Talk:Hamas/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Haniyeh Position

In the 3rd paragraph under "Goals": "In November, 2008 Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, de jure Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority and de facto prime minister in Gaza, stated that [...]" (emphasis mine). IIRC, according to the PA constitution Haniyeh is not the Prime Minister as he was not approved by the president, and the emphasized part is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.77 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Jamás is Spanish for 'never'

Both 'Hamas' and 'jamás' have the exact pronunciation, and given the close relationship of the Spanish and Arabic languages due to the Moor occupation of the Iberian pensula it makes me wonder if their is a dual meaning intended in the name. Any thoughts?

71.127.28.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

Edit-warring? Please discuss ....

Those edit-warring over this materialn [1], could you please discuss what's at issue here? And could GHCool and Jalapenos do exist try to recognize that people deleting this information seem to have a problem with its inclusion? That means you should be trying to understand what that problem is here, before edit-warring the material into the article against the wishes of multiple other editors. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please explain the problem with cited, relevant material. --GHcool (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Cited relevant material is not always worthy of inclusion. I’ll repeat what I have already told you. The language of the main edit is unnecessarily prejudicial and largely a personal opinion that should be attributed to the author. Your edit is, I believe, a minority viewpoint that should not be presented as undisputed per WP:UNDUE. The source (Karsh) has also been criticised for not being neutral so other (NPOV) sources should be used which should be easily found if your edit has any merit. Hamas actions and statements contradict the edit so unless you can find other sources confirming the edit is Hamas' aim we can’t use it unattributed and certainly not as the only view. I'm trying to assume good faith so I didn't report you for 3RR but the edit should stay out until it can be supported/proven. Wayne (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Being prejudicial is not grounds for removal. Karsh is a noted scholar in the I-P field and his findings should not be deleted because it doesn't fall in line with the left-wing POV. Hamas statement should taken into consideration to the extent that they are covered by mainstream reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This reverting is getting out of hand. I made a compromise and included the Karsh edit but also left the original it replaced. I also made several other edits correcting bad grammar, corrected a date and also corrected an incorrect place name. I even made an edit critical of Hamas. Even though the disputed edits are being discussed here Jalapenos not only replaced the original disputed text but reverted ALL my edits and accused me of bad faith. I point out that bad faith is reverting several legitimate edits along with one you don't like.
Now for a reply to Brewcrewer: Please try to understand what is written before replying to someone. I never said prejudicial is grounds for removal. I said unnecessarily prejudicial and largely a personal opinion that should be attributed to the author. I never said Karsh can't be used. I said you either needed to attribute it to him or provide other sources to support him as his views are critisized and in fact I added Karsh to the article myself if you had bothered to look. I agree that Hamas statement should taken into consideration to the extent that they are covered by mainstream reliable sources (sic) so why do you propose deleting mainstream sources for Hamas views and replacing them with a viewpoint from a single disputed source? Wayne (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of bad faith; I said the version you are repeatedly trying to push is inaccurate apologeticism, which it is. I notice that you couldn't help reverting yet again after saying that the "reverting is getting out of hand". It's only getting out of hand in the sense that one editor (you) is repeatedly trying to push a version that is opposed by three editors. At this point there is nothing to discuss yet since you haven't actually attempted to defend the content of your version. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "my version" to push. If there is a content dispute the original text stands until the new version gains consensus. GHCool replaced original text with what appears to be a minority view from a disputed author so there is nothing to defend as the original had concensus or it would not have been in the article in the first place. Having said that, I assume that you have read the edit comments and this talk section so I can't understand how you can make the false claim that I have not "attempted to defend" what you claim is my version. Every point is defended and no defense has yet been refuted. Defending GHCools new version lies with you and even though you appear to a single purpose account you have been editing long enough to know that. Several other editors besides me objected to his edit and asked that sources be provided to prove it is not a minority view. Calling my support of the original text apologeticism is bad faith on your part as is reverting my edits that have nothing to do with this arguement such as my correcting dates etc. Manipulation of the arguement to make you the "injured party" by falsly implying that "my version" is the new one rather than yours is also bad faith. If you had actually checked my apologetic reversion you would have noticed I left the majority of GHCools edit plus all of his references in. The biggest block of text I deleted was a short piece about the actions of the Palestinian Authority that is too detailed to be relevant to this article and is especially irrelevant as that section has it's own separate main topic where it could possibly be included. That you wont accept or discuss a compromise and that you make no attempt to provide support for "your version" is again bad faith and probably POV pushing. Wayne (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Website Inaccuracies

There are links to the Palestinian Information Center website both on the sidebar at the top of the page, and in the "official websites" section of this article. The "official websites" section states "The news site is frequently described as Hamas-affiliated." However, I cannot find any information to substantiate this, and this previous quote has not been cited. In fact, the "about us" page on the PIC website specifically states that "The Palestinian Information Center (PIC) is an independent Palestinian organization, established first in Arabic on 1st December 1997." Unless credible proof can be provided that Hamas and the PIC are related, I recommend removing these inaccuracies.

The other link in the "official websites" section which claims to link to the "Hamas official government Web site" links to the Palestinian National Authority Council of Ministers. The PNA is the ruling authority in the West Bank - it is an unaffiliated rival group of HAMAS. No self-respecting Hamas official website would have a picture of Fatah's symbol at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.28.44 (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Palestinian Information Center website links. The PNA Coucil of Ministers site looks like it is the Gaza based Hamas version of the PNA to me given that they refer to Ismail Haniyeh as the Prime Minister repeatedly. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hamas and Gender Politics

Step by step towards an Islamic republic:

   Hamas authorities on Thursday asked several educational institutions in southern Gaza Strip to segregate males and females in compliance with Islamic norms.
   The call appeared on a notification signed by Police General-Directorate in Rafah town, ordering private social and educational centers to sign a form demanding their commitment of Islamic and Palestinian traditions and preventing smoking.

   The police threatened to impose about 1,300 U.S. dollars in fine to those who do not commit to “inform the police about suspected students or infracting decency.”(xinhuanet.com)

The new ban is only last of a series of new restrictions, based on the Islamic sharia, adopted in the Strip over the last few months, even though they may cause some discontent amongst the Palestinian population, traditionally more ‘lay” compared to other communities within the Arab world….

From: [2]

[3]

--84.108.86.101 (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Better to say it's from Xinhua here. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Human shield section

I believe that Nelson appears to be writing an opinion piece--his opinion of what Israel is doing. If so, it should not be used in the article to support a factual statement. Am I missing something? -- Avi (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll find a better source for the definition.Haberstr (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

137K and counting; reduce size by eliminating repetitiousness

This is an enormous article, and likely should be roughly half its present size. I often see repetition, but am unsure how to deal with it. For example, the 'proximity to civilians' and 'children as human shield' sections overlap. The Charter and 'Issues' sections also partly repeat each other.Haberstr (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Japan does not classify Hamas as a terrorist organization

As far as I can tell, no current publications by the Japanese govt classify or label Hamas as a terrorist organization. See, for example: and . That's why I removed Japan from the list at the bottom of paragraph 1 of the Hamas article.Haberstr (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See page 138 of said source:

In accordance with the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law, it has frozen the assets of a total of 472 terrorists and terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaeda and Taliban members, such as Usama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar, as well as those of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and Sendero Luminoso (as of the end of February 2005). In December 2004 Japan applied for the first time for the inclusion of terrorist information (terrorist organization: Jama’at al-Tawhid wa’al-Jihad) on the UN sanction list,19 in conjunction with the UK and Germany. The application, which related to the abduction and murder of a Japanese national in Iraq in October 2004, was successfully approved.

— Japan‘s Foreign Policy in Major Diplomatic Fields, http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/other/bluebook/2005/ch3-a.pdf

-- Avi (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's my point. That act was not an act by the Japanese government in which it officially classified or labeled Hamas a terrorist organization. I recognize that Japan took those actions against members of Hamas or Hamas itself (the quote is unclear on which is the case) in 2005. The details of those actions likely should be in the subsection on Hamas's alleged terrorism.Haberstr (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The government is saying that it froze the assets of 472 terrorists and terrorist organizations including Hamas. I believe that is clear. -- Avi (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not clear. Japan froze "the assets of a total of 472 terrorists and terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaeda and Taliban members, such as Usama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar, as well as those of Hamas. . ." So, "those" could refer to members of Hamas or assets of Hamas. In other words, it may have frozen the assets of members of Hamas or of Hamas itself, based on the grammar of the preceding quote. In any case, this is an action by Japan against Hamas and/or some of its members, and it is not an official designation or labelling of Hamas as a terrorist organization.Haberstr (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That is original research linguistic analysis, I belive. The plain reading of the paragraph is that it froze the assets of terrorists and terrorist organizations and it goes on to list examples of said terrorists and terrorist organization. To make the assumption that listing an organization, even after the phrase "terrorists and terrorist organizations" means to indicate unnamed members, who would be terrorists, but not the organization itself, despite the fact that the sentence gives individual examples to support "terrorists", is both convoluted and OR. The simple reading is that these are examples of either terrorists (named people) or terrorist organizations (named organizations such as Hamas). -- Avi (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No it is not, it is a plain reading of a statement with ambiguous references. It is original research linguistic analysis to make the leap of faith to decide on your own that "those" doesn't refer to members of Hamas.Haberstr (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I see I'm up against 3RR, so I am not going to edit this article for a while to step back from a potential edit war. It would be prudent for all of us to continue here on talk. -- Avi (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Answer my more important point, that the Japanese government does not officially designate or label Hamas a terrorist organization. Where is the list that has Hamas on it? Other countries have such lists, make such official designations, but the Japanese government has made up no such list. Where is a statement by a Japanese official responsible for such matters that Japan currently classifies Hamas a terrorist organization? There are no such statements. Instead there is a single action taken in 2005 which does not justify the Wikipedia contention that 'the government of Japan classifies Hamas as a terrorist organization'.Haberstr (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Rapes against Israeli women

