Talk:Hamas/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

False Claim about Anti-semitic conspiracy theories

This is a standard anti-Muslim canard employed by Zionist agents and propagandists. In fact, there is no "conspiracy thinking" by Hamas. If one's family and ancestral home were destroyed by uniformed Jewish-Israeli soldiers, then how can noticing that destruction, properly labelling it an aggressive war-crime, and protesting this destruction be "conspiratorial"?

The fact would have to be proven that it was destroyed wantonly and not because it was being used as a military station, as is common practice for terrorists. So, no "war crime" can be proven. FlaviaR (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole article smacks of Israeli intelligence propaganda it mocks the objectivity of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.149.81 (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas's founding charter makes reference to anti-zionist propaganda documents that have been proven forgeries. But I guess that was all the work of Zionist Agents.Kingoomieiii (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

I beg to differ: it references anti-Semtiic forgeries. The "Protocols" have absolutely nothing to do with Zionism, except that Zionism is part of Judaism as a religion. FlaviaR (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is little known, and perhaps surprising, to learn that Israel initially supported and may have even assisted in funding Hamas. During the occupation, before the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, Israel correctly reasoned that Gazans would be better served and received by Islamic charitable organizations creating hospitals, educational facilities, and even social welfare. This was considered preferable to Israeli direct governace at a micro-level. At the initial stages, Hamas was primarily such an organization, at least to Israeli perceptions. Furthermore, Israel had been hopeful that organizations such as Hamas would eventually keep terror groups in line, by improving the standard of living. Unfortunately, Hamas quickly adopted a military wing, and Israel's experiment with supporting social organizations for Palestinians came to an end.

Human Shields?

I have heard analysis of Hamas suggesting the use of human shields. Does this have grounds for inclusion? Or is it overly subject to issues of balance, undue weight, and impartial tone? Perhaps the very use of the phrase ‘human shield’ instills bias in the reader, and the issue is currently far too partisan to warrant inclusion.

As an alternative, the ‘Provision of social welfare and education’ section could be supplemented with the addition of a direct quote from Fathi Hamad when addressing the Palestine Authority Legislative Council:

"For the Palestinian people death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and the children excel. Accordingly (Palestinians) created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death as you desire Life’."

Perhaps, in this existing education section, editors could write a section of Saraa Barhoum too. This could include some critical academic analysis of martyrdom themes therein, and how it relates to the martyrdom themes (e.g. ‘We desire death...’) included in the Fathi Hamad address.

I completely understand if editors disagree with any mention of this, given how prone it is to bias and POV pushing. Martin0001 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for a new subsection in ‘Militancy and political violence’. Please expand, reduce, and question what I’ve written, with particular emphasis on NPOV, balance, use of words and impartiality:

Use of civilians

See also: Human Shields in Gaza and the West Bank

A Hamas official has commented on the use of Palestinian civilians in warfare. On February 29, 2008, Fathi Hamad, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, stated on Al-Aqsa TV,

For the Palestinian people death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and the children excel. Accordingly (Palestinians) created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death as you desire Life’.^[1]^[2]

END. What do editors think? Martin0001 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[cross-posting]

Hi FayssalF! You recently removed an addition I made to the Hamas site. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I had placed my addition, references and all, in the talk page for over 24 hours. Nobody even commented on it, so I was surprised to see you removed it after posting. Perhaps I'm being unrealistic, I guess I can't expect every editor to check the talk page first.

In any case, I suspected that the Youtube link my have been considered lackluster to some editors for such a controversial issue. That is why I added an additional link to a newspaper reporting on the speech.

I'm somewhat offended that you didn't clarify why that ref was also unacceptable. I'm also concerned that now that you've made the revision, you'll be hesitant to accept the other reference I provided, whereas if I'd never used the youtube link, you might have left the passage be. I hope this doesn't offend you or seem impolite, but from my perspective of your edit summary, it looks like you didn't consider the other reference and chose to delete all my work rather than amend to remove the youtube link.

Thanks buddy, get back to me. Martin0001 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martin, there are two problems with that section. a) verifiability (translation) and b) neutrality (biased sources). They are both policies and not just guidelines. I appreciate the fact that you had used the talk page before inserting the section but the fact that no one has commented doesn't mean that people agree. I'd agree if you just use some of the resources we have at Human shields#Gaza and the West Bank instead as they are well-sourced and verified. And please, avoid quote farming because we have Wikisource for that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey again. You noted " I'd agree if you just use some of the resources we have at Human shields#Gaza and the West Bank instead as they are well-sourced and verified.", I did use the source from that site... it was that so famed second reference I mentioned. Didn't you look at it? or compare it to the ref provided on the site you asked me to look at?

BTW, thanks for telling me about the quote framing thing. I guess I'll have to try and rephrase it. Or I could copy paste the relevant info from Human shields#Gaza and the West Bank, but I think what's been written for that site could be improved upon. Martin0001 (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you used a source apart from the Youtube video. In fact, there are many third party sources that are unbiased wich represent neither side of the conflict. There is a big difference about the reporting of -say- the BBC (an example) and others who may be one-sided. Someone else may argue with you and refer to this video. Wikipedia is about neutrality and using one-sided sources are contradictory to our mission here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to keep in mind that there has never been a proven instance of Hamas using human shields. A recent claim of such was the bombing of a school that Hamas was using to fire missiles from. The proof was a picture of mortars fired from a street near the school. Near is not the same as in. Even the Hamas "admittions" of using human shields is deceptive as they are not claiming to deliberately use them but are talking about civilians volunteering to be human shields without being requested to do so. If biased but otherwise reliable sources claim having civilians nearby (not directly associated with militants) is the same as using human shields then it remains POV to make that claim here. Wayne (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

Interesting perspective Wayne, I didn’t think of that. It could be a POV to present the quote as an ‘admission’. What are we actually seeing? Fathi Hamad said something, and the evidence of it being a reality is not addressed, making it closer to politics than Hamas tactics. We could emphasise that Hamad was testifying nothing more than a value of Hamas, in contrast to portraying their words as an admission of practice.

Some presentations, such as framing it under headings like ‘Death industry’, are prone to POV. However, we could place the quote into a section called ‘Themes of martyrdom’, within the ‘Militancy and political violence’ section. The information does contain themes of martyrdom (e.g. ‘We desire death as you desire Life’, ‘death became an industry’, ‘Palestinians created a human shield’). The term ‘martyrdom’ is not negative/positive in and of itself, and the addition of ‘themes’ makes it more conservative as it implies only the mere presence of ‘themes’ within Hamas militancy and political violence. You could even call it ‘Political themes of martyrdom’. How about this:

Militancy and political violence

Themes of martyrdom

A Hamas official has commented on the role of Palestinian civilians in warfare. On February 29, 2008, Fathi Hamad, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, stated on Al-Aqsa TV, “For the Palestinian people death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and the children excel. Accordingly (Palestinians) created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death as you desire Life’."^[3]

How about that? Martin0001 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that the deafening silence of consensus I hear? Hmmm, perhaps people have lives. I’ll wait a few hours and reintroduce our new version this afternoon. Martin0001 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No consensus. Poorly sourced fringe view. No major media picked this up. Can you find any real WP:RS saying this is the mainstream Hamas opinion?

Until then, this stays out. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 15.01.2009 12:09

No worries:

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

Get back to me. Martin0001 (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, people have moved on from this issue, leaving me behind in a lukewarm pool of consensus. I'm going to make that addition again, after selecting two of what I think are the strongest refs. At the moment, I'm thinking [11] and [12]. Martin0001 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want to go down that road? According to the UN and Red Cross just to name two vocal sources Hamas has never used human shields. Israel on the other hand regularly uses them so will you mention that as well? The IDF call it the "neighbour procedure" and it is as much using human shields as the worst Hamas has been accused of. I believe some soldiers were reprimanded recently for forcing civilians to walk in front of them. Only last week Amnesty International accused the IDF of regularly using Palestinians houses, while refusing to allow the occupants to leave, as observation posts and firing positions. This is an encyclopedia not a propaganda paper. Wayne (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you insist on adding that quote, which can be taken out of context, then I suggest you include this recent one which is far more relevant and from a more notable source, Hamas founder Mahmud az-Zahar: "We used peaceful demonstrations in the first intifada and Israel used force. We threw stones and they used force, deportations and mass killings. We’re playing inside the body of Israel. It used dirty methods in order to strengthen their existence and to extend their borders. We don’t admire violence, but we have been forced to use methods against Israeli aggression." Wayne (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(removed indent) Hey there Wayne, thanks for the feedback. I remember your original criticisms regarding this inclusion; you were an important element in having the entry rephrased to the improved form. I was certain to make sure it’s not a statement concluding that Hamas use human shields, instead framing it more accurately as a notable piece of information relating to political themes of martyrdom. This evidence does not insist that human shields are a Hamas military tactic. Instead, it describes in the briefest fashion that Hamas militancy maintains some themes of martyrdom. This is difficult to dispute.

On your other point, are you suggesting that Hamas’ themes of martyrdom somehow validates including information of Israeli tactics in the Hamas article? I researched the “neighbour procedure" and think it’s interesting. However, I disagree with your conclusions about balancing the Hamas article with its inclusion. I would think that the article on Israel would be a more appropriate location. If it’s important to you, perhaps you could try to add it to the Israeli article, as a piece on the IDF disregarding the 6 October (2005) decision from the Israeli High Court of Justice, after the 2002 petition from human rights organizations (e.g. B'Tselem). If on the other hand you were suggesting a more comparative approach, then the broader Human_shield article is more fitting. That article details Israeli human rights violations in this area, which is one of the reasons I added it to the ‘see also’ link, and it could benefit from inclusion of the ‘neighbour procedure’. Best of luck, and you might find these refs useful: [13][14][15]

I wouldn’t say az-Zahar’s words are “far more relevant” than the Fathi Hamad’s in relation to themes of martyrdom. That quote seems to relate to his perceptions of the First_Intifada, not martyrdom. Regarding your source, I’ve only found one reference in The National from Abu Dhabi, which would actually make that quote a fringe issue. I only emphasise it as az-Zahar’s ‘perceptions’ as there is contradictory evidence catalogued here First_Intifada, which is a similar reason (contradictory evidence) we reduced Hamad’s quote from the loaded ‘Human shields’ to the accurate ‘Themes of martyrdom’. You could try placing it in the Mahmoud_al-Zahar article, but the paucity of refs makes me sceptical.

