Talk:Hamas/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

This article is complete POV nonsense.

Hamas was democratically elected, and Israel and the EU / US then punished the Palestinians for their choice with harsh economic sanctions, including the withholding of legal Palestinian tax incomes from Hamas. This whole article reads like a MEMRI press release. Total, complete POV garbage.

Why not state that it can be seen both ways? that Hamas can be seen as a terrorist organization (through suicide bombings) and its assistance of Palestinian peoples?

For all those who claim that should be illustrated as "known for their assistance of Palestinian people " read this example of Hamas's assistance program for Palestinian kids: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/31/HAMAS.TMP Just a small Pick:

one beach camp, attended by approximately 100 kids, an instructor wore a heavy flannel shirt under which a webbed belt could be seen strapped to his stomach. Asked by a reporter what it was, he answered, with a broad smile, "Boom!"

The instructor led a group of young teenagers through marching drills on the sand -- facing movements, close quarter drill. With a smile at the reporter, he put a megaphone to his lips.

"What are you?" he called.

"Monsters!" the kids replied.

"What are you?!"

"MONSTERS!"

As the instructor, Sa'eb Dormush, stepped aside for an interview, a youth in the group shouted out "moqawama!" -- resistance.

"That is the first word they learn when they are born," Dormush said with a laugh. "This is the next generation."

Across camp, a group of younger children -- most between 10 and 12 -- sat in a circle in the sand singing one of the "intifada songs" they learn at camp. One boy sang verses in a rolling soprano as the others joined in on the one-word chorus.

"We don't want to sleep.

HA-A-MAS!

We want revenge.

HA-A-MAS!

Raise it up.

HA-A-MAS!

Rifle fire.

HA-A-MAS!

If it will take a thousand martyrs.

HA-A-MAS!

Kill Zionists.

HA-A-MAS!

Wherever they are.

HA-A-MAS!

In the name of God.

HA-A-MAS!"

This is an extemely biased article. No where in the article are there any references to the Hamas view point. Where are the pictures of Israeli troops holding M16's on two year old children? Why isn't there mention of the political prisoners held in Israeli jails? Why isn't there mention of the UN resolutions demanding Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza? A balanced article should certainly discuss the claims of Hamas as well. Da'oud Nkrumah 07:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I can agree that some mention of the Hamas viewpoint in the artical is reasonable, the other mentions you request are really not appropriate as they are already covered elsewhere. The Hamas artical may be leaning a little to POV but it's definately not "extremely biased". Wayne 17:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree with you. I believe the alledged Israeli actions though they may infact be mentioned in other articles are central to the grievances voiced by Hamas and the Palestinian people at large. Certainly an article on Hamas should have immediately following the intro an expression of their claims of inhumane treatment, agression and reasons for existing. That in and of itself would largely remove the slant of this article, which currently reads like a plagerized copy of the article on Hamas posted on the Council of Foriegn Relations website. Further it should certainly be mentioned that Russia and a number of other countries do not consider Hamas a terrorist group. Then I take issue with the emphasis on suicide bombings and the lack of emphases on the assassination of its members by Israel eventhough Hamas held a lenghty unilateral cease fire, Israeli actions against Palestinian civilians or the reality of apartide. This article is a hatchet job which seeks to further a political agenda and as such is extremely biased and has no place in a serious encyclopedia like Wikipedia.Da'oud Nkrumah 07:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Hamas is known chiefly for its suicide bombings"="Israel is known chiefly for its occupation of Palestinian territories"

Just because someone was published saying that Palestinians are known mostly for their suicide bombings doesn't mean that they're right. I could certainly publish a book proving that magic is real' Would you believe that? Probably not.

But I bet a lot of 'Admins' here would have a real problem if I wrote that in Israel! BUT of course I would be wrong to write that as Israel is known chiefly for providing a safe haven for world Jewry...but isn't it then fair to say Hamas is known chiefly for fighting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories?? (some might say Illegal occupation) see United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