I have read and heard some sexual attacks and rapes against civilian Israeli women by radical fundamentalist Islamic population. Not sure if Hamas is involved or not, but cannot find such a reference in the article. Is there anyone can provide such reports, articles about the case so we can implement it in the article. Kasaalan (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Iran proud to support Hamas

this Israeli site: [JP] tells that Iran proud to support Hamas.Agre22 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

Today's Chicago Tribune called Hamas "the militant group ruling Gaza". It is no longer a political party then?75.57.113.153 (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

False citations, unsupported claims

In the introduction it states, "...the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict began when Israel invaded Gaza in late December, 2008, killing over 1000 Palestinian civilians." Wow, quite shocking. I don't know why the author decided on 1000 -- why not make it 10,000, or 100,000? I say this because the citation given - [4] - provides absolutely no support for that claim. Would a kind, registered Wikipedian please remove this number until a proper citation is provided? 96.54.203.195 (talk) 08:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks! Keep it up... there is a lot of garbage like this to be found on Wikipedia. Breein1007 (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hamas

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hamas. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

You have not only edit-warred with me rather than trying to discuss your issues on the talk page, but you have:

1) Deleted information I added to the article with proper sources

2) Reinserted inaccurate information that was completely unsourced

3) Inserted POV into the article, trying to trivialize the casualty report by adding in phrases like "According to the Jerusalem Post...". This is not how you write an article. The footnote makes "according to" superfluous. Are you going to go back and add the "according to" for every single source in the article? Or does it just go for Israeli sources?

4) Reverted the wording that I changed in the article (that accurately portrayed the info from the sources) with absolutely no discussion or explanation.

I am going to sleep. When I check back on this page tomorrow, if I see that it is still in its current state, I am afraid I will have to ask for help from an admin to correct this situation. Breein1007 (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. You added one source, to the Jerusalem Post, which I retained. Other than that, you added POV adjectives and a biased slant. Please don't leave fake warnings on my talk page, take it up on the article talk page, to which I have moved these comments. Thanks. Newt ^(winkle) 09:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing fake about this warning. I suggest you take it seriously. And it doesn't belong on this talk page, that's for sure. As far as my being mistaken, I don't think so. If anybody else is interested, here is the diff [5]. It has record of you deleting my sourced info about the casualty report, reinserting the false and unsourced claim that 1000 civilians were killed, inserting POV with your "according to" nonsense, and reinserting the inaccurate wording of the history of rocket attacks. After this, I find it hard to AGF as you asked me to do in your edit summary. Breein1007 (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A full perusal of the edits will show that Breen's new Jerusalem Post sourced was preserved, just without some of his editorializing. Breen, if you have other sources that correct the text, please supply them! Newt ^(winkle) 10:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just copy the changes you like or oppose here, so we can all have a discussion. What is the edit war about. Kasaalan (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

inaccurate wording of the history of rocket attacks:the sources are clear that Hamas stopped their attacks and attempted to stop other Palestinian organisations from firing rockets. The original wording is correct as Breein1007's edits incorrectly imply the attacks that continued during the ceasefire were Hamas. This article is after all about Hamas, not the attacks in general. false and unsourced claim that 1000 civilians were killed:whether accurate or not, this is supported by several sources so is not unsourced. The IDF "investigation" can be mentioned but not as the final count as it is an unsupported claim by an involved party and thus a claim no more reliable than the ones that say 1000 were civilians, especially as the IDF report implies that up to 100% of the identified adults killed were terrorists when it is compared to a demographic breakdown of casualties. What criteria do they use for their definition? The original IDF estimate of 500 appears to be the most reliable until a reliable third party claim can be found to correct it. Wayne (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

1) List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2001–2006 - Hamas *continued* launching Qassams in 2007. The rockets most definitely did not START in 2007. The wording currently suggests that they did.

2) "the sources are clear that Hamas stopped their attacks and attempted to stop other Palestinian organisations from firing rockets" - The statement in the article is unsourced, actually. And if you look here, 2008 Israel–Hamas ceasefire, or here, List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2008, you will see that rocket attacks continued. The current wording suggests that rocket attacks IN GENERAL ceased. This is incorrect.

3) "1000 civilians were killed" - I'm not sure where you're looking, but this is completely unsourced. The statement sits with no reference, and it is false. Therefore, it is valid for deletion.

4) You are telling me that the IDF estimate of 500 appears to be the most reliable, but that an IDF investigation is unreliable because the IDF was an involved party and it is an unsupported claim. Do you understand the difference between an estimate and an investigation? Am I somehow missing the difference in reliability between "IDF estimate" and "IDF investigation"? And excuse me, is the PCHR not an involved party? Should we discredit all of their estimates as not "final" as well?

• This article is seriously flawed. And your claim that the investigation found that 100% of the identified adults killed were terrorists is absurd and baseless, so I won't even bother arguing with you about it. At this point it seems unsavable if editors are going to behave like this. If I'm going to be gang attacked when I insert sourced content and delete unsourced fallacies and simply reverted over and over again, then I guess I'll have to bring in a few friends of my own to play this game. Breein1007 (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Breein1007, editors seeking to introduce changes to this page shouold seek to build consensus for their changes. WP:CONSENSUS is best achieved by working collaboratively with you fellow editors, not reverting to restore your preferred version when challenged, and certainly not by saying you are being "gang attacked" when people disagree with you. Further, saying you will bring a few friends of your own to play this game reveals a WP:BATTLE mentality setting one side against another, rather than viewing your fellow editors as people who can be reasoned with. I suggest you adopt a less antagonistic posture, and stick to discussing article content politely and without casting aspersions. I think you'll find people will be more receptive that way. Tiamut^talk 21:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

From Breein1007's reply it seems his understanding of English grammar could be part of the problem. The reason you are being reverted is because you are not justifying your edits per the concerns of a number of editors but simply claiming "fallacies".
1) The wording suggests the attacks were "retaliation" not that they started in 2007. The previous paragraph already stated Hamas was launching rockets beforehand.
2) That the rocket attacks continued is irrelevant as they were not Hamas. To clarify it further per your concerns I edited to make that clearer.
3) The article says "more than" 1000 civilians so it is not an exact figure nor presented as reliable. If you read the sources they give numbers around that if not that one specifically. To use a more specific number given by a source implies more reliability than the claim deserves.
4) I said the 500 is probably reasonable until an "uninvolved independent source" gives a number, ie;I never said any number is final, I did not say that any other involved source is any more reliable nor did I say we should exclude the numbers given by any source. We need independent sources without motive to manipulate findings for "exact" numbers.
5) I did not say that the investigation found that 100% were terrorists. I said that the demographics implies this as we would normally exclude the women, children and majority of police killed from the list of terrorists. The numbers may be right but the IDF is an involved party who refused public access to their data, thereby giving no indication how they determined who are or are not terrorists. For example, the IDF have previously stated that the Palestinian police are all counted as terrorists as they "may" take part in hostilities at a future date.
B'Tselem on the other hand did similar research to the IDF and got different numbers. B'Tselem found 330 confirmed "terrorists", 36 possible and 19 children (-18) who took part in hostilities who can be counted as such at a stretch. Police 248, male civilians 346, female 107 and children (M & F -18) 320. Shall we use these numbers in preference to the IDF? Are these more reliable? They appear to be as B'Tselem does have both birth and death certificates for the casualties and these alone discredit the IDF numbers significantly. They also made public their data which the IDF did not. Wayne (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're ignoring my points. First of all, your reply said my understanding of grammar is part of the problem. This in itself is quite laughable. Anyway, the wording did in fact suggest that Hamas only started firing rockets at that point in time. A reader who didn't have any background knowledge would have taken that from the article. I have made changes again to further clarify the wording (as you attempted to do by making 1 change... it wasn't enough). I trust that there will be no objection to the changes I made; after all, I did not change any facts in the paragraph, I only clarified the difference between Hamas attacks and other attacks. In terms of your claim that the "1000 civilians" issue is ok because it is presented as an estimate and therefore it doesn't have to be reliable, I don't really know how to respond to that. You need to review Wikipedia guidelines. Everything on here needs to be reliable. There are no exceptions just because the figure isn't stated to be exact. If it's not sourced, it doesn't belong here. And you still didn't address my question about why an IDF estimate is reasonable but an IDF investigation is not. The thing is, it doesn't even matter. You have no right to censor that information from the article. I have sourced it and it is most definitely notable. Aside from that, it is not in your realm of power to decide whether or not it is reasonable. If you want the Btselem findings, that's fine too. But I'm going to readjust the order to put the involved parties at the top, and the uninvolved parties at the bottom. PS: just a little heads up. You seem to be having a problem understanding the meaning of "reliable" here on Wikipedia. It isn't our place to decide whether Btselem or IDF investigations are more "reliable". Something reliable is something that has a reference to a source that we have deemed to be reliable enough to warrant contribution to the encyclopedia. Therefore, based on the sources here, Btselem and the IDF investigations are equally "reliable". Also, I'm getting rid of the "JPost reports" nonsense that nobody seems to be addressing since I originally voiced my concern. Breein1007 (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A much more complete list of casualty estimates from the Gaza War can be found [[6]]. I can see no reason to repeat them in detail here. Newt ^(winkle) 21:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. But if you want to remove the casualty estimates and can get support from other editors, then go ahead and remove all references to them from this article. I trust you wouldn't get any silly ideas like only removing the Israeli estimates and leaving the Palestinian findings. Furthermore, the article I linked that you removed showed a list of rocket attacks after the war ended (ie: after mid-January 2009). How exactly does this not support it? If that doesn't make you happy, you can see a direct statement supporting this here: Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel "On 18 January 2009, following a unilateral ceasefire declaration by Israel, Hamas and Islamic Jihad announced that they would cease rocket attacks for one week.[28] Since then, rockets and mortar attacks have continued almost daily.[29][30]" Breein1007 (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and simplified that section, linking it to the main Gaza War article. Here are the removed sources: 95 Palestinian fighters killed in Gaza war Press TV January 19, 2009; [7]; [8]; B'Tselem's Investigation of Fatalities in Operation Cast Lead pdf B'Tselem September 2009. They're all in the main Gaza War article already. On the subject of rocket attacks, the linked article does not list them as Hamas attacks. This is the Hamas article, not the more generic Palestine terrorism one. Don't use it as a coatrack. Newt ^(winkle) 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

russia does not consider hamas a terroist organisation

However Russia does not consider Hamas a terrorist group as it was democratically elected any one agree please add to be balanced130.216.173.82 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sunni or Shi'a