I’m offended by your statement that “This is an encyclopedia (sic) not a propaganda paper.” implying that what I’m saying is just propaganda. I have been working very hard to ensure that my entries are balanced, putting my amendments to editors over and over, and doing my best to describe exactly what I’ve found without imparting bias (AGF). Martin0001 (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Martin0001: my apologies. I was tired and thought it was a continuation of the Human Shield topic again so please read my post in that light. If your quote is on another topic (Themes of martyrdom) then I have no problem with it. As for the propaganda accusation, it was not directed at you personally, I noticed that some nuetral statements in the article have been slightly reworded to make Hamas appear more "evil"? and a few incidents added that even Israel doesn't blame Hamas for. I then read your post and jumped the gun. I have no problem with your editing and applaud your explanations of edits and acceptance of critism in talk. Keep up the good work. Wayne (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly do not recognise either [16] or [17] as reliable sources. Micah Halpern [18] is an Israeli-American whose writing is consistently biased against the Palestinian perspective. [19] would ordinarily have pro-Palestinian bias, though, so the fact that it has come out with an article connecting Hamas to a culture of death is interesting. At the end of it all, though, I really would like to see some more mainstream sourcing for your proposed addition to the article. PinkWorld (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

PinkWorld. It’s difficult to argue that The_Spectator is not a mainstream source, given that it is a worldwide media outlet that’s been published since 1828. National_Review has a similar record, published since 1955. Here’s another mention in a premier Australian newspaper The Daily Telegraph [20], which has been publishing since 1879 and is arguably one of the largest newspapers in Australia. These are at the very least mainstream sources, if not global media heavyweights (esp. The Spectator). That’s not even considering the coverage by organisations like Bridges for Peace (founded in 1976), and secondary reporting from bodies such as Snaphanen [21] and News Blaze[22]. What’s more, the translation comes from both the Gloria Center and MEMRI. This is then reported by Palestinian_Media_Watch, which you yourself say has a pro-Palestinian bias, and could be interpreted as a third independent validation of the translation.

To summarize: The translation is accurate according to three separate groups, the issue has been well reported by multiple mainstream global news bodies, and the addition is conservatively worded and balanced. Martin0001 (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Daily Telegraph isn’t the largest Australian newspaper, the Herald_Sun (1990) is, reaching 1.5 million readers. Apart from this paper and the Daily Telegraph, The_Australian (1964) also reported it, giving us three mainstream sources in Australia alone [23][24][25]. This has an estimated total readership of over two million people. Martin0001 (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ambassador Shalev even included it in her speech to the UN Security Council. [26] Martin0001 (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Spectator is a magasine. It is published by the same people who produce The Telegraph. It has been described as conservative, even supporting the American neo-conservative trend, and supportive of Israel. Why not cite "The Telegraph," since newspapers are supposed to distinguish between news and editorial opinion, along with other sources that would back up the Telegraph? The National Review is also a very conservative magasine. MEMRI has ties to conservative think tanks in the US and has been criticised as a selectively biased propagandist by Brian Whitaker of The Guardian, unbiased by Norman Finkelstein, and inbalanced by former US ambassador William Rugh. Ken Livingstone, former London mayor, accused MEMRI of distortion. Juan Cole, U of M Middle East History professor and RAND director Bruce Hoffman have accused MEMRI of mistranslation. Le Monde Diplomatique has even demonstrated that MEMRI removes content before translating or adds words that did not exist in the original. MEMRI cannot be considered a reliable source, either for original academic work or for translations. We are left, then, with the Palestine Media Watch. Again, the Telegraph might be acceptable, but given that its producers are conservative, I would like to see other supporting references from less biased sources. PinkWorld (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

You’re mixing up my references, I cited The Daily Telegraph from Australia, which is produced by the News Corporation, not Barclay Brothers. They belong to independent publishers from different countries.

While you have issues with citing a magazine, I would refer you to the Verifiability policy, which states that a magazine is an acceptable source. Inclusion of material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed according to Wikipedia policy, and as I’ve established, these are undeniably mainstream. The position that a news provider is not a reliable source because it is described as being closer to one political stance than another is a POV. In other words, deleting issues covered by Spectator because the magazine is conservative is a POV. By that same logic, MEMRI criticism from newspapers such as Le Monde Diplomatique would be similarly inadmissible, due to said newspapers Left political stance. An example: “Excluding the Guardian for facts because of its liberal/social democratic editorial line would be like excluding Canada's National Post because of its conservative/neo-conservative editorial line.”[27]

These facts are largely irrelevant, as inclusion of these media sources was primarily required to demonstrate that the quote was notable and mainstream. They are meant to show this is not a fringe issue, which they do successfully. With that secured, the core material is the quote, printed unchallenged by multiple sources. These sources are independent, sitting on different sides of the debate, with all supporting the quote.

I think your conclusions about MEMRI are wrong, and wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss them. Consider this section in the reliable sources noticeboard. The final position from the remaining MEMRI critic, Nickhh, regarding admissibility of MEMRI translations is: “it is OK to cite them subject to the usual caution, and so long as there is clear attribution.” I would say that the PMW reprinting,[28] along with the heavy mainstream coverage, is sufficient to satisfy ‘usual caution’. According to the discussion of PMW reliability (directly below the MEMRI discussion), it is also an acceptable source, so perhaps it should be added to the quotation for balance. In any case, the pervading wisdom in official reliability discussions is that MEMRI is acceptable. Martin0001 (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I did confuse your sources. As an American, I am familiar with the News Corporation, at least with Fox TV. It is notoriously biased against all things Arab and Muslim and towards all things neo-conservative. I have heard that the same is true of of News Corporation itself and Rupert Murdoch. I would not consider the News Corporation to be a reliable source of information about American politics or the Arab/Muslim world. You are also right about magasines. My conern lies with magasines that have an obvious political slant one way or another. For example, Counterpunch is extremely liberal; National Review is very conservative; and US News & World Report is horribly anti-Palestinian. I would not use National Review or Counterpunch for information related to Barack Obama's policies, nor would I reference US News & World Report for anything about the Middle East. The conservative slant of National Review does indeed have me suspicious about anything that they would say about anything Palestinian. Regarding MEMRI (2, 3) (translations, I cannot bring myself to trust them after reading the critiques of Juan Cole (see also 1), William Rugh, and the afore-linked Brian Whitaker. Juan Cole is a professor of Middle East History at the University of Michigan. William Rugh was a US ambassador to Yemen. These two have much to lose by launching false accusations against an organisation such as MEMRI. I would think the same of Whitaker. CNN's Arabic translators have also caught MEMRI translating errors. I stand by my assertion that MEMRI is not a reliable translation source, regardless of what Nickhh might say. I would certainly want more than one other reliable source backing up any translation offered by MEMRI. By the way, one of the articles from The Guardian is a very good source for Hamas and the culture of Martyrdom. Hopefully more sources can be found validating MEMRI's translation of the quote that you found so that the section would have flesh. I do firmly believe that Hamas uses the media for propaganda purposes to encourage militant acts against Israel. I just want leek-proof sourcing. I also think that Hamas has done good things for Palestinian society (see charitable works in the article). PinkWorld (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

(removed indent) Hi PinkWorld, I’m ready to continue our dialogue on reliability. You say that these sources are unreliable because of their alleged conservative bias. I have collected some quotes on that:

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article.

This is the reason the Neutral Point of View policy exists. News providers have a POV, but we report what they report from a neutral perspective, not exclude them. Editor Blueboar contributes:

Wikipedia does not equate Bias with Unreliability... thus, a reliable source can be biased (and conversely a biased source can be reliable). The important thing is that we should not be biased in our articles (see WP:NPOV).

And your concerns about MEMRI apply to this situation also, and a section from Verifiability is especially relevant:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

MEMRI, Spectator, National Review, The Daily Telegraph, The Herald Sun, The Australian and the UN Security Council are considered reliable by others, if not by you, and any apparent bias is irrelevant with the current NPOV policies by which we operate. However, unless I’m misreading you, you consider PMW reliable. As it has published the quote, that would mean “that (the) material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source”, even if you don’t see all of those mainstream sources as reliable. I would think this fulfils my burden of evidence.

In response to your concerns about Fox News, which is not even a source here and is only partially connected with the parent company of another source in a different country, Editor Protonk contributes:

Regardless of what you may think of Fox News, they have news crews, editors, fact checkers and so forth.

Fox News serves as an excellent case study about how an allegedly bias news body is still considered a reliable source. For the most part, the primary reasons I’ve found regarding it’s exclusion relate more to disliking it than NPOV policy:

...while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is ‘unencyclopedic’.

