-party bores; also diseases and disasters, catastrophes and epidemics; all these are "deadly serious." But when men, admins, apparatchiks, gods, goddesses, or, as we've seen, G-d himself, make threats, they're being "dead serious." That's all for now.DeadlyDuchess 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If you and I were at a cocktail party and having this debate (with me in the role of bore, bien sur), you would win hands down, as you have managed to post the pithier remarks. However, as I have the actual sources, in Wiki-world, I think I might win this one. See a more specific Google Scholar search for more pertinent uses of Deadly Serious [48]. See below for more... Witless Lugubrious Cocktail Bore 01:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It is indisputable that a vast array of sources link the Protocols to Hamas' anti semitism, but it is at odds with statements by the Hamas leadership and is more a belief held by (albeit many) individuals within Hamas. For this reason the appropriate place for the disputed sentence is in the article body not in the lead where it incorrectly implies to the reader that the belief is Hamas policy and almost universally held by them. This type of critical editing is not acceptable for the Israel page so it should not be acceptable for this one. Wayne (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That individual members of Hamas say vague things about a theoretical State of Israel does not mean that the organization itself has lost the will or desire to destory Israel, or that their antisemitism is not founded in part on the Protocols. As I said to G-Dett, if you want to propose good changes to the Israel page on its talk page (or possibly even bad ones), I will not object. And to expand on the point about analogies I made above: while it may well be that Head is to hat as hand is to glove, you aren't likely to have much luck keeping your head warm with a glove. [49] IronDuke 21:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It is true that their antisemitism was based in part on the Protocols when the charter was written but it is WP:OR to state it is true today which is currently implied. As for the will or desire to destroy Israel, it is fact that they may still have the desire but again it is OR to say they have the will as current policy as stated by the leadership is to accept Israel with conditions. You say we are welcome to "propose good changes to the Israel page" but that misrepresents the arguement. We both said a critical edit for no other reason than to demonise the subject would not be acceptable in the Israel page and, to me at least, that type of edit should not be allowed on any page. Wayne (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
In the first place, it is not OR to suggst the Charter is still impacting Hamas attitudes today. Just read the sourcs on the relevant footnote: many put Hamas’ antisemitism in the present tense, and as having been influenced by the Protocols. I don’t think that’s the issue. I think the best point against putting the Protocols in the lead is that it fails UNDUE and fails LEAD. However, given the plethora of sources, I think we can say that it’s not like some fringe theory is being given prominence. As for WP:LEAD, it’s supposed to be a precis of the article, and the Protocols are given fairly prominent placement in the AS section (which is a mess, and someone (please not me) should clean up). I think it says a lot about the quality of their antisemitism, as opposed to say, older forms of Christian antisemitism (e.g. "The Jews killed Jesus") or American Country Club antisemitism ("The Jews are loud and flashy").
As for the Israel stuff, I couldn’t say. Maybe the Likud article could use a going over. But that article is not this one. IronDuke 02:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that the Charter is still impacting Hamas attitudes today. The Protocols can be prominent in the body as they played a part in the past but they are not appropriate in the lead as it is contradicted by Hamas statements and actions. Wayne (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
All right... I've thought about it, and I agree that the Protocols needn't go in the lead. I think a persuasive argument can be made that they reasonably could go in the lead, but I see the other side as well; the article won't collapse without it. I will also note that the lead is quite bloated, even after my latest pass, and not every detail can be crammed into it. Thanks to those who took the time to come to talk and explain their positions to me in a thoughtful manner. IronDuke 18:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant elements in lead

I have reverted both of User:IronDuke's edits here.

The lead would make no mention of Hamas' social services -- anywhere. This is, according to this article itself, one of Hamas' major activities and thus should be included. An eight-word sentence is even almost too little in this case, considering the verbosity dedicated to its perceived notoriety and anti-Semitism.

The statement regarding the political nature of the conflict is also a must, otherwise the lead reads as if they were just a bunch of religiously motivated fanatics. That might be your -- and many other people's -- opinion, but its not Hamas' opinion. Therefore, those 11 words stay.

If you really have a good reason to remove these two bits (and not the destruction of Israel and anti-Semitism propaganda bits), then let us discuss this here first.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 26.05.2008 06:57