It says they are a "Palestinian Islamic" organisation. Are thery predominantly Sunni, Shi'a or neither? I think this should be included.122.111.224.134 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Tim2718281 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Name meaning

The name meaning is one sided, only giving the Arabic meaning of the word Hamas. There's no mention of the fact that in Hebrew, the word "hamas" means "violence" (74.177.28.79 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Sources ? Sean.hoyland - talk 01:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

hiiiiiii —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.160.225 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

what lines here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.160.225 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Source: http://www.standingstrong.org/index_files/what_does_the_word_Hamas_mean.htm And any Hebrew-English dictionary. (98.66.51.79 (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

Also the statement disagreement exists over the meaning of the word "Hamas" is not correct. When rendered in Hebrew it happens to be the word for "violence" (possibily there is some cognate etymology) but this does not change its Arabic meaning and generally no Hebrew speakers dispute that it is an Arabic acronym which means enthusiasm/zeal in Arabic. Greenshed (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This has previously been discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamas/Archive_6#Hamas_in_.22biblical_Hebrew.22.3F Greenshed (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Alleged" Terrorism

What is with the word "alleged" it seems like a weasel word] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.124.127 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dubai blames Mossad for Hamas commander's slaying

This recent event should be addressed in article.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/02/15/international/i082935S06.DTL
Native94080 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Spelling/Translation error

In the first few lines of the article it reads: "Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement")"

The romanised text should read Ḥarakat al-Muqāwama al-Islāmiyyah, as the word following is an adjective, and not another noun. In these instances, the tah marboutah is not pronounced.

I wonder if it might be possible to leave an "h" at the end of Muqawamah to indicate the presence of the double-dotted ha. Is the "t" pronounced if there is another word after "Muqawamah"? PinkWorld (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Pink

Mosab Hassan Yousef

Son of a Hamas founder and leader spied for Israel from 1997 to 2007. Shin Bet considered Yousef the most valuable source within the Hamas leadership. The information he supplied prevented dozens of suicide attacks...more --Should not this topic be addressed in the article ? --Micha12 (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry for the douple PinkWorld (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Pink

Hamas, Banks, Charities

Hamas seizes $270,000 in frozen funds from bank By RIZEK ABDEL JAWAD and BEN HUBBARD (AP) 30 Mar 2010 http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jv9mXOvp4xkV45ilhd4l4nogyIQwD9EOHSKG0 Hamas seized $270,000 from a Gaza bank on Monday that had been frozen by the Palestinian government in the West Bank... ... The funds were intended for an association called Friends of the Sick, which has run a medical center in Gaza for over a decade. ... About 10 Hamas police officers entered the Bank of Palestine in Gaza City on Monday and demanded 1 million Israeli shekels — about $270,000 — bank employees said, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals. Hamas Interior Ministry spokesman Ehab Ghussein confirmed money was taken and said a court ruled the block on the funds was illegal.

Ten banks have branches in Gaza, though all of their funds are transferred from West Bank branches under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Monetary Authority. ... Friends of the Sick board member Omar Farwana said Monday's seizure was a legal reclaiming of funds from international donors. He confirmed the group received the money taken from the bank and said he expected more seizures. "There are two other banks in Gaza that have our money, and during the coming days we'll get it back," he said. PinkWorld (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Pink

Unnecessary footnote

Footnote 91 seems excessive. It describes the funerals of people who died on the Gaza beach. No one disagrees the people died.Labellesanslebete (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of Victims of Gaza War

I'd like to change footnote 143. It links to a statement from Olmert saying he feels sorrow about the deaths. It has no relevance to the sentence which summarizes the PCHR casualty report. I'd like instead to link to that report.

http://pchrgaza.ps/files/PressR/English/2008/list.pdf

At the end of the paragraph, I suggest the following brief addition: "Bloggers checked the PCHR list against online records with results paralleling Israel's." Followed by a footnote with the link to those findings. Each name was checked against news stories, Hamas and other martyrdom sites, other NGO reports and shows their corrections.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-of-those-civilians-killed-in-gaza.html

The reason I'm interested in adding this is most articles have accusations against Israel written as fact, with emotional descriptions. A defense by Israel may follow in the final paragraphs. As we know, most readers learn the headline and part of the story.

This is a point by point listing which can be checked by anyone. None of the bloggers are associated with the Israeli government.

An example of the material is the death of Anas Fadel Na'im who was listed as #519, Civilian in PCHR's report. He is memorialized on Al-Qassam's English forum as a member of the Qassam Brigades, a wing of Hamas, which makes him a combatant. There were hundreds of these proofs that the PCHR lacks neutrality.Labellesanslebete (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Blogs arent reliable sources, and see WP:OR. nableezy - 19:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point about blogs. Thank you. What about eliminating the footnote to the irrelevant Olmert statement in favor of a link to the actual report?Labellesanslebete (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Interview with Khaled Mashaal

I stumbled across this piece in the Journal of Palestine Studies. Khalid Mishal: The Making of a Palestinian Islamic Leader
Interviewed by Mouin Rabbani
Journal of Palestine Studies - University of California Press, Vol 37, no. 3 (Spring 2008), p. 59
Interview (Part I)

It could be quite a useful source. A few things jumped out at me.

• It contains Mashaal's description of Hamas in his own words in response to the question "How would you characterize Hamas? Is it essentially a religious, or a political, movement? And how does it differ from other Palestinian political movements?".
• It contains Mashaal's description of Hamas’s objectives in his own words in response to the question "What are Hamas’s objectives?"
• It includes a detailed response to the question "And the construction of an Islamic state?"

Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Much too long: 143,218 bytes

The intro section is too long and contains far too much history. The history section needs to be much more abbreviated, since readers can be directed to the 'History of Hamas' wikipedia article for a detailed history. The Charter section is far too long, since again we can direct readers to the 'Hamas Charter' wikipedia article for details. IMHO, an article on Hamas should not be anywhere close to Wikipedia's unofficial 100K limit.Haberstr (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --GHcool (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with someone (or any number of us) making an effort to bring it closer to 100K. I'm impressed, frankly, with the fact that it has nearly 300 footnotes -- obviously well-researched. The intro length does not bother me; it seems appropriate for one of our longer articles. But I would suggest that the number of paras be brought to four, as that should be our outer limit. Also suggest that people makes sure the trimming is not POV-imbued, which of course is a risk in an article of this sort.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I {lovingly} trimmed the fat down to 133 kb. You're welcome. --GHcool (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

GHcool, while I can accept some of the changes you made, but there are some subtle changes in language that bothers me. For instance, you changed Mashal did not recognize a leading role for the road map for peace to Hamas did not honor the road map for peace (emphasis added). Hamas never accepted the road map, they were not under any obligation to "honor" it. You also removed the quote about Israel not honoring the road map, and Israel actually agreed to the road map. You also completely removed the allegations of Israeli involvement in the founding of Hamas. nableezy - 05:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with putting that road map stuff back in. The allegations/conspiracies about Hamas's founding are given too much weight. If I remember correctly, it was 2 whole paragraphs on hearsay. Seems a little silly. Let's trim the fat. --GHcool (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've combined paras in the lede to bring it down to the limit (of four).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

One of your combined paragraphs made no sense logically, but I've moved some stuff around to make the intro 4 paras still. Is that an official or unofficial wikipedia rule, by the way?Haberstr (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hamas did not cease suicide bombings in 2005

In the introductory section, the second to the last sentence in the second paragraph reads, "Hamas ceased the attacks in 2005, and renounced them in April 2006." This is not true, as Hamas claimed responsibility for the 2008 Dimona suicide bombing. The Guardian reported this from an official Hamas spokesman:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/06/israelandthepalestinians.international

This Guardian article is also used for support in the Wikipedia article on that bombing. Please remove the sentence from the introductory section, as it is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.131.242 (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point is well worth considering, however, there are numerous conflicting reports about who sponsored the Dimona attack, and I don't know if they have ever been resolved. "In Gaza on Monday, the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades — a violent offshoot of Abbas' Fatah movement — provided the names of the men it said were the bombers and a detailed account of how they sneaked into Israel from Egypt. The families of the two young men were mourning. . . . On Tuesday, the group continued to insisted that it carried out the attack." Preceding from [9] See also here: [10] Haberstr (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible Israeli Support for Early Growth of Hamas to Compete and Weaken PLO Section

I do not see a listed reference for the Le Canard enchaîné claim. As I feel the validity of references 125-127 are very unreliable. However a claim from Le Canard enchaîné would carry significant weight to this concept. If that reference cannot be found I think this section should be removed because there are many theories regarding Hamas that have very weak references why is this theory more important than others. Thermo1984 (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The reference is at the end of the sentence. "The very secret Israel-Hamas relations" Le Canard Enchaîné February 1 2006 issue n°4449. Wayne (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The section should be renamed to something less wordy and more concise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Problems

I don't know why this edit keeps getting moved to the social/welfare section when it belongs in the funding section.