Thanks mate, get back to me on what you think. Martin0001 (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You definitely seem to have a point about the newspapers/e-papers. I am not entirley certain, though, that MEMRI can be consdiered a verifiable source for translations because of the fact that others have found errors in their work. PinkWorld (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

We’ve talked in length about MEMRI’s issues, and how it is nevertheless considered reliable as per the noticeboard links. If they were the only group from the region reporting the quote I’d be sceptical, but they’re not, PMW has accepted it too. PMW is considered more reliable than MEMRI in the boards, and they have supported MEMRI’s version by reprinting it. I’ll add PMW to the references to concrete this. Martin0001 (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

'End of 2008 Ceasefire': Nearly Pure POV

This section has particularly flagrant pro-Israel, anti-Hamas POV.Haberstr (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I just removed two claims from that section as they are not Hamas actions. Some editors seem to think that anything "bad" a Palestinian/Arab does is equivalent to Hamas doing it and should go on their page and thats a big problem. Editors need to make sure the source at least accuses Hamas. Wayne (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can somebody change the pronunciation in the main article from Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat to Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah (you can check that it should be like that in French, Spanish and other versions)

European Union terrorist designation

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

Do you have a better source from the EU themselves? I'm sure they maintain a better list than the funding document that's flouted here all the time... pedrito - talk - 14.03.2008 15:19

Hamas is a terror organization - including in the EU [29] Zeq (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Zeq, thanks! That's exactly the document I was talking about. The one that does not designate them as a terrorist organisation but states that, in "view to combating terrorism" that certain people are subject to restrictive measures. The EU is usually not generally in the business of calling elected governments "terrorist". pedrito - talk - 14.03.2008 15:28

Hamas is not currently part of a democratically elected government. Hamas violently overthrew the democratically elected goverment which they participated in. The Hamas dictatorship of the Gaza strip has no constitutional legitimacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.124.21 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Council of the European Union may have made such a designation, but that is not the same as saying "The European Union has designated..." This ground has been well-trodden in the past, so I suggest the naysayers spend a little time in this page's archives to get a refresher. Tarc (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

By that view, the EU doesn't designate ANY group as terrorists. Now, for those of you not familiar with the EU Structure, http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/treaties/selected/livre107.html , Article 34: "The Council shall take measures and promote cooperation...contributing to the pursuit of the objectives of the Union...To that end, acting unanimously on the initiative of any Member State or of the Commission, the Council may: (a) adopt common positions defining the approach of the Union to a particular matter..." etc. The source in question states: "the Council has concluded that the persons, groups and entities listed in the Annex to this Decision have been involved in terrorist acts within the meaning of Article 1(2) and (3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism..." Now, if we want to quibble over the semantics of the source, whether "...groups...[that] have been involved in terrorists acts" are "terrorist groups, I'm willing to acquiesce to a different wording. I'm going to add into the article, then, that the EU "lists Hamas as a group 'involved in terrorist attacks.'" Is this agreeable? If not, why?--Nate (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Many many muslim support Hamas and calling them terrorist just angers more. span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.183.4 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC) You should call things for what they are not to please anyone

Hamas was elected in a Democracy, however shortly after being elected, Hamas chose to violently overthrow the government which they were elected to, similar to how Hitler and other dictators seized power after being elected. Statements which claim Hamas is a democratically elected government are biased in favor of Hamas.

This article has an American Point of view. If not for actual quoatations you can say all the sources is American too.

This article is ridiculously BIASED —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 13:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've deleted the following, for example, since it fails to match Wiki's policy of NPOV, but much more work is needed on this article:

"The enemy is defined primarily in terms of antisemitic conspiracy theories of world Jewish domination.<ref name=Worlddomination>" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.143.249 (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

...and in so doing, destroyed a reference, and removed a fact cited to seven reliable sources. I've fixed that. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The article contains inaccuracies. In its discussion of the background to the current Israeli attack, it contains a series of increasingly exaggerated assertions of how many rockets were fired from Gaza, culminating in the claim that these 'spiked at two hundred a day, according to the Israeli government.' The footnote refers to a Time magazine article, which notes that Israeli officials forecast that 'the number of Palestinian rocket attacks could now spike to 200 a day.' In other words, a prediction (which has not been borne out) of what would happen AFTER Israel attacked has been transmogrified into an event that actually occurred BEFORE the attack.

I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to undertake editing this myself. Perhaps someone else could do so. While they're at it, they might want to check most of the other assertions concerning how many rockets were launched and who launched them. I don't have the figures in front of me, but most of the claims in the article seem inflated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.138.239 (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The EU's foreign aid chief Louis Michel said during his visit to Gaza: "Hamas is acting in the way of a terrorist movement" (^[4] Does it reflect the position of European Union or is it once again somebody's personal view? Deinocheirus (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A politician's utterance probably does not carry the same weight as an official designation, no. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing of the image

File:Gilad Shalit on Hamas poster.jpg What's wrong in having this image in the article. it is hamas own poster. what neutrality we're talking about?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please reduce the size of the image ;) It looks like a myspace page. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to a link rather than the actual image. As to the image itself, what relevance or context does it provide, Shalit barely warrants a few lines in the litany of Hamas' history. On his own page, sure, but here and History of Hamas is simply serves no purpose. Tarc (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This image is not only about Shalit. This image is mostly about hamas, made by hamas itself, tells alot what hamas really is. That's why I believe the image should stay here.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

tells alot what hamas really is tells a lot about insisting on keeping it. tells alot what hamas really is is a point of view. Tarc is right. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at, yea. Another angle is that it is apparently a photograph of a political poster, and regardless of it being hosted on the Commons, coming from someone flickr account and all that, I'm not sure how that jibes with the Wikipedia's WP:NONFREE policy. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You do not have to worry about free content. The image was uploaded to commons with a free license. Now it is the image from Commons and not from Flickr. Yes, I do have point of view about hamas. So what? The image and the caption do not express my POV. I did not paint this poster myself. hamas did. This poster is about hamas in its own words. There are very few images in the article. I really see no problem in the image being there. IMO all reasons for removing the image from the article are bogus.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I really do not see how a picture you or someone took of a political poster qualifies as "free", despite however it may be tagged over at the Commons, it seems a bit suspect. Regardless, your free admission of violating WP:NPOV by placing this image in this and other articles pretty much brings this discussion to an end. Tarc (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. How can an image made by a group not say a lot about that group?? How is it violating POV to point out the obvious?? I did not see any value judgment placed on what it said, other than quantitative - which is not a value, POV-wise. Now, if it truly is not a copyright free image, that's one thing. But it was made BY Hamas, to tell us about themselves. I must repeat, I am confused.FlaviaR (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple, really; Shalit's kidnapping is not a defining event in the history of Hamas. It is one act in a long string of such activities spanning the years. An image accompanying the history of an organization should be something that accompanies and complements the subject matter, and this simply does not. Put it in Shalit's article, put it in an article about political or ideologically-motivated kidnapping, or something along those lines. Juxtaposing the entire history of Hamas with a propaganda poster of one kidnapped soldier simply doesn't cut it, WP:UNDUE-wise. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

By your own response, it's representative of them. If you can find something more fully representative of them, especially one made by them, I would definitely defend its inclusion, too. But I am definitely not convinced this shouldn't stand, since, as is known, they made it themselves. To me, that part is the most important. FlaviaR (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I guess until good reason is given to keep the image out of the article it should be in the article. IMO it is you not me, who are violating WP:ILIKEIT, except in your case it is WP.I don't like it. The discussion could take place with the image in the article as well. IMO it does not really matter that I'm alone and there are two of you because I provided good reasons to keep the image, while you did not. Oh and btw by keeping image out of the article you're making your absolutely unreasonable POV.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reasons have been given, none of which are "I don't like it". Tarc (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure you gave me the reasons, but none of them is a good one:

1. Non free image reason is radiculus. The image is as free as all other images on Commons.

2. POV reason is not proved. Yes, I have POV, but neither the image nor the image description do.

--Mbz1 (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You are saying that [it] 'tells alot [sic] what hamas really is' and that's your argument for your point view. Other views say that 'they are known of many things' and caprturing foreign soldiers is certainly not their main activity and if you want that image being used rationally and objectively and according to policy then you may find [Hamas propaganda] or Gilad Shalit (where it is already posted) appropriate (because —objectively and not subjectively— the picture is consisted of two elements; communication/propaganda and a subject which is the captured soldier is this case). In brief, my view then concurs with that of Tarc when he talks about undue weight policy.

Whatever point of view you may have you need to explain what you really mean by the picture 'telling us a lot what hamas really'. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Islamist? (Again)

Of all the things in this article I expected to be controversial, the assertion that Hamas constitutes an "Islamist" organization is not one of them, given the fact that Hamas charters itself as such, quoting directly from Koran and Hadith, and is sworn to the goal of establishing an Islamic state in Palestine. Nonetheless, there appears to be some dispute on this point, using the argument that Hamas has not established an Islamist government in Gaza (news to me, but there you have it), and therefore does not qualify as an Islamist organization. So I guess we need to get some consensus here: should the group be introduced as "Islamist" or not? —Hiddekel (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you feel Hamas has established an Islamist mini-state in Gaza, then provide evidence from credible sources for that.Haberstr (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a criteria you have set; it is not any sort of logical or reasonable minimum criteria for an organization being describable as Islamist or being described as such. All that is relevant is that it is an explicit goal of the organization, which it is, as documented by reliable sources. Removing that descriptor is improper, but since their Islamist nature is described both in their infobox and in detail in the discussion of their charter, it's also an ineffective attempt at whitewashing in any event. — Hiddekel (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does everyone bring up the Charter as if it's some important document like the Constitution or something. Marshaal in an interview stated that while it is at times politically useful it is not enforced and is not Hamas policy. Do we still say that because the west once believed in slavery we still do? Same thing. Wayne (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We bring up the charter because it is still their charter. That some single person says they don't use it anymore (except that they so when "it's usefel") is certainly not proof of anything. For example, Arafat swore to the West that he had removed the anti-Jewish parts of the PLO charter - & he never did. And that the West once supported slavery has been openly atoned for & visibly changed in the laws of countries that no longer support it. If it were truly the same thing, by your own logic we must continue to bring up the Hamas charter. FlaviaR (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

'Controversies' Section

These sections are generally frowned upon at Wikipedia as by their nature they are a negative POV on the subject at hand. I will try to integrate them into the main text, eliminating the phenomenal amount of repetitious content. Well, anyway, it's a big job and will take sometime.Haberstr (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you link to the WP guideline that frowns on "Controversies" sections? I couldn't find it in WP:CONTROVERSY. Nbauman (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring the the subsections entitled "Controversies." As I said, 'controversies' seems by its nature POV. Wikipedia:The perfect article: "A perfect Wikipedia article... is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views." Haberstr (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:PERFECT does not specifically mention a Controversies section. That's your interpretation of WP:PERFECT, correct? Nbauman (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes.Haberstr (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism

"However, its founding charter, writings, and many of its public statements[8] reflect the influence of antisemitic conspiracy theories.[9]"

Isn't this rather weak (to the point of being patently false)? "Reflect the influence" is a rather odd way of stating the fact that the Hamas charter explicitly quotes a known antisemitic forgery (Protocols of the Elders of Zion), and that Hamas has actively refused to remove this reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.124.21 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not false. Article 32 in Hamas charter explicitly says: "...For Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. Only when they have completed digesting the area on which they will have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion, etc. Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present [conduct] is the best proof of what is said there. Leaving the circle of conflict with Israel is a major act of treason and it will bring curse on its perpetrators."