Why the double-standards? Or are all the critics right in saying that Wikipedia is extremely pro-Israeli? --Yas121 22:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame it in the admins, but on systemic bias. Palestinians have other things to do than agaiwritting on Wikipedia, while, probably for the misery of all this region (including Israel), all of the world's opinion focus on them. English Wikipedia would probably be pro-Israeli due to the sheer amount of pro-Israeli contributors, not because of an admin problem (or the problem is lot worse than what I thought, but I don't think so). That's why I've made calls earlier to try to find a neutral intro, so we could all stand by it before anonymous vandalism. But the other party refused, because they know they outnumber us five to one. It is a bit lame that, ultimately, a political article relies on this, but that's how it works. All this said, I find it strange that even pro-Israelis refuse to admit, for the sake of the encyclopedia, that mentioning Russia is not only a "POV problem", that is something concerning our personal opinions, but more likely something that is relevant, because it's a member of the Quartet on the Middle East and, although we can surely say that the Quartet in question isn't doing much, we're not going to understand things better if we do "just as if" Russia went along the others one. Tazmaniacs 00:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the second paragraph back to saying that Hamas is known mainly for their suicide bombings and other attacks against Israeli civilians, because that is what the cited references say. There is an attempt being made by some to sanitize Hamas's terrorist record, and that is what is POV. 6SJ7 23:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very obvious that this article rather is a pamphlet against Hamas than a neutral, balanced desription of the organization and its critics. The focus is entirely on Hamas' violent activities, despite the fact (cited way down in the article) that the vast majority of the organization's work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities. I concur completely with Tazmaniacs that the problem is due to the systemic bias - obviously Israeli editors do not notice the welfare work of Hamas, but are touched by its violent activities. Tazmaniacs and other users have done a great effort to seek a compromise based consensus giving a balanced view of Hamas. But unfortunately a certain number of editors have refused to enter the debate, and insisted on the one-sided focus on Hamas' alleged terrorism. As long as this is the case we should at least keep the POV tag on the top of the article. Bertilvidet 23:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting you should mention Hamas's "Educational" programs such as training orphans to become suicide bombers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5209466.stm hope that helps put the "social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities" in context for you Bertilvidet.Hypnosadist 00:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You should be more concerned about the Israelis teaching their children pen skills by signing messages on bombs that they launch at Lebanon that have killed over 600 civlians! (Israeli writing lessons for kids) what a great education Israel provides for its kids!! Feel ashamed of your comments now?!? 82.111.242.89 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Not Ashamed at all! I'm not (Personal attack removed) to.Hypnosadist 10:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil. Cool down. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 16:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

PS i think "Hamas is known chiefly for its suicide bombings" is unencyclopedic as that is not sourced and not provable.Hypnosadist 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

An appropriate intro would be, "Among wikipedia editors, Hamas is known chiefly for its suicide bombings." Romablog

It seems dificult to conduct a fruitful debate. If ever attempts will be made to reach a consensus on how to reach POV and in countering the bias, please leave a message on my talk page. Bertilvidet 16:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Avoid self-reference. As has been lenghtly argued, the appropriate would be to say something along the line: "Chiefly known in the Palestinian territories for its social programs & struggle against Israeli occupation [these last four words being taboo for most editors here, despite UN Resolution 242 in force since 1967, but who cares?], the Hamas is best known abroad for its sponsoring of suicide bombings since the Second Intifada". Again, it would be so nice to be able to find at least an introduction (not even talking about the entry in itself) which all Wikipedians could stand for against exterior vandalism, but it is quite clear that several editors here:

• refuse to include Russia's non-inscription of the Hamas as a terrorist group, although Russia is a member of the Quartet on the Middle East and hence a player much more important than Australia (or Zimbabwe, sorry for Australian people out there! — or for Zimbabwe, for that matter!).
• refuse to even imagine that some Wikipedian editors might not agree with them and argue that it is perfectly legitimate to speak about Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, although that is not only a fact since the 1967 Six-Day War, but even entered international law through UN Resolution 242 above mentionned.
• The list could go on, and has been done earlier this year... Tazmaniacs 16:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bertilvidet, what debate? what's the point? we discuss, we complain, we argue but what's the point as long as all the Admins here are extremely pro-Israeli (some are prob working at israeli press office) and they just revert everything and then threaten to and do Ban! I mean has any one with a neutral POV actually read this article?? it's the kind of story Israelis tell their kids at bedtime to scare them! Last time I checked someone said this was an encyclopedia! And it's a joke having all these other languages in wikipedia! seems we only really need English and Hebrew! as no one else going to take it seriously!