The source infers the income comes from the price-fixing:

For instance, according to Palestinian smugglers, Hamas taxes luxury items like cigarettes at higher rates and sometimes demands protection money for allowing their tunnels to be used. If cigarettes freely flowed across an open border, it would be harder for Hamas to extract payments. Concrete figures on just how much money Hamas is making, or spending, are difficult to acquire. The Hamas-appointed minister of economy, Ziad al-Zaza, says the government spends roughly $30 million a month. Mr. Hamad estimates the movement brings in more than $100 million a month. "The only expenses they have as a government are salaries," says Hamad. He alleges the difference goes "straight into their pockets and into their new investments in Gaza."

Also, this section needs to be moved elsewhere. ". It speculated that this was an attempt to give "a religious slant to the conflict, in order to make the West believe that the conflict was between Jews and Muslims", perhaps in order to support the controversial thesis of a "clash of civilizations" is simply conjecture and not supported by any mainstream sources. Here is a comprehensive article published in the WSJ cite which is far more explicit and factual. Includes named-Hamas testimony and background information by officers that worked with Islamists. Also, Israel never supported Hamas, but rather a "charity" known as Mujama Al-Islamiya that didn't have any territorial ambitions towards Israel until after it morphed into Hamas in the 1998, at which point the IDF rounded up the leaders and locked them away.

Also, the rationale behind Hamas' charity platform needs to be expanded. It infers Hamas is some humanitarian organization. This is blatant false - it is known as "financial jihad" Ismail Haniyeh, turning enterprises into an educational platform that serves Hamas' militant ideology. The funds are not spread indiscriminately (as is the case in UN-registered charities). And most of the charities involved in spreading "humanitarian" serves are registered terrorist organizations. cite. We need to clarify this in the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You say some of these things as gospel truth and cite an opinion by a retired Israeli officer making up a term that can only be found in various right-wing websites. Hamas does indeed provide charitable assistance, what one could call "humanitarian" assistance. They fund schools and orphanages for those in the occupied territories and in some instances in refugee camps outside of Palestine. nableezy - 00:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, I'm not saying anything. This is what the original founders of Hamas say. WSJ is a reliable source and the other link is obviously Israel's POV. This isn't a minority opinion - Hamas is not a humanitarian organization as the article dubiously infers. But this is secondary to Hamas' actual budget and revenue system and Israel cooperation in allowing the Islamist charities to take over the welfare enterprises of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel never supported Hamas, nobody involved in the article disputes this. Your hostility is not necessary. This is not right-wing propaganda. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

My remark was directed at the last paragraph you wrote. If something is "obviously Israel's POV" you shouldnt assert it as an unquestioned fact. nableezy - 02:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You should be more explicit. The 2nd source was "obviously Israel's POV", the other source was Hamas' POV. The leaders of Hamas have shared their jihad strategies with the media. And according to the WSJ, it was Israel that protected and supported the original Hamas leaders - including Ahmed Yassin, who met frequently with Shin Bet operatives. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is something in Talk:Hamas/Archive_12#Interview_with_Khaled_Mashaal that might help ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't know a lot about him. He didn't participate in the Palestinian charities that eventually mutated into militant Hamas. I highly recommend the WSJ article because it covers the whole history of Hamas' origins and Israel's relationship with the founders. the section would benefit from a background on the origins of Hamas. The current section gives the false impression that Israel armed and supported Hamas, when this is denied by both Israel and Hamas. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

1: Mr. Hamad estimates the movement brings in more than $100 million a month. refers to income from ALL sources and although 100 million is at the extreme high end of estimates other reliable sources, including some you have supplied, support this. "the movement" means the Hamas government not the movement of goods. 2: We cant cherry pick the sources that support our own beliefs. We use multiple sources for balance. 3: I can find nothing in the article that implies Israel armed Hamas or that it is some humanitarian organization. Wayne (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comprehension Ross. The article says nothing about "all sources." Nobody is cherry-picking sources, rather - very few newspapers have covered Hamas' financial schemes. You or another editor switched 100 million to 4 million, which was blatant OR. Regarding the other issues, I've been quite explicit about the problems of 2 important sections - here, and [11]. The second section is simply dishonest because Israel never supported "Hamas" in its current form. The WSJ links provides a crystal-clear picture of the Islamist/Israel relationship. I'm going to try and re-work the section eventually, but for now we should definitely change the section title because it is patently false. Condemning sources you don't like as "POV" is simply bad faith Ross. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It may not specifically say "all sources" but it is clear that is what is meant. I may have added the 4 mil but then I also deleted it myself later. It is less than 5 mil based on earlier reports so I will search for a source later for a more specific figure. Where does the artical say Israel supported Hamas in it's current form? It specifically says Hamas' early growth had been supported by the Mossad which is unambiguous in what is meant. What source have I condemned? I suggested using pro and con multiple sources. Just because you feel the WSJ artical is "crystal clear" does not mean we have to use it to replace sources already there.Wayne (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Found several sources that state tunnel income is currently around 50 mil a year ($4.1 million/month) and one Israeli source estimating it was 20 mil a month before most of the tunnels were closed by Egypt last year. One (FOX) has some quite good information I can add to the artical when I get more time.Wayne (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You simply changed it to 4 million with no source. You continue to edit Hamas' budget into the social welfare section. I don't know why you're doing this - just move it back to funding where it belongs. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That was because the 100 million claim in the edit was incorrect. I then deleted it until I could find a source. The reson it is in the social welfare section is that most of the paragraph concerns what the money is spent on. Only a single sentence concerns the income.Wayne (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ross, listen sec. You put Hamas' government budget (not party budget) in the social welfare section. This needs to be clarified. Hamas could never run Gaza with 70 million. The money Hamas collects from extortion and price-fixing goods out of the tunnels is independent of their 70 million which is almost entirely comes from foreign benefactors. the source is right. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Then the 500 mil budget has no place under party funding which what that section is for. The "extortion and price-fixing" income is used for "social welfare".Wayne (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The section isn't "partying funding" but simply funding. Iran has deposited at least 500 million in the bank accounts of Hamas so they can rule Gaza. Can you please explain to me how extortion and price fixing belong in social welfare? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Irans donations are speculation and of little relevance to Hamas as a party anyway. Secondly, as I stated above the income from extortion and price fixing is, according to several sources, used for "social welfare". Perhaps the text would be more elevant if placed in the tunnels artical rather than here?Wayne (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Speculation? I've provided numerous sources supporting my edits - you've listed zero. Hamas' government budget belongs in the funding section, not "social welfare." The UN and EU are the primary benefactors to the welfare programs in Gaza. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

One of your own sources supports what I have been telling you as do several other sources already in the artical. I use sources regardless of which side they support yet your "numerous" sources give only one side of the situation leading to a lack of balance that requires additional text for refutation in an artical already far too long. Why are you giving so few sources such undue weight? I'm not saying not to put the funding in the funding section but that the funding used for social welfare should be in the social welfare section. What relevance is it that the UN and EU are the primary benifactors? Hamas ensures that 100% of Iranian funding goes to welfare yet you dont push to highlight that. Why is Hamas government funding so important to the Hamas organisation when there are articals for Gaza where they are more relevant in the depth you want to use? Why have you devoted an entire section to Mujama al-Islamiya? Is so much detail neccessary? To fill in what you have not mentioned I will have to double the size of that section if it remains so detailed. No one disputes what you wrote about Mujama al-Islamiya but it has also now totally overwhelmed what the section was originally for; Mossad funding of Hamas itself. Quote: The Islamic associations as well as the university had been supported and encouraged by the Israeli military authority. The military authority was convinced that these activities would weaken both the PLO and the leftist organizations in Gaza - Koteret Rashit October 1987. Hamas was fulfilling the functions for which it was originally created: to prevent the creation of a Palestinian State - "Hamas is a Creation of Mossad" Hassane Zerouky 2002. Israel has supported radical fundamentalist Muslim groups for years - Victor Ostrovsky (former Katsa for Mossad). The Israeli military gave the League members protection and widespread powers. As many as 200 of the league members were given weapons training by Israel. - Sharon's Terror Child Ray Hanania 2003. Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation - Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. As you can see there is plenty editors could add to the section but then it would degenerate into a he said she said arguement and as the artical already has enough of an anti Hamas bias brevity is desirable. Wayne (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

First, the funding of Hamas belongs in the funding section. Not in social welfare. The section needed to be revised because Israel never supported "Hamas" as the original header said. Your sources above are consistent with the current draft: Israel supported the Islamist movements to counter the PLO. No one is disputing that. Statements like "Israel supported Hamas" are not helpful without background. Might as well say "USA supported Al-Qaeda." The only dispute is some on the Left believe it was all a conspiracy to sabotage Oslo and destroy the now "peaceful" Fatah. Also, can you provide page numbers for the book cite and sources? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Response/reactions

The claim was made by the Al Qassam brigades with at least 1 Hamas source saying it was explicitly not sanctioned/supported by Hamas (political wing), though the military wing (the Brigades) may have acted on their own. There was also a statement by Hezbollah following the attacks. I cant find it now, but was wondering is someone else has read this? THey shouldbe added.Lihaas (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Settlers are legitimate military targets