Therefore, it is obvious that Hamas article is inspired by the Protocols, ipso facto, the above claim (reflects the influence...) is RIGHT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.144.121 (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The user from IP 78.1.144.121 did not grasp the point of the first poster. I believe the correct syntax should be "and some of its public statements[8] are influenced by antisemitic conspiracy theories". A reference to article 32 is indeed warranted. (18.74.7.76 (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

Absolute rubbish. How can Hamas be anti-Semitic if they're Semites themselves? Typical Zionist-media pushed propoganda. Hatred for the 'Zionists' and hatred for all Semitic people are two completely different things. The latter of which wouldn't make any sense at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.189.119 (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What is absolute rubbish is the fact that "antisemitism" was coined by a Jew-hater to solely refer to hatred of Jews, & has little to do with any actual racial term. The strawman that "[enter terrorist group here] can't be antisemitic because they are Semites themselves" is either a display of ignorance or a common trick of Jew-haters to try to delegitimize the term. Since I absolutely do not want to accuse anyone of Jew-hatred, I suggest anyone who doubts me to look up Wilhelm Marr. FlaviaR (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

[laugh] What drivel from a pro-Zionist. What blank statements! Ignorance my bumcheek. Please don't insult my intelligence you racist. So you've given a name. So what? Those who oppose Zionism aren't anti-Jew no matter how much rubbish you come up with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.200.126 (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So, maybe we should change the term from Antisemetic to Anti-Jewish. Its clear from the wiki article so far that although there certainly is hatred for the Zionists, there is also clearly a hatred for all Jews as well, as expressed directly is their Mission Statement, which can be viewed at FAS.org--67.188.215.55 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No someone should change the term to 'Anti-Zionist'. The article is biased in favour of Zionism. What do you expect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.118.2 (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

They are not against the Jewish religion, but definitely against Zionism and the creation of Israel

Their grasp of Zionism include some giant Zionist plot against the people of the world and what they consider proper values and this plot include a number of Jewish organizations. Maybe they have nothing against the Jewish religion, just something against any Jewish organization, amongst them the Zionist movement. Selalerer (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Was HAMAS originally supported by Israel to split the PLO?

I think this is an important fact that should be mentioned in the article. See: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8449

Thanks

This is too far-fetched. A reporter that heard it first hand can report it but I'm afraid that until CIA (and other organizations) archives will be open to the public, many years from now, we won't really know if there's truth in the matter or not. Selalerer (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe '...split the PLO...' isn't precise, but can this be used as support? The book, _Road to Martyrs Square_ by Anne Marie Oliver and Paul Steinberg, 2005, Oxford University Press, pgs 28-29, which talk about events leading up to the 1987 adoption of the Hamas moniker

'Six years after [Sheikh Ahmad] Yasin founded the Islamic Center, the Israelis granted it a legal license, which allowed the Islamists a freedom denied their nationalist rivals. In 1978, the Islamic University of Gaza was founded, and it quickly became a major channel through which the [Muslim] Brotherhood could disseminate its doctrine among the youth of the Strip. Israeli acquiescence in the religious and political activities of the Brotherhood continued unabated throughout the late 1970s and 1980s.

'It was more than just a blind-eye policy. Believing that a strengthened Brotherhood would weaken the PLO's influence in the territories, the Israelis were reported to have gone so far as to channel funding to mosques and various Islamic institutions in the territories, knowing full well that they were controlled by the Brotherhood. There were even rumors that they armed the Brothers against the nationalist groups. The nationalists thus claimed that the Brotherhood was little more than an Israeli puppet; the Brotherhood, in turn, argued that the nationalists were agents of a Jewish plot whose true aim was the extirpation of Islam.

...'The intifada erupted in 1987. With the population mobilised and looking mainly to the PLO for direction, and younger members of the Islamic movement chafing at the bit, Yasin and the Brothers abandoned their former gradualism and entered the fray under the name "the Islamic Resistance Movement", or "Hamas", an acronym possessing the meaning of "zeal"'...

Would this support the claim that Hamas may have originally been supported by Israel to undermine the PLO if we can find documentation from the PLO/Fatah and Hamas of their accusations against each other? Monkeybollocks (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In the text you quoted there's "the Israelis were reported" and "There were even rumors". The rumors are obviously something we can't rely on. The reports is something that need to cited directly, this text alone is not enough.

from a Guardian article:
"In the late 1980s, Israel had supported the nascent Hamas in order to weaken Fatah, the secular nationalist movement led by Yasser Arafat." ["How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe," by Avi Shlaim, The Guardian, 7 January 2009, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine/print?2] PinkWorld (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

This is again a news report. A news reporter can rely on sources without exposing them, here you have to cite reliable sources.

No, Avi Shlaim is a respected Israeli historian and an excellent source.Haberstr (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Historian or reporter, this is a news report on a news paper. If this report cite reliable source then those should be used directly. Selalerer (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's an opinion piece by a respected Israeli scholar. I used him directly and clarified that this is an opinion; it is a widely shared one, by the way. It is impossible to get the original Israeli intelligence sources on this matter, so an opinion by a respected historian/scholar is where the matter should rest.Haberstr (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as the article states this is an opinion, it is agreeable by me. Selalerer (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Hamas is antisemitic has been widely denied by Hamas leaders and members. Since it is hard to know the groups intentions, it should not be stated that the group is antisemitic. The charter does not call for the murder of jews and actually the translation for the destruction of israel is not precise either. Many jews live in Iran and are not persecuted or have rights taken away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.0.200 (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Has everyone seen this? Good piece. I think this will settle the question. Unfortunately subscription-based, but some WSJ articles are posted to free web sites.

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html

How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas

By ANDREW HIGGINS

The Wall Street Journal

January 24, 2009

Nbauman (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a free link thanks to Michael Moore. Nbauman (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The MEMRI and Ynetnews Problem

This article is riddled with POV assertions from MEMRI. MEMRI is a controversial source, and the article would be much more neutral if it were not used except when doing a 'compare/contrast' between advocacy journalism/opinion on both sides of certain issues. Similar might be said of ynetnews.com. Why not simply use the enormous amount of information available from BBC, CNN, Reuters, TimesOnline, Guardian, WaPost, and NYTimes (and, in a pinch, Haaretz)?Haberstr (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you mean "controversial," I think you mean "biased, subjective and often wrong." As I understand it, MEMRI is basically a free-lance channel for Israeli government propaganda.

The reason for using MEMRI and Ynet is that many people believe them, and they are the source of many claims. The best way to deal with false information is to state it and refute it with true information. We should state their false claims and refute them.

In addition, it's impossible to figure out a way to decide by consensus that MEMRI is unreliable and other sources, like Juan Cole, are not. WP:RS is written very generally. How do you show that MEMRI is so unreliable that it shouldn't be used in WP, without using the same kind of subjective judgments that people use against Juan Cole? Nbauman (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, we have sources generally considered unbiased, or at least much less biased, than MEMRI or Norman Finkelstein. Neither should have the only say on anything in particular. So, such sources can be used, imho, as 'compare/contrast two sides of a controversy' sources. In the same way Hamas officials and Israeli officials are sources, but we wouldn't want one or the other to have the only word on anything contentious.Haberstr (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I find myself continually confused. How hard is it to point out who lies & who doesn't? I can point to things - for the example given, Juan Cole - has said that are definitely untrue. Has anyone been able to prove that Memri is a "propaganda outlet", or that they've even lied? I feel like I'm down the rabbit hole!! FlaviaR (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is disagreement regarding whether Norman Finkelstein, Juan Cole, and/or MEMRI lie and/or mislead. Since there are a lot of non-controversial news sources available on Hamas, we should 'go there' first. The controversial sources are appropriate when describing two or more sides taken in various controversies. On important matters both sources should be heard when another substantive but not across-the-board accepted source has an opinion directly opposed to that of 'Finkelstein/Cole/MEMRI'.Haberstr (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that Juan Cole is just as WP:RS reliable as the New York Times. He covers the middle east in much more detail than the NYT, and in many cases Juan Cole is all you've got. The NYT essentially summarizes people like Juan Cole. I agree that, among some people, the NYT would have more credibility than Juan Cole, but the converse is also true; I don't see how it follows that we should avoid Juan Cole. If we have a statement sourced to Juan Cole, and somebody finds a statement that confirms it (or challenges it) from the NYT, or MEMRI, they should add it.

You seem to be saying that we should eliminate controversial sources. Who should we use? The NYT? The NYT's own ombudsman said that people on both sides accuse the NYT of bias on Israel-Palestine. How about the Jerusalem Post?

I know Jewish organizations and wealthy individuals that have hired people to claim that people like Juan Cole (and the NYT) are unreliable and biased against Israel. They create disagreement. Just because some partisan think tank creates disagreement about Juan Cole (or the NYT), does that mean we shouldn't use him?

(BTW, if you want the long answer, read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. Mill says that you don't get the truth by finding the one truthful source. The only way to get the truth is to read all sides of the controversy and decide yourself.)