So really it's a useless/time-wasting debate! 82.111.242.89 19:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

At Talk:Hamas#Finding_a_consensual_and_NPOV_decision_for_the_intro some very constructive attempts to find an introduction we could all agree upon. Let's keep the debate focused, for a first time, on what to include in and what to exclude from the intro. Let's keep abstract debates about the role of education policies in creating nationalism and other interesting debates out. Bertilvidet 19:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hamas's welfare provision is mentioned above its attacks on Isreali civilians in the article but you manage to misreprisent this as "The focus is entirely on Hamas' violent activities, despite the fact (cited way down in the article) that the vast majority of the organization's work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities." what a joke.Hypnosadist 20:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your joke did not amuse me. Have another look at the intro, and tell me if you really believe there is more focus on Hamas' welfare provisions than its violent activities. Bertilvidet 20:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course more focus is given to hamas' war crimes than its welfare program, as it should. It's mentioned in the intro, because i want to know how much (dollar value) welfare for a Palistinian is equal to an human life in your ballance of welfare/death POV? And at this point i'd like to say that the USA is the largest provider of aid to the middle east, under your system how many people does that mean they get to kill? Also given that Human rights watch thinks that some of the "education" is a war crime commited against the youth of palistine (Use of child soldiers) how much credit does it deserve?Hypnosadist 22:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear all, I didn't start this discussion to try and determine who's right and who's wrong between the Palestinians and the Israelis (That's a question for the ages). Anyone with any sense knows no side is wholly "innocent"...both sides have committed some despicable acts and both seem to be instilling their hatred in the younger generation (So Hypnosadist your jokes and quips neither amuse nor help). And of course both sides have been condemned by the international community time and time again . So it's fair to say that Hamas and Israel both have their supporters and critics. It is also fair to assume that an encyclopedia that claims to be neutral and boasts about its NPOV should not take sides (I agree a certain amount of bias is expected). This gives the entire encyclopedia a bad name! I think a good one would represent/show both sides where as this article is clearly interested in only damming Hamas. Even the Israeli newspapers/websites don't begin their articles by firstly meticulously naming every single country that lists Hamas as a terrorist group (just naming US, EU and Israel is the norm somewhere in the article) as they know no one is going to take them seriously otherwise and see it as just Israeli propaganda. Strangely when I try to point out that the other big international players China and Russia don't agree with these lists it's considered POV by the Admins here and am threatened with a ban almost every time!

SECONDLY, "Hamas chiefly known for suicide bombings.." Look at it this way ask Israeli critics about Israel 1st thing they say "Illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and Illegal settlements.." ask a supporter "Safe haven for world Jewry, a true democracy in the region" Ask a supporter of Hamas "Legitimate resistance against brutal military occupation, helping the Palestinian people" critics "suicide attacks, destruction of Israel". Simply put we have to show all of the above! It's just as wrong to say Hamas are chiefly known for suicide attacks as it's Israel are chiefly known for their military occupation. But any addition or indication of the occupation is considered POV, I've tried saying Hamas was formed because of it, DELETED POV. I've tried saying something like "...Hamas are known for their resistance/uncompromising stance against the Israeli occupation that involved suicide attacks etc etc" DELTED POV Can someone kindly point me to the source that states that's what they are chiefly known for? We have gone to great lengths to have a full list of Hamas attacks against Israelis in a separate section would it not be also fair to have a section about all the welfare programs they have set up for the Palestinian people when all the aid is frozen and most civil servants have not been paid. How about a section on all the Israeli assassinations of Hamas members that have been condemned internationally and almost always also kill civilians!?!

Al final, yes you can Rev me Block me etc but in the long run you are only ruining Wikipedia and if I might add hurting Israel (but that's another long story :-)

For those who still don't understand what I'm trying to say maybe this will help...

• Encyclopedia: a book or set of books containing many articles arranged which deal either with the whole of human knowledge or with a particular part of it
• Propaganda: information, ideas or opinions, often only giving one part of an argument, which are published with the intention of influencing people's opinions. Yas121 03:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

General Assembly resolutions are about as useful as toilet paper when it comes to Israel, considering the Arab League can get anything it wants through there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrainor (talk • contribs)

Hmm I feel perhaps an example would better serve. OK Look @ this Baruch Goldstein, an US-Israeli Zionist mass murderer and terrorist who in 1994 opened random fire with a machine-gun on Muslim worshipers in a mosque during Friday prayers murdering 29 and injuring 125. He gave no reason for his actions, no apparent motive. Sick and despicable, correct! almost the entire world including Israeli government, Jewish groups etc strongly condemned his actions. OK now look at his Wikipedia entry he has an entire separate section labelled Supporters!! where justifications for his actions are stated. There is plenty of info and detail about the violent retaliations from the Palestinians and other Muslims, even in New York! that took place afterwards. Now look again at Hamas, it has millions of supporters around the world (Yes and critics!) is under military occupation, many of it's supporters claim it's a legitimate resistance movement...The word supporters does not even appear on Hamas' entire article let alone their views! There is no mention of the violent retaliations by the Israelis the collective punishment of the Palestinians after Hamas attacks etc etc