"Israeli settlers in the West Bank are legitimate targets since they are an army in every sense of the word, a senior Hamas official told the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper on Saturday, adding that Palestinians were still committed to an armed struggle against Israel. " "Hamas official: Israeli settlers are a legitimate military target" JuJubird (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there some kind of international law that people under occupation have the right to fight against they're occupiers? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no right under international law to kill non-combatants. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That "occupied" land was acquired by Israel in a war it didn't start. Calling it "occupied" is a loaded term. Frotz (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No, occupied is the standard policy compliant term used by the vast majority of reliable sources one of which includes the Supreme Court of Israel in the case of the West Bank. Not using it reduces policy compliance. This has been discussed countless times. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I found a UN resolution: 2908, "Reaffirms its recognition of the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples and peoples under alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Palestinians are not colonial people. Their leaders started a war, then lost it. Your link doesn't work. Frotz (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It also says: "and peoples under alien domination". It works for me, you need PDF. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

How alien are people from just next door? Frotz (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no right under international law to kill non-combatants. UN resolutions don't trump the Geneva Conventions. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So according to the Geneva Conventions, you are allowed to kill soldiers occupying you but not settlers? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about details, but I heard some Texans have terrible time crossing into Canada, since they can not part with their guns. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See Handbook of International Law. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

But that text doesn't really focus on settlers on other peoples land. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes because international law applies everywhere in every conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this bordering on becoming a forum? JuJubird has quoted a news story but said nothing beyond that about whether a change to the article is being proposed or whatever. Adambro (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

22nd Anniversary of Hamas

A couple of links to the big Hamas rally on the 22nd anniversary:

• In a long, defiant speech on Monday afternoon, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said that gaining control of the Gaza Strip was "just a step toward liberating all of Palestine."- includes video from BBC. Jerusalem Post

• "This movement, with the help of the militant factions liberated the Gaza Strip, and we say, brothers and sisters, we will not be satisfied with Gaza," he said. "Hamas looks toward the whole of Palestine, the liberation of the strip is just a step to liberating all of Palestine." "In a long, defiant speech, Haniyeh pledged Hamas would never lay down its arms, nor recognize Israel." Hamas rally shows it still has strong Gaza support AFP

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stellarkid (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hamas' status in the UK

1) The link in reference 265 results in a 404 page not found response. The UK web site has apparently changed the link to

http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/legislation/current-legislation/terrorism-act-2000/proscribed-groups.html

2) Within that reference, Hamas itself is not listed a proscribed group. On the list is "Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades"

Tim2718281 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

caption for Izz al-Din Shuheil al-Masri, the perpetrator of the Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing

"Hamas martyr Izz al-Din Shuheil al-Masri, the perpetrator of the Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing."

Is it really valid to call him a martyr? This article aspires to neutrality, and that is not a neutral title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.127.105 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the term "martyr" is definitely not appropriate. He committed a terroristic action against defenseless civilians, and in so doing (knowingly) killed himself (committed suicide). Not killed for refusing to change his belief or religion, as the term means. This should change to either ""Hamas terrorist Izz al-Din Shuheil al-Masri,...." or if the word terrorist is disputed or not considered nutral (which I think in this case it is not so), then any of this will do "Hamas activist/operative/agent/militant Izz al-Din Shuheil al-Masri,...." . --Nightseeder^(Chat). 21:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's inappropriate but not for the reasons you've stated. The term 'martyr' means Wikipedia buys into that religious meaning, and NPOV demands that we not do that. It's not Wikipedia's business to agree or disagree with the suicide bomber's understanding of what he or she is doing. I'm changing the term to 'suicide bomber'.Haberstr (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Settlers

These people are called "settlers" by the entire world, the operation took place in the Palestinian territories, so "settlers" is more appropriate then "civilian" [12] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Being a settler does not negate civilian status Supreme. Not combatants are still classified as civilians. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The entire world calls them settlers, the NYT source says "settlers" [13], the BBC [14] and Jpost[15] sources calls them "Israelis" so "Israeli settler" is the correct term. The fact that the text doesn't say that they were "soldiers" makes the reader understand that they are civilians, because if they were soldiers it would obviously say so. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

They are Israeli settlers and civilians. Like I said, being a "settler" does not negate civilian status. Their location is already made clear - so it is redundant to say they are Israeli settlers. Even B'tselem classifies Israeli settlers as civilians (usually Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians). Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Listen Wikifan12345, I think you know we're playing with words here. Re your edit summary; obviously targeting civilians or settlers or non-combatants or whatever you want to call them is wrong. But the only thing that matters from WP's view is that the RS uses "settler"; hence, we should too. NickCT (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources don't dispute the civilian status of Israeli settlers. The fact that they are settlers does not negate their status as civilians. Some persons speaking on behalf of Palestinians argue that, inasmuch as the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel’s security forces, it is permissible to attack settlers. This argument is groundless: the illegality of the settlements does not affect the civilian status of their residents in the slightest. B'tselem is an imperfect and IMO horribly biased source but it is widely-recognized by the wikipedia community as comprehensive and reliable when it comes to casualties in the I/P conflict. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The source for this attack says "settlers" no source calls these four people "civilians" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, please cease making the point that "the fact that they are settlers does not negate their status as civilians". Nobody is arguing this. Nobody is arguing that the fact they are settlers negates the fact that they are "human beings", but we are not going to call them "human beings" b/c that is not what the source calls them. NickCT (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

<- Wikifan, 'settlers' isn't a derogatory term in RS-world. It's not worth worrying about. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sean, edit warring is not cool. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"The entire world calls them settlers" - like I said before, this is irrelevant. The victims were Israeli civilians, the fact that they were residents of Israeli settlements does not negate their civilian status. Trying to replace civilian with settler is clearly POV. The settlement is already mentioned in the sentence so it is quite redundant to say "Israeli settler." Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, the entire world also calls this the operation ;) My impression is that the operation is discussed, by sources, in context of current round of US hosted I/P talks ceremonies. Sources talk about Egypt and Jordan involvement and Hamas tradition of opposition to such kind of festive events, the term provocation is easily sourced, also by primary Palestinian reliable sources. C'mon, Wikifan12345, you know better than that, this is just Wikipedia, rules apply. No one also negates the fact that those humans were residents of the Israeli colonies in the West bank, I think Sean would agree.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh? The dispute is whether or not to qualify the Israeli civilian casualties as "settler" (ambiguous) or the neutral, "civilian." This sounds stupid: "On August 31, 2010, 4 Israeli settlers, including a pregnant woman, were killed by Hamas militants while driving on Route 60 near the settlement Kiryat Arba." A settler can be a civilian or a soldier, in this case the victims were blatantly civilian and they happened to be residents of Israeli settlements. Pretty obvious editors want to deprive the victims of their civilian status by obfuscating the homicidal act committed by Hamas. I already included a B'tselem cite above which is paraded by partisan editors as the gospel of casualty data - so what's the problem? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty obvious editors want to deprive the victims of their civilian status by obfuscating the homicidal act committed by Hamas."...Wikifan, please, calling them settlers doesn't deprive the victims of their civilian status anymore than calling them Israelis or any number of other terms. You are overthinking this. We should just say what the sources say and move on. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

And sources describe the victims as civilians. 1, 2, 3. I don't understand why editors are so butturt over calling a spade a spade. I know pregnant woman are such a threat a future Palestine. Civilian? Please...they are evil Zionist settlers bent on genociding peace-loving Palestinians. XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain genociding isn't a verb. Settlers, people, Israelis, civilians, whatever but we can't pick words because we like them. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. We can't pick "settler" because editors refuse to ignore reliable sources that don't fit their narrative. Editors worship B'tselem as the gospel for casualty data, but conviniently ignore it if *gasp* doesn't completely tow the PA line. Please respect policy and restore my neutral edit. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As an aside wikifan has blatantly pasted his subjective point of view over here saying "deprive the victims of their civilian status by obfuscating the homicidal act committed by Hamas" + "pregnant woman are such a threat a future Palestine" The two wholly irrelevant to discussing the matter at hand, which is the addition of certain words.

Furthermore, WP:NPA asserts the attacks emanating from the lack of support for his cause such as "paraded by partisan editors as the gospel of casualty data - so what's the problem?" has no room here.

At any rate, he consensus is unanimously against him so until there is a modicum of controversy "settler" is supported by the rest.Lihaas (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So what if I "blatantly" pasted a "subjective point of view?" These people were civilians and they were hunted and murdered for being Jews. Mainstream sources refer to acts of violence against Israeli non-armed settlers as civilians. I posted reliable sources proving the deaths have been recorded as civilian. So instead of attacking me as an editor, why not focus on what I am saying? 3 editors whose POV's are widely-established is not a "consensus." Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's actually 4 editors, whose views I'm not familiar with, against 1 editor. My maths skills are not great but it must be about 80% support for settlers which seems to be a consensus to me. The arguement seems a little pointless anyway as most of the world clearly calls them settlers so arguing against it makes any alternative POV itself. Wayne (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Wikipedia's notion of consensus is a pile of crap unless the editor's positions are policy compliant and the output of the consensus process increases policy compliance. Many times they aren't and it doesn't. In this case though it should be easy to resolve by simply sampling a bunch of sources rather than arguing about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment Based on sources provided in this and other discussions we could describe those Israelis both as settler and as civilian. If we look at this from Hamas official POV, those are settlers, i.e. legitimate military targets. Israel POV is that Israelis living in the West bank are civilians unless they are members of security forces. There are also cases of unlawful combatants, though I personally don't see strong indication of such possibility in this particular case. So NPOV probably calls us to describe this issue from all angles. However at this level of details we might need to start to spin off sub-articles to make the whole as manageable. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could always try something like Intranetworkcrosspolymersynergism or simply use whatever China Daily said. I think, forget the POVs, sample the RS, pick the word, don't worry about what it is. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you guys are so outraged by the word "civilian." I provided several reliable sources that describe the dead as "civilian" - namely', B'tselem, one of the most prominent and widely-cited rights group in Israel. So what if 3 paragraph BBC article calls them settler? Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused, what is the name of the chapter, in which this content is discussed? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