FlaviaR, you ask, "How hard is it to point out who lies & who doesn't?" People have been trying to do that since the dawn of the human race, and probably before. Read On Liberty. Nbauman (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a comment on what I've written (rather than what I "seem to be saying"), I'll be happy to respond to that.Haberstr (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to know about all the "wealthy Jews who hire people to lie about Juan Cole & create disagreement (paraphrase)." FlaviaR (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not misquote an editor in order to make a thinly disguised personal attack. Please refrain. Wayne (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I can think of many oil states and Christian organizations that have hired people to that are unreliable and biased against Israel. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

MEMRI may be "controversial" and biased, (it's run by ex-members of Israel's military establishment, after all), but then most sources are "biased" to one degree or another - that's not what entitles us to declare such sources non-RS. Can we link MEMRI to hatred? I've not seen evidence of that.
Can we link MEMRI to falsification? Hmmm ... I think we can. It has been credibly accused by a number of westerners of it. If English-speakers who can spot these problems suffer from this, we're bound to suspect that much worse goes on for people who can't defend themselves, in languages we cannot check. PR^talk 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

FlaviaR, see Muzzlewatch Changing Wikipedia entries-nice work if you can get it Nbauman (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Haberstr, how do you decide that a source is controversial? What's the definition of "controversial"? Nbauman (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, what's the definition of "riddled"? because atm, it seems to be 3 direct refs out of 206. Martin0001 (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Memri is not as widespread a source as I thought.Haberstr (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent reversions

Haberstr makes a comment to delete my sourced addition by stating "sources controversial, unwarranted certainty" I'd like to know how he makes this claim, seeing how Israel's own intelligence corroborates the points made here During the June 19, 2008 lull arrangement between Hamas and Israel, Hamas committed itself to to enforce the lull arrangement on the other Palestinian terrorist organizations [7]. While Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire up to the November 4th IDF raid, the lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas [7][8] [9][10][11].Wood345 (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:WTA, we do not use "terrorist" as a descriptor in that manner. Your passage also contained very [[WP:RS|unreliable sources such as rightsidenews.com, and has been reverted. If you want to re-editmaterial according to Wikipedia policy, then by all means do so. Please do not just wholesale revert this, though as that would be restoring some IP vandalism as ewll, which we do not want. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a direct quote from Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC). I'm going to take out the "terrorist," cite the PDF directly, and make sure to fix the patently incorrect portion you reverted to containing inaccuracies like "although such attacks (whether by Hamas or by other paramilitaries is uncertain)". Israels own intelligence is certain of it. G51g7 (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Tarc is now taking it upon himself to revert

During the June 19, 2008 lull arrangement between Hamas and Israel, Hamas committed itself to to enforce the lull arrangement on the other Palestinian terrorist organizations [7]. While Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire up to the November 4th IDF raid, the lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas [7][8][9][10][11][12].

to

Hamas also has been responsible for anti-Israel rocket attacks, IED attacks, and shootings, but reduced most of those operations in 2005 and 2006.[6] Rocket attacks against Israel have continued, although such attacks (whether by Hamas or by other paramilitaries is uncertain) greatly diminished during a 5-month long ceasefire that ended in late 2008.[7]

The problem with that is that Israel's own intelligence disagrees with the point above. It is not "although such attacks (whether by Hamas or by other paramilitaries is uncertain)"

Here is Israeli Intelligence

2. The lull arrangement was based on unwritten understandings and called for the cessation of the fighting in the Gaza Strip. Hamas committed itself to enforce the arrangement on the other Palestinian terrorist organizations which had not expressed their opposition (some organizations opposed it, some were reserved).

i) A period of relative quiet between June 19 and November 4 : As of June 19, there was a marked reduction in the extent of attacks on the western Negev population. The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas (especially by Fatah and Al-Qaeda supporters). Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC)

Now see how that excerpt coordinates with. During the June 19, 2008 lull arrangement between Hamas and Israel, Hamas committed itself to to enforce the lull arrangement on the other Palestinian terrorist organizations [7]. While Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire up to the November 4th IDF raid, the lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas [7][8][9][10][11][12].G51g7 (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that the following is an accurate and abbreviated _introductory_ comment on the rocket attacks. It is for the _Introduction_ section of the Hamas article. Your contribution, which needs to come after the "November 4th IDF raid" has been explained, and after "the June 19, 2008 lull arrangement" has been explained, should be in the history section. The statement "such attacks" refers to all rocket attacks after 2006, and not just to those conducted during the 5-month ceasefire. Note, also, that the ceasefire is stated more simply, and doesn't say it is 'between' Israel and Hamas.Haberstr (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamas also has been responsible for anti-Israel rocket attacks, IED attacks, and shootings, but reduced most of those operations in 2005 and 2006.[6] Rocket attacks against Israel have continued, although such attacks (whether by Hamas or by other paramilitaries is uncertain) greatly diminished during a 5-month long ceasefire that ended in late 2008.[7]

Haberstr (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

terrorism-info.org.il is neither and official body nor a reliable source. I have reverted you.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 02.02.2009 14:59

How is that not a reliable source?G51g7 (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it is, of course, reliable. Wiki on IICC G51g7 (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll WP:AGF and assume that you're joking... A mention (3 week old stub) in Wikipedia of the organisation does not make it a legitimate WP:RS. I'm taking the issue to WP:RS/N. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 02.02.2009 15:35

Good. Note how the Israeli Foreign Ministry directly links to this study G51g7 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, note how frequently the Israeli government not only sites this work, but others from the IICC. G51g7 (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask Tarc about part of his deletion. What is "POVish" about having casualty figures for the rockets in the article. The source is the Israeli Foreign Affairs Dept so there is no problem there in regards reliability. The numbers are relevant as a search will show that that is a common question asked on search websites. It is one of the only conflicts that doesn't have casualty figures. It also puts the attacks in perspective as a reader seeing 10,000+ attacks tends to assume casualties in the hundreds if not thousands. It seems POV not to include it. Wayne (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave my reasons above. The gist of the information isn't the issue, it was the presentation and wording that was, which is why I suggested that the original editor reintroduce it while keeping abreast of Wiki policy, such as words to avoid and reliable sorcing. At the time this AM, it was better to just lop it out, along with some anon editor's "Up to 90% of Hamas's work and resources is licking balls and killing little baby's and shaving thier behinds" addition. I also noted above that blindly undoing my last edit would restore that blatant piece of troll material, but it seems that this "G51g7" was either unable or unwilling to heed that. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I also noted above that blindly undoing my last edit would restore that blatant piece of troll material I'm not interested in this other excerpt, I'm only interested in the one I'm citing. If I accidentally reverted something unassociated with ^{During the June 19, 2008 lull arrangement between Hamas and Israel, Hamas committed itself to to enforce the lull arrangement on the other Palestinian terrorist organizations [7]. While Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire up to the November 4th IDF raid, the lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas [7][8][9][10][11][12].}, then it was unintentional.G51g7 (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nuances of 2008 rocket 'lull' in intro section?

The nuances of the lull should be in the history section not the introduction. That is one problem I have with massively expanded discussion of the lull. But also, as noted below, there is excessive certainty about what is going on. Apparently I need to remind everyone that we don't actually know who is shooting the rockets into Israel both during and 'after' the lull. Statements by Hamas are not certain knowledge, and that uncertainty should be acknowledged, very briefly, in the INTRO section of the Hamas article. That's what I did, in the passage as it was a couple days ago:

Rocket attacks against Israel have continued, although such attacks (whether by Hamas or by other paramilitaries is uncertain) greatly diminished during a 5-month long ceasefire that ended in late 2008.[7]

30 words, one citation.

None of the above is a contention by an interested party, all of it is widely acknowledged as true. But here's where we are now:

During the June 19, 2008 lull arrangement between Hamas and Israel [Huh? It wasn't acknowledged as 'between' those two parties by the two parties; explain what you mean by 'between' in the history section], Hamas committed itself to to enforce the lull arrangement on the other Palestinian organizations [10]. While Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire [really, how do you know? Because Hamas said so? Then say that, or better yet say it in the history section. We don't actually know: EXCESSIVE CERTAINTY]up to the November 4th IDF raid [what raid? that topic hasn't been introduced yet], the lull was sporadically violated by other groups [but not by Hamas? How do you know? Because Hamas said so? We don't actually know: EXCESSIVE CERTAINTY], sometimes in defiance [Why sometimes? Why not always if Hamas was committed to a lull? Better to explain what you're getting at in the history section]of Hamas [10][11][12][13][14][15].[Six citations looks exceptionally combative. One good citation is all that is needed.]

53 words, 7 citations

I tried to return the document to my earlier version, but apparently there will have to be war to make the intro section realistic, factual, and relatively brief. Or people will return to reason and tell the detailed story in the history section, where the contentions on both sides can and should be written down.Haberstr (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

massively expanded discussion of the lull?

If there is a correction to be made for ^{Rocket attacks against Israel have continued, although such attacks (whether by Hamas or by other paramilitaries is uncertain) greatly diminished during a 5-month long ceasefire that ended in late 2008} with two sentences, you can hardly call that "massively expanded." Two sentences replaced one. You can already see above there is contention that there isn't enough citations, now you are claiming that there is too many. G51g7 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that if you leave your edit in, then in order to understand what you are saying you have to add explanation as to what the "June 19 arrangement" is (and it wasn't between Hamas and Israel) and what the "November 4" incident was. So your addition necessitates further additions.Haberstr (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hyperlink to the relevant wikipedia article. The previous and incorrect passage ^{greatly diminished during a 5-month long ceasefire that ended in late 2008} made a reference to the ceasefire and made use of a hyperlink to address this issue.G51g7 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

all of it is widely acknowledged as true.

If you read those two sentences, you will note that whether by Hamas or by other paramilitaries is uncertain) is untrue.G51g7 (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that you have a point. I'll try to revise in a way that keeps the November 4 violation out and the 'June arrangement between' out.Haberstr (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to revise

Please refrain. There is an unresolved issue above that is still pending. This information is important and clearly informative. Editors on this subject seem to be unaware of it.G51g7 (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I will for awhile, but nothing is pending as far as I can tell. As I've said repeatedly but you've been unresponsive, an extended discussion of the ceasefire, disputed incidents 'ending' the ceasefire (there is no separate wikipedia entry on the Nov 4 incident), and so on, should be in the history section not the introduction. That will be why I revise, unless you have an argument in that regard.Haberstr (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1) nothing is pending

See pedrito's comments and see the associated discussion for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

2) Two sentences replacing one is not an extended discussion. It replaces the incorrect sentence ^{Hamas also has been responsible for anti-Israel rocket attacks, IED attacks, and shootings, but reduced most of those operations in 2005 and 2006.[6] Rocket attacks against Israel have continued, although such attacks (whether by Hamas or by other paramilitaries is uncertain) greatly diminished during a 5-month long ceasefire that ended in late 2008,[7]} that mentions and hyperlinks the ceasefire. The correction deals with the same material of rocket attacks and the ceasefire. However, now the information presented is now correct. You approved of a discussion of the rocket attacks and the ceasefire before.