Cheers to you as well. I can understand, given the overly long intro, how you might have missed it it, but further down it says "Hamas has further gained popularity by establishing hospitals, education systems, libraries and social services." I deleted the brief mention first, although one could argue that the sentence should be pared down further to simplu "social services." In the interests of brevity, I say yes, but I'm not going to make a fuss about it. As for the other bit, I fully agree that Hamas' view of itself on this topic must be represented -- and it already is, later in that same sentence. As you have it, it readsd, "Although Hamas claims its conflict with Israel is political and not religious[5], the organization has been described as antisemitic,[6] a charge the organisation itself rejects.[7]" To paraphrase, "Although Hamas claims not to be antisemitic, they've described as antisemitic, though they claim they're not antisemitic." You see what I'm saying? We only need one denial. IronDuke 16:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the social services issues seems to have been addressed before I got here. I fixed the sentence containing the political conflict and anti-Semitism. I kept both statements since, although they are tangential, they do not mean the exact same thing. The sentence now flows as: Hamas is political -> yet it is accused of anti-Semitism -> which it denies.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 27.05.2008 06:27
Thanks for reverting back some of your edits. I think with regard to the Antisemitism redundancy, you've not really changed the text, so I'm going to go ahead and tweak it a bit. IronDuke 21:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It's an interesting argument - one which, unfortunately, the sources themselves do not make. Also, why would whether or not they were opposed to Judaism be relevant to whether or not they were antisemites? Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not getting why you think Pedrito's well-sourced edit is "original research," but for what it's worth, in a recent Guardian op-ed ("Hamas Condemns the Holocaust") Hamas' minister of health and information rejected the tendency of the Western media "to portray Hamas and the population of the Gaza strip as motivated by anti-Jewish sentiment, rather than a hostility to Zionist occupation and domination of our land."--G-Dett (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not getting why you would imply that if something is "well-sourced" it exempts something from being original research. Pedrito's argument isn't sourced, and his source doesn't refer to antisemitism - neither explicitly nor even particularly implicitly. The reference you refer to would be a better one. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS applies to material and argumentative syntheses that are unsourced. Pedrito hasn't introduced any argument; his edit is straightforwardly factual, indisputably relevant, and well-sourced.--G-Dett (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting that cherry-picking quotes from random Hamas members doesn't equal "Hamas has claimed," or any variation thereof. In order for "Hamas" to claim something, the organization itself must do so. IronDuke 23:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, no organization itself has passed a Turing test to establish itself as sentient. So until one does, we go by what members who speak on the organization's behalf have to say about the organization's beliefs. Tarc (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what Meshal is saying as being inconsistent with antisemitic beliefs, and I think it's OR to assume that it is. If a reliable secondary source says, "Hey wait a sec: Hamas is actually really keen on the Jews," we can consider that. IronDuke 19:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to evaluate claims that are both hypothetical and ludicrous, but I think a secondary source claiming that Hamas is keen on Jews would probably be bad or even worthless. Meanwhile back in the real world, I cited a piece wherein a Hamas official rejects the view that Hamas is motivated by "anti-Jewish sentiment." Antisemitism and anti-Jewish sentiment are synonyms. There's no original research.
If your real point, on the other hand, was that it would be nice to have some comment from secondary sources on the significance of the Meshal statement, then I agree with you.
On a more general note, many of your comments as well as Jay's suggest that you think you're arguing with editors who believe Hamas isn't antisemitic. I can only speak for myself in saying that's wrong. My views shouldn't matter, but here they are. Hamas has nourished and exploited antisemitism in order to cultivate its constituency; it's a small part of their cultural and electoral success, but it's there. In this they behave like many – probably most – nationalist political organizations during wartime. Attempts by pundits, politicians, and lobbyists to present this propaganda not as a symptom but rather a cause of the I/P conflict are pure blarney, of course, exactly as intellectually respectable as presenting World War II as brought about by the motifs in propaganda like this and this.
Most intelligent and literate commentary on Hamas in the past few years has tried to assess the implications of its arc of development, from fringe religious group to militants with mainstream appeal to a political party succeeding (sort of) within democratic electoral politics. Against this backdrop, of course it's interesting and relevant that a group whose founding charter cited the Protocols is now penning op-eds in England's newspaper of record acknowledging the reality and the horror of the Holocaust and disavowing any hostility towards the Jews as a people. Whether you or I think this gesture is duplicitous or so narrowly framed as to be insignificant is neither here nor there. It's politically significant, and this is an encyclopedia article about a political party.--G-Dett (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attacking civilians

The article focuses on Hamas's view of asymmetric warfare in regard to attacking civilians targets. We have many sources [50] [51] that say that Hamas offered to stop attacking Israeli civilians if Israel does that in return. We already have a quote from "Abdel Aziz Rantisi" about this, but I think this should be given more weight in the article. Imad marie (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have put (Suicide attacks) and (Shelling and rocket attacks on civilians) under (Attacking civilian targets), if I get no objections, I will merge the 3 section in one bigger section called (Attacking civilian targets). Imad marie (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Better grammatical flow to name the section "Attacks on civilians"? Wayne (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I merged the sections. I may be accused of WP:CENSOR, but I removed some details that I don't think belong to this article, we don't need to list the suicide attacks here. Imad marie (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, shouldn't the link you added be listed under "External links"? Why are you adding the link inside the article body? Imad marie (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What policy is it that you are citing from exactly? JaakobouChalk Talk 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Terrorist" and "Vandal"

Inserting the word "terrorist" into this article is not an act of vandalism. It may violate other policies, or it may simply not be a good word to use here. But it is not vandalism, and I would appreciate it if editors here could refrain from mischaracterizing those edits as vandalism. WP:VAND is available for those needing a refresher course. IronDuke 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The only refresher course needed here is for you to pay a visit to WP:WTA. I will label every attempt along this line as vandalism, revert it, and warn the user as such. Tarc (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You've not even bothered to click on the link I provided, have you? You can "label" edits any way you like, you just can't do it without someone pointing out that you don't understand the policy you are quoting. IronDuke 23:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand it just fine, but none of what you linked to is applicable here. Your concern is noted, and summarily dismissed. Tarc (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)