uh? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Settler is just fine. It's not pejorative and implies that the people are civilians. Sol Goldstone (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is outraged by the word "civilian". I could just as easily ask why you are so outraged by the word "settler". It's basically a case of complying with the most recognisable and common term. Any other term may imply a bias depending on the ideology of who wants it. For example would you accept Hamas' term for them? Using that is only slightly less legitimate than your preference.Wayne (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wayne, this has nothing to do with me. Sources refer to the victims as civilians. Their status as civilians is already stated by their residence - saying "settler" is simply redundant. A soldier can be a settler hypothetically. Better we go with B'tselem. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the Hamas clearly make the distinction in his statements (claiming that settlers are legitimate targets), the additional clarification that these were indeed settlers is relevant. Eyalmc (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamas is unreliable source. Palestinian leaders are habitual liars - read the Guardian editorial where Mashal says he'll make peace with Israel if it returns to 67' borders. But then read an Arabic-Gaza newspapers and he'll be saying Hamas will never negotiate with Israel. Some Palestinian groups explicitly call for targeting settlers only, but Hamas has never differentiated between Israelis in the WB and Israelis in Israel. Settlers are simply easier targets because Hamas is no longer capable of infiltrating Israel proper like it used too. Reliable sources like B'tselem make no differentiation between settlers and Israelis in the Israel. Neither does international law when it comes to their civilian status. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Palestinian leaders are habitual liars" explicitly tells us where you are coming from. Not a good place for an Wikipedia encyclopedia writer on Hamas or other 'Palestinian leader' kind of topics.Haberstr (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion discussion discussion

I'm concerned some editors are removing cited material under questionable rationales.

• This edit relies on a dead jpost cite. The section has zero to do with the Gaza war. It is merely a statement made by Mashal. It is original research for an editor to make the inference. Mashal's ties to the Gaza War is still being debated. He was not in Gaza at the time of the conflict and it is unlikely he had any control over their paramilitary during actual operations. But anyways, still nothing to do with the Gaza War so I don't understand the section title or its inclusion. Belongs in Khaled Mashal IMO.

We have Khaled Mashal stating the current Hamas position regarding Palestine/Israel peace, and mainstream U.S. disagreement on what exactly that position is, but you want to exclude that from the main Hamas article? Isn't Hamas's position on P/I peace and all that pretty darn important, well actually the most important thing objectively about Hamas? Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• What does this have to do with presidential and legislative elections? Absolutely nothing. I don't know why it was edited in. It has no place here.

This is a chronological history, and the paragraph is in exactly the right place in that respect. The subsection titles are markers of significant events and are not to be taken as indicating everything in that HISTORY sub-section will be about the sub-section title.Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• More cited material removed for no reason.

You jumped within the paragraph from 1987, where the chronology was, to insert 1992 information. Isn't it straightforward that that is 'wrong'? The added info is also redundant; exactly the same information (see 'Name' section) about the Qassam brigades is provided elsewhere in the article.Haberstr (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Connecting two sources that have no relationship. The source is not responding directly to Avner Cohen's report]. To say it "disagrees" is the editor's own inference. The French source was published 3 years before the WSJ story - so how could they possibly disagree with each other? The WSJ cite is more of a history of Hamas and Israel, whereas the French cite is more like an editorial that belongs in its own section - not as a response to documented history.

Tempest in a teapot: 'disagrees' can be understood to mean 'has a differing opinion'. If you can find something that makes you feel better, fine, make that minor change rather than excluding relevant information.Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Editor removes cited material providing a background of the PLO-Israel history. The source says nothing about a "take over" of Gaza from Egypt. The original version included a few sentences from the WSJ about the PLO's complicity in hijackings, terrorism etc - and the Islamist movements at the time had no territorial ambitions towards Israel or even opposed Israel's occupation.

Your link directs us to the preceding 'French' cite. In any case, I think it's clear that Israel 'took over' Gaza during or at the conclusion of the 1967 war. Unless you have some argument otherwise, the PLO's activities should minimally be in an article about Hamas.Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comparison prior to the edits. current version. I don't know why the Olmert quote was removed.

I don't know why it is included, it has no historical tie to 'birth of Hamas'. In other words, we have no idea whether Olmert is talking about the 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s. Anyway, redundancy is important when attempting to justify inclusion of information in an encyclopedia article that you would like to be 145,000+ bytes. Multiple mainstream experts and Israeli officials have accused Hamas of being tightly connected to Iran. That needs to be stated, but not more than once and, if in the history section it needs to have 'when it started' or 'when it is occurring' in the accusation.Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I spent a significant amount of time compiling reliable sources for the origins of Hamas section. I couldn't care less if editors want to rewrite it but removing cited material without a rationale and replacing the content with your own words is simply unacceptable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope you'll agree with my critiques above, but if not, please respond directly to them and maybe we can work something out.Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume 'After the Gaza War' is referring to events that occured after the Gaza War rather than events pertinent to the Gaza War. Here is the JPost source. I haven't read it but JPost links are always recoverable in my experience. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it. 'After the Gaza War' is pertinent to the Gaza War. Anything could be 'After the Gaza War.' Christina Hendricks married that guy from Super Troopers 'After the Gaza War.' The statements were made a good 7 months after combat operations ended and like I said before had nothing, nothing to do with the Gaza conflict. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That how I read it. It means anything after a chosen for no particular obvious reason moment in time/event. Why does it have to be pertinent to the Gaza War ? After Eight mints aren't about 8pm. Ernst's painting 'Europe After the Rain' is about after 'the Rain' rather than 'the Rain'. Confused. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor unilaterally reversed my contributions without explanation. A few edits can be discussed, but whole-sale removal of cited material under weak rationales like "POV by Wikifan" does not exactly scream neutrality and collaboration. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I explained them in the edit summaries. Anyway, more complete explanations are above. Please, by the way, will you get on board with the notion that this vastly inflated article needs to be much briefer, at least 25K bytes shorter?Haberstr (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No policy says space takes precedence over content. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamas encyclopedia article or a 145,000 byte 'complete case against Hamas'

The Hamas article should be an encyclopedia article rather than "the complete case against Hamas." The latter attitude is what has generated the now 145,240 bytes article [16] that Wikifan12345 now demands. It's not a matter of "everything I'm adding is well-sourced." We've got a bulging overweight article with lots of redundancy that needs to be trimmed. We _don't_ need to add more weight on here. So, let's use good judgment regarding what an encyclopedia article attempts to do: for example, use examples to make a point rather than writing down EVERY example that makes exactly the same point about Hamas.Haberstr (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with what you say there. You went and deleted a bunch of useful information that was not repeated in the article, just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It was correctly reference by Wikifan12345 and you did not make an argument to justify deleting it that is ok with wikipedia policy. Thanks. LibiBamizrach (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I went and deleted a bunch of irrelevant, non-useful and/or redundant information, that was added just becauseWP:IDONTLIKEHAMAS. The additions were correctly referenced by Wikifan12345, but that does not justify adding redundant or irrelevant information to an article that is 145,000+ bytes. Wikipedia policy is to try to get article close to 100,000 bytes unless you are handling a very rare topic that simply commands many more bytes than that. Finally, I did not make an argument to justify deleting the information that is ok with wikipedia policy in the edit summaries.Haberstr (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because the article is bloated does not mean editors can remove entire, well-sourced paragraphs and replace them with their own research. The article is rather long, so if you see certain sections that could be split into a new article, feel free to make suggestions. But targeting certain parts of the article and claiming they are "POV" without offering a slightest shred of evidence other than "Wikifan DOESNOTLIKEHAMAS" will not pass here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As you're aware, I've fully explained my reasoning in the section directly above this one. You haven't responded to any of the six specific arguments I made there.Haberstr (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to move your comments outside of my edits. This isn't a chatroom. I cannot respond to your explanations the way you posted them above. In fact I didn't even notice them until you told me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Haberstr. Some of the material is barely notable. Duplication of material should also be avoided unless it crosses categories or has special relevance. For example there are three separately bulleted paragraphs regarding the Holocaust, two use the same ref and have different people saying exactly the same thing while the third is a secondary source reporting on the same statements being said. Why cant both names and the secondary source be combined in the one paragraph? Wayne (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh?