3) there is no separate wikipedia entry on the Nov 4 incident)

The same wikipedia entry from the excerpt "during a 5-month long ceasefire" covers this in detail. The hyperlink was appropriate for the material you liked, and its appropriate here.

4) As I've said repeatedly but you've been unresponsive

Frankly, I have no idea what I could be unresponsive about here. G51g7 (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Definately too much for the intro. Even a summary in the lead is too much. History is the place but it needs cleaning up from the horrendous mess above. Israel has admitted the Nov 4th incident broke the truce if you ignore the closed borders and that it was not Hamas firing the rockets during the truce. Western sources are the ones messing it up. For example one group firing rockets is actually in conflict with Hamas yet western media sources generally say "affiliated with" and they also don't distinguish between Hamas and Fatah rockets. We have to be careful with so many conflicting reliable sources. Wayne (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For example one group firing rockets is actually in conflict with Hamas yet western media sources generally say "affiliated with"

Have you looked at the sources I put into that incredibly condensed two sentences? You would note that your point is covered:

^ Hamas arrests Fatah rocket cell Press TV, 11 Jul 2008
^ Hamas tries to enforce Gaza cease-fire Sacramento Bee, Dion Nissenbaum. July 8, 2008
^ Hamas: Continued rocket fire by Fatah armed group harms Palestinian interests Haaretz. Avi Isacharoff and Yuval Azoulay. June 29, 2008
^ Hamas arrests Fatah spokesman in GazaJerusalem Post. June 30, 2008
^ Hamas arrests militants after rocket fire Reuters. July 10, 2008

Clearly, I would like to expand on this topic some, but the introduction is not the place for it. I am already criticized for two sentences as a "massively expanded discussion." Clearly more work needs to be done on this issue, and it should go in the body paragraph.G51g7 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem not to understand that a reference to the 'November 4 incident' comes completely out of the blue as the article is presently written. A link to the ceasefire article, even if specified to the dissolution section, doesn't replace helping readers here at the Hamas article understand in some general sense what the November 4 incident was and what it meant. You obviously do need to expand. You also can't write that an agreement "_between_" Hamas and Israel began the ceasefire. That's one reason I left that out and made a more general statement.Haberstr (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have understood your point here for the last few comments and have commented on it amicably. You, on the other hand, have made a series of misunderstandings on the two sentences. In the spirit of good faith, what edits do you propose to both maintain the important information I added that is missing from the article (and previously unknown to various posters) that would satisfy your concerns? Seeing how concepts like Hamas vis-a-vis rocket attacks and ceasefire were important, these should remain, in a new, factually correct manner. I would agree that the content (as mentioned by Wayne) should be expanded upon in the body text. I personally would like to get that far, but I've been hopelessly ground down in wildly conflicting debates of too many/too few sources, too short/long, etc. I'm flexible. What do you propose that would keep the informational content and satisfy your structural concerns?G51g7 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made the changes that I think make sense. I have left your material in but moved it to the history section. In the intro I simply mention a ceasefire and don't go into the particulars of how strong it was, who did or didn't violate it, and when and how it ended. I'm not rejecting your contribution, just trying to reduce the introduction section to a more reasonable size. Also note that I moved all history information in the intro/lead to a two paragraphs after the lead, rather than having it in two widely separated areas.Haberstr (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

^{After the end of a 5-month ceasefire, the conflict escalated with Israel’s invasion of Hamas-ruled Gaza in late December, 2008.}

This is not correct. The escalation, as mentioned above, occurred earlier. I was looking forward to our discusion of this and our eventual compromise. i was dissapointed to see another change with a factual error from something with so much discussionG51g7 (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand when you say "The escalation . . . occurred earlier." _The_ escalation, among many possible examples, was the invasion of Gaza by Israel. In any case, I'm not choosing one escalation over another, I'm simply saying the conflict 'escalated' when Israel invaded Gaza. That seems uncontroversial and obvious, so there's no factual conflict here. You simply are not putting the detailed story into the appropriate place, the history section. You've never acknowledged or argued with that particular point, which I've made from the start, in the title of this little discussion section.Haberstr (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand when you say the escalation...occurred earlier

Let me remind you your first reply

During the June 19, 2008 lull arrangement between Hamas and Israel [Huh? It wasn't acknowledged as 'between' those two parties by the two parties; explain what you mean by 'between' in the history section], Hamas committed itself to to enforce the lull arrangement on the other Palestinian organizations [10]. While Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire [really, how do you know? Because Hamas said so? Then say that, or better yet say it in the history section. We don't actually know: EXCESSIVE CERTAINTY]up to the November 4th IDF raid [what raid? that topic hasn't been introduced yet], the lull was sporadically violated by other groups [but not by Hamas? How do you know? Because Hamas said so? We don't actually know: EXCESSIVE CERTAINTY], sometimes in defiance [Why sometimes? Why not always if Hamas was committed to a lull? Better to explain what you're getting at in the history section]of Hamas [10][11][12][13][14][15].[Six citations looks exceptionally combative. One good citation is all that is needed.]

Now, after this you refer to the same November 4th incident 5 times. Five times. A post you reply to even points out the link excerpt where A period of relative quiet between June 19 and November 4 highlights how your addition of "After the end of a 5-month ceasefire, the conflict escalated with Israel’s invasion of Hamas-ruled Gaza in late December, 2008." was erroneous. After all of this discussion over two sentences. Where it was directly replied to and mentioned five times, you make an erroneous reversion.

To add insult, you make a reversion on the grounds that your rendition is POV unless Israeli side added;. My source is cited directly by the Israeli foreign ministry That is the Israeli POV. I made this point explicitly for you.

I suggest you refrain from editing my additions unless you take the time to read them or the discussion here.G51g7 (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As written, my abbreviated rendition, in the lead section, is completely and uncontroversially accurate. Yours, which attempts to explain the full story in the lead section, leaves out the Israeli explanation for why they attacked and killed the 6 Hamas fighters. Also, you leave out a transition between the final and previous sentence of your entry. I continue to ask, why do you insist on putting the full, complex story in the _lead_ section of the Hamas entry? The full, complex story is for the history section, right? Will you ever respond to these sorts of questions?Haberstr (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sections 2, 3, and 4 should be made a single history section

There is a great deal of understandable overlap in these three sections, which are all basically historical. The Hamas Charter is a little tricky, so perhaps part of it (the controversies and disagreements surrounding it) should be moved to issues. Anyway, this is what I'm humbly thinking of doing. Are there any comments or suggestions? I realize there already is a Hamas history article, but I don't intend to shorten or abbreviate anything we have (somebody else can do that controversial job, if they dare), just remove repetition and re-arrange what's left over in chronological order.Haberstr (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Charter

There is no good reason for not including the charter in full on Wikipedia. The opinions of Mousa Marzouk in the second paragraph are clearly not encyclopedic material. No-one is preventing Hamas from amending the obvious anti-semitism and rejection of any peace accords from its charter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.99.247 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A comparison between death tolls of Hamas suicide bombings on Israeli civilians and death tolls of Israel attacks on Palestinian civilians

I think we must glimpse these statistics (death tolls of Hamas suicide bombings on Israeli civilians and death tolls of Israel attacks on Palestinian civilians), then talk over Hams notorious for its numerous suicide bombings on Palestinian civilians.--Erik.catalan (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no comparable statistics, since Israel does not attack citizens. It attacks terrorists, who hide behind citizens. I am disappointed that i even have to spell this out to anyone. FlaviaR (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean "Israeli civilians"?Debresser (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a glimps on the statistics, and I think that regarding the facts, it's better to change the sentence line 4 "Notorious for its numerous suicide bombings and other attacks[2] on Israeli civilians and security forces, Hamas also runs extensive social programs[3] and has gained popularity in Palestinian society by establishing hospitals, education systems, libraries and other services[4] throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[3]" to this: "Renowned for its Entehari acts (انتحاری) and other attacks on Israeli security forces, Hamas also runs extensive social programs[3] and has gained popularity in Palestinian society by establishing hospitals, education systems, libraries and other services[4] throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip." Morosoph00 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I 'm agree with Morosop00 on that sentence.Erik.catalan (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You can see the statistics of death tolls of Hamas suicide attacks in List of Hamas suicide attacks. And you can find statistics of Palestinians civilians death tolls in many web sites and news now.Erik.catalan (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is written in English, so I don't see how changing the phrase 'suicide bombings' into 'Entehari acts (انتحاری)' will make it more understandable. Moreover, because the part of the sentence 'on Israeli civilians' is deleted, it seems that this is a deliberate attempt to deny that these suicide bombings were almost solely targetting civilians. Such a manipulated description of the actual events, which are supported by abundant factual evidence, cannot even be considered as 'biased', as it is clearly a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.61.170 (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we don't have permission to talk about goals of Hamas suicide bombings and must survey what did tell Hamas about its goals of these suicide bombings, but we can compare death tolls of both and if we have been unprejudiced, we deduce that Israel government is more guilty than Hamas.Erik.catalan (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We do, and we are. This article will tell the WHOLE truth, in as non-biased a fashion as possible. The term "more guilty" does NOT fit that goal. Also, at least TRY to mask your affiliation when talking about making edits to article tone and masking facts you deny. Kingoomieiii (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

Let us not forget that it is not the death toll of Palestinians versus Israeli's that makes a war proportional. It must be kept in mind that the readers know the risk and potential danger involved. Such as the rockets that are sent over that do not kill, but are intended to. Kobpi (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Koby

Suicide Bombings a retaliation

I think it should be noted that Hamas's suicide bombing campaign started as a retaliation to the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre which was perpetrated on February 25, 1994.

The first Hamas affiliated suicide bombing was the Afula Bus suicide bombing on April 6, 1994.

Please check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hamas_suicide_attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein

Jundi78 (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The front page says the first suicide bombing was 1993, yet CNN | Timeline: The evolution of Hamas says it was April 1994.

USA Today | Main events in Hamas' history says April 6, 1994: First Hamas car bombing kills eight in Israeli city of Afula. April 13, 1994: First Hamas suicide bombing kills five in Israeli city of Hadera. This issue seems unresolved and needs more attention to determine whether Goldstein's 1994 attack prompted it, exacerbated it, or had any affect at all. 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G51g7 (talk • contribs)

I think that it should be at least mentioned as a controversy or a possibility due to the overwhelming evidence. I am currently trying to find a reference in the news agencies' archives to verify this claim by comparing Hamas's official statements before and after the Goldstein 1994 attack.

