Talk:Al-Fateh

Untitled

I am not sure at all Al Fateh is notable enough for an article, as an other user before me who put a tag immediately taken off. The point of making articles on news sources (newspaper, TV, websites), as I understand it at least, is in order to be able to use these sources in other articles (so people who don't know anything about the source can have a general idea of it). I don't believe Al Fateh qualifies as a WP:RS reliable source for Wikipedia. Furthermore, I express my concerns that, despite this article being, for the time been at least, "anti-al-Fateh" (which is a violation of NPOV, but I will certainly not argue against it here...). However, I believe that this may actually be counter-productive and work as effective propaganda in favor of Hamas. Describing Hamas as an extremist movement may sometimes be useful, and is generally true ; but one may wonder if it doesn't advance its cause in other time. Dada used to say: "people that like dada speak about dada, people that don't like dada speak about dada, everybody speaks about dada". Tazmaniacs 01:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS

Per WP:RS al-fatah is good as a souce about it self. As for your second concern about notability, there are clear mention of this subject so clearly it is of interst to many. Surly, hamas is notable enough and al-fatah web site is part of Hamas.Zeq 03:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its notable

This website is notable and needs more promoting under propaganda and terrorism topics.Hypnosadist 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell me why you want to promote this website. Are you a member of Hamas? Tazmaniacs 14:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs, he did not mean promotion at this sense I am sure. People hwo get to this web site don't do it via english wikipedia. It is a notable subject that require attention: Educating children in areas of conflict. maybe we need such category. This is clearly of encyclopedia value. Zeq 15:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the defence Zeq i did not mean the way Taz thought. This is i believe is a war crime as it goes against the rules of using child soldiers.Hypnosadist 15:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

rewriting this article

Hope I am not violating any policy here (I am a new user).

I think the present version of the article is better than the old one. In the present version I added:

• More resources and examples (ADL, PMW, CAMERA, Jerusalem Post, Ynet).
• Hamas response (NPOV)
• The discussion about who is exactly behind this website
• Webservers that hosted this website and that refused to host it.

Thus the present version is not just anti Israeli incitement alone as the old version.

I believe the present version is much needed (please look at the last contributions for the article Hamas - any attempts to insert more detail about the "Al Fateh" website are reverted because they are "too detailed". Even the original CAMERA material from the old article was recently erased because it is "not really needed for the summary" [1]).

Also, I think this website is an issue concerning many people and thus deserves an article just as Radio Islam deserves an article of its own.

Thanks for understanding (again, I apologize if I am breaking some rule).

Tkalisky (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Needs lots of NPOV work!

(I wrote this last night, but wikipedia had problems with their servers preventing me from saving) The problems with this article start at the very first sentence! "Al-Fateh is the Hamas children's magazine." A couple of semantic issues, which can be easily fixed: the article should start with what it is, and then say who's behind it. Also by THE Hamas children's magazine, does that mean that there are no other "Hamas children's magazines", or the "official" one? My main concern, however, is the designation. Neither Hamas nor the magazine editors/publishers claim there is any link between the two. Having it called a "Hamas website" by MEMRI and all the other Israeli or pro-Israeli does not make it so.

The next sentence is fine, when it started, what issue it is on currently, etc...

Then, two completely unrelated sentences are slapped together: The site states it is for "the young builders of the future" and it has a link to the Hamas official web site. First of all the "builders of the future" part is actually on the website, below the name of the magazine in Arabic (I've removed the tag), and then it says it has a link to the Hamas website. Again, this is based on some report that says it has a link to palestine-info which, (contrary to the claim of the source), is not the official website of Hamas. It is a news website, that is very possibly run by Hamas, but was denied by the organization. It is definitely "Hamasist". I don't see how this link is relevant to the builders of the future part, or to the opening paragraph, especially, since I could not find the link on the website itself (it might have existed at one point in time).

After that it is all about criticizm of the magazine/website (with one short sentence at the very end saying that Hamas says the whole premise of this article is false, and then saying but Israelis say they're not).

Finally, all the sources given are Israeli, pro-Israeli, or anti-Palestinian. That will probably always be the case, because there is hardly any notability of this magazine outside these circles.

Good luck to anyone attempting to fix this mess! --Fjmustak (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

General problem with this article

This article contains hardly a single word that isn't sourced to an Israeli or Jewish advocacy organization. Frankly such a blatant violation of NPOV should see the article deleted until someone is willing to write it properly. Zero^talk 11:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Restoring tag. Here is the discussion: This article contains hardly a single word that isn't sourced to an Israeli or Jewish advocacy organization. Frankly such a blatant violation of NPOV should see the article deleted until someone is willing to write it properly. Zero^talk 16:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

Most of the page is a criticism section cited to less than stellar sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You are entirely correct, and perhaps overly-generous in your euphemistic assessment of the quality of the sources. I have submitted a deletion request for the page. yaguzi (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)