Thanks, Wayne I've only scratched the surface of the repetition, please help if you feel like it. Wikifan12345, your reason for not responding to any of my specific responses to each of your points (logically located immediattely below each of your points) doesn't make sense, and I hope you'll reconsider your refusal to discuss your edits, which imho have added 7,000 unecessary bytes to the already overlong and repetitive Hamas entry. We're all in this together and on the same side, I hope: to improve and shape up the article.Haberstr (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Wikileaks12345?" Am I supposed to be offended or something? Like I said before, you need to move your post below my edit. You can easily use bullet points to refer to each issue. It is basic formatting etiquette. This is not a forum or a message board. In the event another editor wants to weigh in it will be very difficult for them to do it. Most of your complains can be directed to IDONTLIKEIT. You want to remove cited material under the rationale of "too many bytes." Yes, the article is long, so removing reliably-cited statements from mainstream history and basic history is the last thing we would do to shorten the article. I agree with Wayne on the holocaust issuel. this section is bloated and needs to be cut down significant." I don't see any serious redundancy, but the MERMI cite should be combined into one paragraph. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a mistake and I've corrected your name. The way I have written my comments is common sense reasonable. However, if you have a Wikipedia source that states I've violated basic formatting etiquette, I'll be happy to move things around. Rather than searching for such, though, in my opinion it might be more helpful and collegial for moving our discussion forward if you simply answer my points, in any common sense format/manner you desire.Haberstr (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request - I am unable to provide a third opinion on this, because there are already three editors involved in the discussion. If you would like to get extra input into your discussion, consider opening a request for comments. Cheers! Thparkth (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am 100% in agreement with Haberstr here. Unfortunately some people think the purpose of this article is to publish as much dirt on Hamas as possible. This is obvious a violation of Wikipedia policy. Zero^talk 00:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Zero, you nailed it.Haberstr (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Zero, you a hardly an uninvolved 3rd party. "The purpose" of this article it to "publish as much dirty on Hamas as possible." No, the purpose of this article is to include information that is supported by reliable sources. If editors are offended by the information, or think Hamas is being smeared, dare I say - tough titties. Seriously. If an editor wants to open an RFC, feel free to, but I don't think we need one. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, 'the' purpose of this article is not to include all well-sourced information about its subject. Such an article would be much too long for Wikipedia, which is why, for example, we use examples to make a RS point, but we do not have to describe large numbers of examples that demonstrate that point. Any Wikipedia article has many 'purposes', several of which are readability, not unecessarily over-long, not redundant, and not giving undue weight to one side in a dispute. In a nutshell, we're supposed to produce something that looks like an NPOV encyclopedia article. That's complicated and has lots of 'purposes' swirling around it.Haberstr (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If a group frequently does bad things more often than good, then it's hardly suprising that there's a lot of dirt on that group's Wikipedia article. Frotz (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting POV Frotz. I think it's safe to say though that as you have a bunch of Israelis writting this article on Hamas (a sworn enemy of Israel) the article is going to have NPOV issues. I support Haberstr and Zero's position. NickCT (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Being Israeli does not make someone automatically unable to edit Wikipedia according to the rules in a NPOV way, NickCT and you are very wrong to say something like that. If you have opinion like that, then really you are the one who has issue with editing in appropriate way. LibiBamizrach (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are these Israelis writing this article? And why would that matter? To say someone who is a citizen of Israel is incapable of writing in an objective manner and according to Wikipedia policy is very, very offensive. Back to the issue: An editor wants to remove cited material because he thinks it is "smearing" Hamas, and wants to replace it with his own research which will apparently make the article smaller. I think the article represents all POV fairly. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Note I didn't say "incapable of writing in an objective manner". Please don't put words in my mouth. I was suggesting more that Israelis are less likely to write with NPOV on articles involving enemies of Israel. This seems somewhat self-evident to me. I'm surprised it would be considered "very, very offensive" or "very wrong". Perhaps we should take this to AE if you guys feel that way. NickCT (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when? Are Americans less likely to write with NPOV involving enemies of America? And since when Is Finkelstein an enemy of Israel? He hates America just as much. So yeah, it is incredibly offensive and bad faith to assume Israelis are less objective than perfect editors like yourself. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

@Wikifan12345 - Re "Are Americans less likely to write with NPOV involving enemies of America?" - Yes.

"assume Israelis are less objective than perfect editors like yourself" - Again. Not what I said. NickCT (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to claims of oversized article

• First of all, the article readable text is not 145K . Wikipedia policy says that you should count only readable text, without references and tables. Please check again. Secondly, if an article is too long, the correct solution according to Wikipedia guidelines splitting the article to several sub articles, in WP:SUMMARY style, not go ahead and delete information that you don't like without first reaching consensus. Marokwitz (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

All of the information deleted was redundant, as I have amply explained on this talk page.Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to claims of biased articles

• As Wikipedia editors, we are guided by reliable sources and not by our personal opinions. Hamas, or it's Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, are classified as a terrorist organization by most of the western world. So it is hardly surprising that reliable sources include detailed information about the terrorism links of Hamas, and are quite sparse about the positive aspects. If you think this article gives undue weight to the terrorism aspect, the easy solution would be to censor information. The right solution would be to visit a local library, and search for reliable articles discussing the positive sides of Hamas, to restore due weight. Marokwitz (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We need also to be guided by WP:Undue Weight along with [[WP:RS], so editing is more complicated than you assert. I think we both agree that listing of every terrorist act allegedly committed by Hamas would be excessive weight, but where do we draw the line? To me, 'generalization + examples' seems the common sense way to go. Also, the world rather than the "Western World" should determine the balance we give things in Wikipedia.Haberstr (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems you didn't really read what I wrote, but never mind. WP:DUE clearly states that Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. The article is generally discussing the militant aspect with more details than, say, the welfare aspect, since there are fewer reliable sources (western or not) discussing positive actions by Hamas . If you disagree, then see my suggestion to dig up some more reliable sources, to expand those sections. Marokwitz (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems you didn't really read what I wrote, but never mind. WP:WEIGHT clearly does not state that Wikipedia simply aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. In fact, as I've repeatedly stated, WP:WEIGHT is more complicated than that. Please read the following from WP:WEIGHT: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." In that light, the article should generally be discussing the militant aspect with more details than, say, the welfare aspect, but not because there are fewer reliable sources (Western or not) for the non-militant aspects of Hamas. The militant aspects are simply considered of somewhat more importance to most international (worldwide perspective) readers. But that does not mean -- please read preceding WP:WEIGHT quote if you haven't already -- that we should give the negative aspects of Hamas ten times as much coverage as its non-negative aspects. If you disagree, then see my suggestion to make a case for 'negative stuff ten times more important', and then I may agree to keep the current proportion between negative/non-negative Hamas stuff in this encyclopedia article. Without that case being made, it seems to me this Hamas entry was much more NPOV prior to September 15, 2010.Haberstr (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Islamic fundamentalism cat

I see that the Islamic fundamentalism category was just added. However, there is no mention of this in the article. Do they describe themselves as an Islamic fundamentalist organization or do other reliable sources describe them that way. If so it should be in the article, If not the cat needs to go. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources do describe them that way. It is mentioned in the lead of the article. There was one source cited and I now added another. Marokwitz (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh you mean the giant, highlighted, very obvious word 'fundamentalist' in the lead that I didn't see. Yes, that will do. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

:) Marokwitz (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring/revising lead section

Below are explanations of all changes to Marokvitz version (note that he/she did not discuss any of these changes on the talk page before making them), many of which involve restoring the "04:16, 16 September 2010 " version by Haberstr. I suggest that before making changes to long-time stable and consensus material we discuss that civilly and collegially.

PARAGRAPH 1 OF LEAD

Sentence One

Changed Islamist > Islamic (Islamic is non-controversial, Islamist is difficult to define, has negative connoations that Islamic does not, is not a label Hamas applies to itself)

Removed Fundamentalist. (The word has negative connotations, Hamas has not imposed Shariah or anything remotely similar to the social rules imposed in, for example, Saudi Arabia, and Fundamentalist is not a label Hamas applies to itself.)

Sentences Two and Three

Restored "Since June 2007 Hamas has governed the Gaza portion of the Palestinian Territories, after it won a large majority in the Palestinian Parliament in January 2006 and then defeated rival Palestinian party Fatah in a series of violent clashes. The European Union, the United States, and three other countries classify Hamas as a terrorist organization."

Removed "It's origins are in the Muslim Brethren movement, which was active in the Gaza Strip since the 1950's and gained influence through a network of mosques and various charitable and social organizations, until the 1980's, when it emerged as a powerful political factor, challenging the influence of the PLO. In 1987 it adapted a more nationalist and activist line and embarked upon a new course under the name of Hamas."

• Readers want to know the quick version of "What is Hamas?" from the lead paragraph. A vital part of the answer is that Hamas is the governing power in Gaza, and also that many important nations consider it a terrorist organization. The historical origins information is of far less importance to most readers here; they would want and expect that info, of course, to be in the history section.
• Marokvitz's 'terrorism' sentence is incorporated into end of restored paragraph one. The terrorism information fits, since it also provides important information in response to the number one question on encyclopedia readers' minds "What is Hamas?"

PARAGRAPH 2 OF LEAD

• I agree with Marokvitz that paragraphs 2 and 3 should be tightened up and shortened, and have done so when possible. Obviously the 'history' section's purpose is to provide a somewhat fuller account, and that's what a reasonable first-time user of the encyclopedia would expect and prefer.
• This paragraph is about the history surrounding the election and its aftermath, to explain very briefly why Hamas is in power in Gaza. So, Marokvitz's "During the 1990s and early 2000s, the organization conducted numerous suicide bombings and other attacks directed against Israelis." is logically out of place and gives undue weight to this historical information.
• I have kept most of the "election plus aftermath" information from Marokvitz's version, except that the unsourced statement, "In 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed the Palestinan authority national unity government, headed by Ismail Haniya." has been removed. I have also removed "words to avoid" like "exploited." See WP: Words to avoid. I have also removed Israel and Egypt's official statements on why they imposed a blockade on Gaza, because we don't know if those are the real reasons, and also because, if we include those official statements we then, for balance, would also have to include Hamas's official statements on why they think Israel and Egypt imposed the blockade. All of the preceding, of course could be placed into the Hamas history section.

PARAGRAPH 3 OF LEAD

• Mine and Marokvitz's paragraphs are identical, except that I changed his/hers "Scholars, journalists, and advocacy groups" to "some scholars and advocacy groups." Marokvitz's version implies a universal characterization of Hamas, and the word 'some' fixes that problem. And 'journalists' are less important as a RS than are scholars.Haberstr (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• you just went and deleted stuff because WP:DONTLIKE. it was referenced information. you say you dont like "islamist fundamentalist" label and hamas doesn't call themselves that. of course they do not! but reliable source did, and it is provided there. so you have no right to delete all this information. no censorship here. LibiBamizrach (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Islamist difficult define." That right there sums up your lack of understanding of wikipedia policy. Hamas is described as an Islamist organization by numerous reliable sources. No one describes Hamas as an Islamic organization. CAIR is an Islamic organization, the AMC is an Islamic organization. But Hamas is a Islamist organization. You want to discuss edits, yet you already made the changes and then demand users to debate them. I suggest you restore the original edits, and then we can focus on what you wrote above. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

CAIR is maybe Islamic organization but supports Islamist ones LibiBamizrach (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Haberstr

Your reasoning suggests that you may not be aware of key Wikipedia policies.