I will update this page when I find something.

--Jundi78 (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamas figures have written respectfully of the Jewish religion

In the introduction to the article it says "On the other hand, other Hamas figures have written respectfully of the Jewish religion, one stating that Hamas's conflict with Israel "is not religious but political."[22] I'd like to change it to "On the other hand, the head of the political bureau of Hamas stated that their conflict with Israel "is not religious but political." Seeing as how saying that other hamas figures have written respectfully violates WP:SYN. -Solid Reign (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not write, "On the other hand, the head of the Hamas political bureau in (year) wrote respectfully of the Jewish religion and stated that the group's conflict with Israel "is not religious but political." The reason I say this is that the "On the other hand" speaks directly to the charges of anti-semitism. For the sake of balance, that 'incendiary' charge should not simply be left dangling when some important members of Hamas have answered it.Haberstr (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The word I object to is "respectfully", since it is POV. Maybe we can use a larger quote so that the tone of the text is better understood and the reader can reach their own conclusion? -Solid Reign (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mashal specifically uses the word "respected," so in a summative section -- which is what the lead section is supposed to be -- it is better to sum up with the word "respectful" than an extended quote. And only an extended quote would allow readers to understand what Mashal was saying. I don't know how you would pare the following down: "Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion 'the people of the book' who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected." The entire, extended quote should probably be in the body of the article, in the 'accusations of anti-semitism section.Haberstr (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I would say that some parts of the article aren't really respectful, which is why we should be careful not to label it as such:

We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us - our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people. We shall never recognise the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights. We shall never recognise the legitimacy of a Zionist state created on our soil in order to atone for somebody else's sins or solve somebody else's problem.

How about ""On the other hand, the head of the political bureau of Hamas stated that their conflict with Israel "is not religious but political", and that the Jews have a covenant from God " that is to be respected and protected". -Solid Reign (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Haberstr (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from Sir Jeremy Greenstock

Does anyone know what happened to the passage I wrote quoting the BBC interview with Sir Jeremy Greenstock? It appears to have been deleted, but it is an important voice to add to this article. Pexise (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the passage:

However, senior British Diplomat and former British Ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated in an interview on the BBC Today Programme that the Hamas charter was "drawn up by a Hamas linked imam some years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palistian government in 2006". Greenstock also stated that Hamas is not intent on the destruction of Israel and that nor is it politically tied to Iran.^[5] Pexise (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a good contribution but I may move it, for the sake of lessening repetition and putting everything on a certain subject in the same place.Haberstr (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

possible source text

I have been GoogleBooking lately, which explains my absence from real discussion (sorry). While I had my e-nose in the e-books, I came upon some passages in "Iron Wall" that sounded like they might be useful for this article. I am pasting them below.

The Iron Wall By Avi Shlaim
W. W. Norton & Company 2001
2000
?? (why the different dates?)
ISBN-13: 978-0393321128

Page 459
Another consequence of the intifada was the birth of Hamas. The name is an Arabic word meaning zeal, and also an acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement. Hamas was founded in Gaza in 1988 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, a paralyzed religious teacher, as a wing of the long-established Muslim Brothers in Palestine. ... Ironically, the Israeli authorities at first encouraged Hamas in the hope of weakening the secular nationalism of the PLO. But the Palestinian uprising had But the Palestinian uprising had a radicalizing effect on Hamas, and its members began to step outside the bounds of the law. Although the Israelis repeatedly cracked down on the organization, the roots it put down sprouted again, giving rise to more violence each time. In 1989 the Israelis arrested Yassin and kept him in prison until 1997. Hamas, however, continued to shift from the use of stones to the use of firearms. In 1994 it began, through its military wing, to launch suicide bombs inside Israel.

Page 525
The PLO angrily suspended its participation in the peace talks in response to the [Hebron] massacre and demanded the removal of the four hundred or so militant from Hebron and the disarming of the rest. Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement that had been bitterly opposed to the peace talks with the Jewish state from the start, vowed to exact revenge.

Page 586
King Hussein intervened in the dialogue personally to report an offer of a cease-fire from Hamas. He requested that this offer be conveyed directly to the prime minister. Great was his surprise and anger therefore when he learned that Netanyahu himself had ordered the bizarre operation in Jordan's capital. ... They recalled that Hamas had hitherto refrained from mounting terrorist attacks outside the borders of Israel and the occupied territories. They reasoned that by trying to assassinate Meshal outside these borders, Israel intended to create an intolerable provocation. This would have compelled Hamas to react and to extend its operations to new areas. Israel would have blamed Arafat for the new wave of violence, and the peace process would once again have been put on hold.13

By ordering the operation in Amman, Netanyahu showed himself to be feckless, irresponsible, and staggeringly shortsighted. The consequences were very grave. The operation weakened King
Page 587
Hussein, whose peace treaty with Israel remained as unpopular among his own people as it was popular among Israelis. To obtain the release of the Mossad agents, Netanyahu had to deliver Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the Hamas spiritual leader who had been languishing in an Israeli prison. ... The fact that Israel was forced to release Yassin increased his prestige and that of the organization he had founded. Thus, by his unremitting concentration on Hamas, Netanyahu ended up by raising it to a position of pivotal importance.
PinkWorld (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Pink

Weaselly Conjecture added to the 90% statement

This article states that "Hamas devotes up to 90% of Hamas's work and resources are spent on social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities."

This is weaselly from several points of view. First, I spent up to 100% of my time and resources editing Wikipedia. I also spend up to 100% of my time sleeping and up to 100% of my time eating. They are all true statements but they give an exaggerated impression. Saying "up to" is the same as saying "between 0% and 90%" but the second actually leaves the reader with a much different impact.

Secondly, this statement is a distortion of the expert opinion it is attempting to reference. The reference given is to a website who is quoting Reuven Paz (out of context). If you Google this line you will see it cut and pasted into a thousand places. I have included the statement in context below along with the source of the statement.

The statement is that "Approximately 90% of its work is in social, welfare, cultural and educational activities." If this is the statement of the expert being referenced, then this is the information that should be in Wikipedia. Making statements about the *resources* that are being spent is original research and/or conjecture, because the expert says nothing about resource expenditure. "Up to 90% of the work of the government of the USA" is done in non-military areas, but 50% of the budget (resource expenditure) is in military. So the expert is not talking specifically about resource expenditure, we should copy his claim, and leave the background research into the specifics to people who... research. This is not the place for original research or interpreting the experts. We summarize them. Making additional claims is not a summary.

Lastly, this statement was made in 2001. George W. Bush was president in 2001. We don't look up President of the United States and see the statement that he is president currently.

Furthermore, the actual statement goes on to say about how Hamas preaches abstention from violence against Fatah. I think that actually shows how dated it is, given the developments of the last few years. They are certainly not so peaceful towards Fatah at this point in time (and vice versa).

I submit that this is an inaccurate distortion of the statement being made by the expert being cited. I submit that the citation is a poor reference because it is quoting a website that is quoting the expert out of context. I submit that it can be improved for *accuracy* and not a point of view by replacing the interpretation of the expert's statement with his statement (which is equally simple, no interpretation is necessary), and by removing the old citation and replacing it with the citation that refers to the speech, the date, and the full context of the statement.

I propose that the statement now read as this:

"As of 2001, it has been claimed that approximately 90% of the work engaged in by Hamas was in social, welfare, cultural and educational activities."

It is a very simple statement. It is an improvement because it is accurate, it is true to the words of the expert without injecting any interpretation and conjecture, and it dates the statement, so that what was being said *in the past* is not being made as a present tense claim by Wikipedia.

Now, given the general behavior of you people on even non-controversial subjects, I give this about a 1 in 100 chance of being implemented. My own opinion is that Wikipedia sucks, and the editors (you so-called "wikipedians" are the source of all the problems here. My suggestions here are all in line with what you are supposed to do, and it is all backed up. If any of you have the courage to actually act as you are supposed to, this will get folded in post haste, but again, that would shock me right out of my chair.

PS. I realized I didn't sign this. And no I am not going to register for an account because it's a waste of time, as this post will soon prove. More useful to go piss against the wind.

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=374

Reuven Paz, PhD, Senior Research fellow at The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) in Herziliya, Israel, said in a July 20, 2001 speech titled "Islamic Palestine or Liberated Palestine?":

"Hamas, originating in the Muslim Brotherhood movement, emphasizes social work, the abstention from violent activity against the PA regime, and most importantly the concept of 'sabr' -- patience and perseverance. Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural and educational activities. These are important elements of Hamas's popularity that keep it closely tied to the public. Hamas is more effective than most PA institutions, which is not surprising considering the difficulties and corruption of the PA. Its only real competitors are several nongovernmental organizations that cannot or do not want to translate their work into political influence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.223.195 (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it for you. I provided a recent RS for resource percentage so "up to" now applies and the sentence is no longer "OR". Please refrain from personal attacks. While some editors are problem in regards to POV most are doing their best. Wayne (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked the sources but can't seem to find where it says that up to 95% is spent in this? Would you mind quoting that part here? thanks, -Solid Reign (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed it into a direct quote. The alternative source provided no percentage, as far as I could tell.Haberstr (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I see, there were actually three sources in that one footnote. One of them, from 2008, uses the "up to 90%" figure. So I changed to the latest number.Haberstr (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I guess it was OR on my part as the source gave Hamas's income and expenditure in $ and my calculations gave the 95% figure. I figured a percentage was more encyclopedic (and shorter) than using $. Wayne (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, changing numbers to a percentage is not OR (The "No original research" rule does not forbid routine calculations (e.g. adding or subtracting numbers, rounding them, calculating percentages, converting them into similar units, putting them on a graph, or calculating a person's age) that add no new information to what is already present in the cited sources.) However, I still can't find where that figure came from. -Solid Reign (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

a very beatiful country

Under the Guerrilla warfare heading, the last sentence is "a very beatiful country" I think there is no controversy over the beauty of the country but (apart from the spelling error) i'm not sure it's relevant to the Guerrilla warfare issue. Sharonyoavweiss (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Done --Flewis^(talk) 09:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of silly story