• You said: "Islamic is non-controversial, Islamist is difficult to define, has negative connoations that Islamic does not, is not a label Hamas applies to itself". Your opinion does not matter - the fact that Hamas is Islamist is verifiable using reliable sources. Check out WP:V - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Furthermore, the negative connotations are a result of your own cultural bias. Islamist is not necessarily a negative term. Islamism is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system, and that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically. Marokwitz (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am more than happy to include the labels 'fundamentalist' and 'Islamist', but in that case you will have to have attribution (see WP:Attribution) for these labels, since they are not universally ascribed to Hamas. And, consequent to RS attributing the labels 'Islamic' and 'Fundamentalist', and of course including the RS who find the labels 'Islamic' and 'Fundamentalist' problematic or inaccurate, you have a 4 or 5 sentence, long-winded paragraph more suitable for what a new sub-section you could make called 'Labels applied to Hamas'. Such a paragraph would not be appropriate replacing the first sentence of the Hamas encyclopedia entry.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for attribution other than citations (which is what WP:Attribution is talking about), the qualifiers are universal and you have not brought any evidence to the contrary. The sources are not questionable and are not self-published. Marokwitz (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• You said: "Removed Fundamentalist. (The word has negative connotations, Hamas has not imposed Shariah or anything remotely similar to the social rules imposed in, for example, Saudi Arabia, and Fundamentalist is not a label Hamas applies to itself.)" - In fact, WP:V clearly states - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.". Furthermore, the negative connotations are a result of your own cultural bias. Fundamentalist is not necessarily a negative term. Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to an established set of basic religious principles, sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life. Marokwitz (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am more than happy to include the labels 'fundamentalist' and 'Islamist', but in that case you will have to have attribution (see WP:Attribution) for these labels, since they are not universally ascribed to Hamas. And, consequent to RS attributing the labels 'Islamic' and 'Fundamentalist', and of course including the RS who find the labels 'Islamic' and 'Fundamentalist' problematic or inaccurate, you have a 4 or 5 sentence, long-winded paragraph more suitable for what a new sub-section you could make called 'Labels applied to Hamas'. Such a paragraph would not be appropriate replacing the first sentence of the Hamas encyclopedia entry.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• You "Restored' "Since June 2007 Hamas has governed the Gaza portion of the Palestinian Territories, after it won a large majority in the Palestinian Parliament in January 2006 and then defeated rival Palestinian party Fatah in a series of violent clashes. The European Union, the United States, and three other countries classify Hamas as a terrorist organization."" - You restored unverifiable factually wrong information that contradicts the article itself. There are more than three other countries. Furthermore, choosing only the US and EU and not naming other countries is a clear case of WP:SYSTEMIC. Why are the US and EU more important to list than Japan, Jordan, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada or Israel? And based on what sources did you reach the count of three countries? Marokwitz (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked you earlier simply to state what those 'more than three' countries are. You still haven't done that, as far as I can tell, but I suggest you look more closely at 'Canada', 'Jordan', and 'Australia' and how they officially regard Hamas. It is not that difficult, since the sources you'll need to look at are all readily available in the 'International designation of Hamas' subsection.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• You wrote "The historical origins information is of far less importance to most readers here; they would want and expect that info, of course, to be in the history section. " - Wrong. Per WP:LEDE the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. WP:MOS states that what is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each. See also WP:RECENTISM. Marokwitz (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead does stand alone, as I have edited it, as a concise overview of an NPOV Hamas entry. This is a matter of judgment: how much history should be in the lead, and how much in the history sub-section.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• You wrote : "Marokvitz's "During the 1990s and early 2000s, the organization conducted numerous suicide bombings and other attacks directed against Israelis." is logically out of place and gives undue weight to this historical information." again, the order of specific sentences or paragraphs in the lead paragraphs is debatable, but per WP:LEDE the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article, and obviously this is a very important part of their history and identity, like it or not, any summary of this article would be incomplete without mentioning the militant operations against Israelis. Marokwitz (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Responsively, I have added a clause referring directly to suicide attacks associated with Hamas. How many times have you been responsive to my edits? I am referring at least to my numerous grammatical and spelling corrections, all of which have been ignored in wholesale reversions.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• You removed "In 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed the Palestinan authority national unity government, headed by Ismail Haniya." - in fact this is written in the article itself, as well as in the wiki-linked article, and is easily verifiable. Another citation can be easily added, no need to remove. 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This national unity 'government' never actually governed, so this formation was one of the least important events in the history of Gaza and Hamas. It should most definitely not be in the lead section.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So, my changes were all based on Wikipedia policies and reliable sources, and your reverts were rationalized solely by your personal opinions. You don't like the verifiable fact that Hamas is an Islamist fundementalist group, so you decide to whitewash or censor the article. I invite other editors to judge whether your accusations against me were fair, and which of us is trying to push POV. Marokwitz (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me a response and summary lacking in WP:Assume good faith, since all of my edits and reversions are well-explained with reference to WP policies, and are openly intended to revert to the stable pre-September 15 Hamas article but incorporating your and other editors good and non-POV changes.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am aware of Wikipedia policy and I believe you misinterpret it. Again, we don't just stick in everything verifiable to an RS source, especially not in the introductory section. Some thought need to give to balance (from a world perspective), importance and bloated articles. I can't believe you don't agree with the preceding.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Secondly, the material in the opening three sentences should be non-disputed characterizations of the group or person, unless the controversial characterization is vital to defining who that person/entity is, even in the 'simplified definition' space of the first paragraph. So, "Islamic" communicates nearly as much as the more disputed terms "Islamist" and "fundamentalist". It's baffling that you insist on including those two disputed terms but not the non-controversial and non-disputed "Islamic". Why?Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Islamist and fundementalist are well defined and universally accepted characterizations of Hamas. These are the words used by reliable sources to describe the ideology of Hamas. In my extensive research I didn't see any scholar disputing that Hamas is a member of the Islamist and fundamentalist movements. This article used these terms way before I edited it. As far as I know, the only one disputing that these terms applies to Hamas is you, and unfortunately your opinion does not count as a reliable source. Marokwitz (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• "You restored unverifiable factually wrong information . . ." is false, as far as I can tell. You'll have to do more than just assert. Show me the evidence for this contention.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Read me explanation again. I wrote which part contradicts the article and is factually wrong. Marokwitz (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No you didn't. You asserted something was factually wrong without stating exactly what that something was and without providing evidence.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate repeating myself, but the number "three" was wrong, unsourced, and contradicted the article, and failing to mention the names of these countries is systemic bias. Marokwitz (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate repeating myself, but I have asked you several times to document a number beyond "three"; if you cannot do so, then your complaint is wrong, unsourced, and contradicted by the article, and pretending there are more than three countries that officially characterize Hamas as 'terrorist' is systemic bias.Haberstr (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• For getting a quick grip on the who/what/why of Hamas, I think you're wrong to feel the old 1980s info would be considered more important to most readers than the 2006-2007 info on how Hamas came to power and the 2008-2009 info on the Israeli invasion of Gaza.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia policy says quite clearly that the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. Wikipedia is not a news source. Focusing on the events of 2006-2009 in the lead of an article about an organization was founded in the 1980's while completely ignoring the rest is not proper style for an encyclopedia article. Marokwitz (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead does stand alone, as I have edited it, as a concise overview of an NPOV Hamas entry. This is a matter of judgment: how much history should be in the lead, and how much in the history sub-section.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a matter of judgement. However it is clear that omitting anything that happened before 2006, as in the previous version of the article, is not a proper overview of the article. Marokwitz (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

My version refers to several events that happened prior to 2006, such as the suicide attacks and the classification of Hamas as terrorist. If you would like to add more, specify them. For example, in my next edit I may add a reference to the Muslim Brotherhood roots of Hamas. Let's be more positive, cooperative, and SPECIFIC!Haberstr (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for agreeing that putting things in incorrect chronological order should be avoided. The suicide bombing stuff is an important part of Hamas's past, but is subsumed under the fact, noted in sentence three of my intro, that Hamas is designated 'terrorist' by various countries/entities. But we perhaps should add a reference to "suicide attacks" into the 'designated terrorist' sentence.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for agreeing that the suicide bombing stuff is an important part of Hamas's past. As you said it is important to put history in chronological order, so it should be in the paragraph summarizing the history. The designation of Hamas is in the present a different matter altogether from its historical actions. Marokwitz (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Good, a little bit of agreement here.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• The forming of the unity government appears never to have taken effect on the ground in either Gaza or the West Bank, and was therefore essentially meaningless. 'In fact meaningless' events should not be in the intro section.Haberstr (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• It did take effect, and it was far from meaningless. It was a key moment in Hamas history. According to the analyst Graham Usher in the Middle East Report, "the Islamist party had not come so close to reconciliation with Fatah since it emerged as a political force in the late 1980s ". I really cannot see why you are so keen to remove this non-controversial, verifiable and reliably sourced fact. Marokwitz (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your favored source does not state any meaning derives from the event. "Come so close" happened, and this 'unity government' agreement indicates "come so close," but no reconciliation in fact came about. This was an exceptionally minor event and of course should not be in the lead section.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I interpret this event differently, as a milestone in Hamas history. It's an editorial decision and open to discussion, but I think that the sources back me on the importance of this event. I'm sure you won't object to asking other editors in a straw poll and reaching consensus about this question? Marokwitz (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out, my opinion is more in accord with your own favored source's opinion.Haberstr (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)