I've removed:

Sheikh Yassin aids an Israeli civilian

When asked about relations with Israelis on a personal level, Dr. Atef Ibrahim Adwan, professor of Political Science in the Islamic University of Gaza and biographer of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, relates the following incident involving Yassin and Rantissi : "Sheikh Ahmad Yassin as a Muslim was not against the Israelis as citizens or civilians, but he fought against the Israeli occupation. I remember a story has been told to me by Dr. Rantissi, about a time when the the Sheikh and Dr. Rantissi were driving their car at night and found an Israeli who had had an accident. They took him to the hospital and helped him. He did not hate Israelis as Jews, or as civilians, but as occupiers." ^[6]

By his own admission, and this is something that he was proud of, Yassin spent his life enabling and encouraging the murder of Israeli civilians. Thus this claim that he went out of his way to help an Israeli is preposterous. Oh, and also, it isn't supported by reliable sources. Neither IslamonLine.net nor Dr. Atef Ibrahim Adwan, professor of Political Science in the Islamic University of Gaza, nor a combination of the two are reliable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

MEMRI isn't RS either, but they are used when they provide a point of view that is not available from RS, and then we label in the text what the source is. The entry you deleted was written as opinion not fact, and stated the source directly. In a section on "Accusations of anti-semitism," this perspective is needed. Why not _add_ a contrasting opinion or comment regarding Yassin? Instead of subtracting?Haberstr (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If the claim were not a joke it might make sense to include the information despite the lack of a reliable source. If he stood for one thing it was that he supported and enabled the murders of Israeli civilians in the name of Islam. A story that he went out of his way to save an Israeli citizen should be taken as a unfunny joke.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He was the leader of Hamas. The section is about Hamas's alleged anti-semitism. I think I'll move it to the section on statements by Hamas leaders and clerics. Add a statement by Yassin that demonstrates your assessment of him, and put that in that quotes section.Haberstr (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Until it is supported by reliable sources, the only place it belongs is at the joke article. I would also encourage you not to replace the unsourced story. Your continuous reinsertion of the unsourced content can be seen as edit-warring. Thanks, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, statement like that, even if true, does not prove that Hamas (or Yassin for that matter) is not antisemitic. You can be a racist and dislike black people, but if you see a black baby in a car crash you still won't let her die. That story should go in an article on Yassin, not on Hamas. -Solid Reign (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, never mind, I just saw where it was moved. It still seems like it's not a very good source though. -Solid Reign (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamas - a "social" organization

[30] (in the intro). Sounds more like a tea-party 'mother's club', than a militant group aimed at destroying the inhabitants of the State of Israel, and replacing it with a Palestinian state. "Social" - Some editors here have taken POV to a whole new level. . .--Flewis^(talk) 12:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

[31] - 'back in the day --Flewis^(talk) 12:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Therin lies your problem. What was "back in the day" is often no longer true "in this day". The page must evolve to take into consideration current events. Wayne (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"social and political organization organization which includes a paramilitary force, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades" is fine. 90% of its activities are non-political and non-military according to three objective sources, so the word "social" has to be included.Haberstr (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested to see which "objective" sources refute the info explicitly stated within the Hamas charter (i.e. Destroying Israel), and do not hold Hamas responsible as a "social organization" for murdering Israeli civilians. --Flewis^(talk) 06:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hospitals, schools, senior citizen centers and so on are social and not political institutions created by Hamas. This is non-controversial, and there are three sources stating 90% of Hamas activity is social and not political. You're being extraordinarily misleading if you describe Hamas as a political organization with a paramilitary wing.Haberstr (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There is really no call for "...with the aim of destroying Israel" in the lead at all, much less the first sentence. Please don't be ridiculous. I agree that "social" has a bit of a milk n cookies feel to it though, and have removed that. "Militant" would be fine as well, but I didn't see an immediate way to work it back in grammatically. Tarc (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hospitals, schools, senior citizen centers and so on are social and not political institutions created by Hamas. This is non-controversial, and there are three sources stating 90% of Hamas activity is social and not political. It is therefore just plain inaccurate to describe Hamas as a political organization with a paramilitary wing. This is a bogus controversy; "social" simply doesn't imply "a tea-party 'mother's club'," it implies social, while "paramilitary wing" implies what it implies.Haberstr (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So does that make Hamas a social organization with a paramilitary/terrorist wing, or a paramilitary/terrorist network with a social wing? After all, the Hells Angels do charity work, too. I would nonetheless not describe them as a social organization. I think that whatever "social activities" Hamas engages in should not be given dominant weight in the lead relative to the anti-social activities the organization is internationally infamous for. — Hiddekel (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

90% is 90%, and there are three independent and objective sources attesting to that. As for your theoretically serious example, the Hells Angels did not spend 90% of its revenues on welfare, hospitals, senior centers and schools. If you have an authentically serious example of a group that spends 90% of its revenues funding social activities and institutions, but which reasonable people would not describe as, in part, a "social" group, please tell me and I'll reconsider my position on this matter.Haberstr (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, about that 90% figure... I've taken a look at those three "objective" sources. The first one is an about.com article that references the work of another author (whose "objectivity" is not established anywhere that I can see) that quotes a figure "up to" 90% (which could mean 0%). The second source, a CFR (which is not an "objective" organization nor, in my opinion, a reliable source on the subject matter) report on Hamas once again makes a reference to the work of another individual whose objectivity is no more established than that of the CFR itself. The third source doesn't seem to make mention of that figure at all, that I can see... Perhaps I missed it. But at this point, I would call that figure tenuously-sourced at best, and certainly not sourced well enough to state it in the definitive article narrative or use it as justification for the contents of the lead paragraph. I'd be interested in the opinions of others on this, of course. — Hiddekel (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That a group may perform social functions or activities does not automatically make it a "social organization". But the "terrorist" label does not go there either, per WP:WTA. Let's work to keep extremes from either side taking sway here. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

90% is 90%, and there are three independent and objective sources attesting to that. If you have a serious example of a group that spends 90% of its revenues funding social activities and institutions, but which reasonable people would not describe as, in part, a "social" group, please tell me and I'll reconsider my position on this matter.Haberstr (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's 90% of their activity is irrelevant. Barack Obama spends atleast 50% of his time eating, sleeping, and going to the bathroom. Should we announce that in the lede. No, because it's not his notable aspect.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a _group_ that spends 90% of its revenues on social, non-political concerns that it would not be misleading not to call, in part, "social"? We should, in this encyclopedia, provide a non-misleading, non-POV short description of Hamas. A "social and political group with a paramilitary force" does that. It is plainly silly and absurd to erase "social" for a group 90% of whose activity is social. There are more important things to be doing and discussing.Haberstr (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Tarc. For what it's worth, "political/militant" (or "paramilitary" as a substitute for the latter) are two sufficiently uncontroversial descriptors for the lead paragraph, IMO. — Hiddekel (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiddekel, could you explain why the Council on Foreign Relations and Los Angeles Times are not WP:RS? Nbauman (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

None of the three sources are from the Los Angeles Times--though the third is an Associated Press article which, as I stated above, does not seem to mention that statistic at all. ~~As for the CFR, I've stated my issues with that source's reliability in my comments above.~~ Okay, taking another look there, maybe I didn't make my objections as explicit as I should. The reason why I don't like the CFR as an RS is because I don't in general see advocacy groups as reliable research sources, except when researching that advocacy group's basic information itself. — Hiddekel (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I eliminated the third source, didn't find anything about percentages in it. The other two sources are RS, in my opinion. CFR is not an advocacy group, by the way. You can read about Robin Wright here: http://www.robinwright.net/author.html and about Reuven Paz here: http://www.e-prism.org/aboutprism/staffofprism.html (press on the C.V. link)Haberstr (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the CFR, like any thinktank, is a policy advocacy group, insofar as they debate policy issues, reach conclusions, and advocate those conclusions as policy positions. That doesn't necessarily mean they are pro-anyone, but it does put their neutrality as a source for information on groups related to issues they advocate policy on into question. I understand that this is a tricky issue, and if consensus is that they qualify as a reliable source here, so be it. — Hiddekel (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There can't be a more mainstream U.S. policy group than CFR. I don't know what policies, in particular CFR 'advocates' for. I've never heard the group, as a group, advocating for anything in particular. They host discussions and advocacy by individuals affiliated with them. They seem to be a gathering place for specialists in the mainstream.Haberstr (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiddekel, then you don't agree with the idea that people should examine as many different viewpoints as possible, including advocates of all kinds, and come to their own conclusions [32]? Nbauman (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(Backdent) Nbauman: I agree with the idea that we should follow Wikipedia guidelines regarding avoiding weasel words, verifiability, and reliable sources. There are plenty of advocacy Wikis out there. This isn't one, but by the tone this article is starting to take, one begins to think otherwise... — Hiddekel (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I will add a source from an Israel-affiliated specialist who puts Hamas's non-political work at 80 to 85%. Busy right now, though.Haberstr (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

^ "http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=15466 Hamas admits to using human shields, fostering 'death culture']", Israel Today, March 16, 2008
^ "http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=RTu-AUE9ycs Hamas admits it uses human shields]", YouTube, May 15, 2008
^ "http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=15466 Hamas admits to using human shields, fostering 'death culture']", Israel Today, March 16, 2008
^ Reuters
^ BBC Today Programme interview with Sir Jeremy Greenstock, 12 January 2009
^ “Who was Sheikh Yassin?” IslamOnline.net, March 24, 2004

[1] "http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=15466 Hamas admits to using human shields, fostering 'death culture']", Israel Today, March 16, 2008

[2] "http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=RTu-AUE9ycs Hamas admits it uses human shields]", YouTube, May 15, 2008

[3] "http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=15466 Hamas admits to using human shields, fostering 'death culture']", Israel Today, March 16, 2008

[4] Reuters

[5] BBC Today Programme interview with Sir Jeremy Greenstock, 12 January 2009

[6] “Who was Sheikh Yassin?” IslamOnline.net, March 24, 2004

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]