PS. Incidentally I was banned for 24hrs for trying to add Baruch Goldstein to the category anti-Arab people! PPS. I do strongly disagree with having a Category anti-semitic, anti-arab people etc it's a joke! I was just trying to make a point. --Yas121 Ok lets have a look at this "Supporters!! where justifications for his actions are stated" section then, oh it's his best mate saying he wanted stop the peace process thats not a justification its a reason for his actions and the rabbi at his funeral say he was upset at the "Humiliation" is just the Victom Mentality that both sides use to justify the killings. Anyone reading the article would be in no doubt as to the type of person Baruch Goldstein was ie a racist mass murderer. What are you complaining about?. Put a supporters of hamas section in this article if you want, i wont delete it.Hypnosadist 11:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't insert original research into simple verified statements. That Hamas is chiefly known for its suicide bombings is made clear by the sources in the footnotes; that those sources are "critics" is something made up by Wikipedia editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This cannot be the best possible way to phrase this, since 1) Hamas are probably now chiefly known (among who? me smells weasel words) as the main constituents of the government of palestine 2)the choice of words is probably sub-optimal. I'll see what I can come up with.

[edit] the best I can come up with is the simple map "is" -> "was". Or maybe "was previously known for". WA

This is from a wiki-virgin, i know nothing about editing pages or the responsibilities of wiki-editors. That stated, upon viewing the Hamas article, i felt that the intro was understating the local support for the organization. After glancing over the discussion page, i'd like to make a suggestion as a wiki-reader, and as a person who's taken several University classes (WSU) centered on "terrorist" groups (mostly from the view of the US). I believe the intro understates (and the article as a whole) the support for the organization, which is profoundly large when considering the violent actions the organization takes responsibility for. This is most likely because of the massive amount humanitarian activities and strength of the political arm of the organization. The violent acts committed by the organization are well stated in the intro (as they should be, they are horrendous), but nowhere does it mention their humanitarian efforts, which i believe are significant when considering Hamas as a whole. I believe this fact is necessary because these humanitarian efforts, politically-oriented PR or not, in and of itself makes Hamas a notable terrorist organization, firstly because of the support it garners them, secondly because of the support and infrastructure they provide to the region (as stated in the article itself), and because they are the first 'terrorist' organization to do so on such a large scale (sorry, no reference link, just a fact memorized from class). When objectivly considering Hamas, the humanitarian factor is not to be taken lightly, and should be highlighted in the intro if only to express to westernized citizens the extent of support this organization on the local level in Gaza and surrounding areas. In short, the social support Hamas provides is a MAJOR fact that is absent in the intro. By placing it in the intro, the article will stress the humanitarian efforts of Hamas not because the article will paint a prettier picture for Hamas, but because the money spent to improve the lives of Palestinians is a huge impact on the issue: it garners more palesitnian support, it somewhat (debatable) ligetimizes their organization dispite violent acts (right now the intro alone paints hamas to be completely an organization dedicated to terrorism and politics, which is not true), and gives westerners a feeling as to why locals support such a groups. Finally, these humanitarian efforts makes Hamas fairly unique amongst terrorist groups, providing an interesting dynamic in terms of legitimizing Hamas when considering them against the backdrop of terrorism as a whole. If another editor wants to edit, copy and paste this blurb of mine into it's proper place, feel free to do so, since i know nothing about dicussion page protocol- i don't even know if i typed this up in the right place =\. But dispite my wiki ignorance, i just wanted to get my opinion out there.

There is no debate over the fact that hamas calls for the destruction of Israel. They try to achieve this through suicide bombing. I would not be surprised if Palestinians, regardless of their support or lack thereof for these attacks, would also associate hamas with suicide bombings.

Lead section

WP:LEAD states that the lead section of an article should be 3-4 paragraphs if the article itself is over 30,000 characters. Since this article is almost 70,000 characters, it obviously needs a lead of at least 4 paragraphs. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines, and keep the lead material of a reasonable length, rather than burying the information in the body. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I hope this makes you and others happy. It still reads very pro-Israel but at least it's a start

"Hamas (Arabic: حركة حماس; acronym: Arabic: حركة المقاومة الاسلامية, or Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya or "Islamic Resistance Movement") is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist militant organization that currently forms the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people. It is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Israel, and the United States, and is banned in Jordan.

Hamas has both a political and a military wing. The military wing of Hamas, formed in 1992, is known as the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades to commemorate Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, the father of modern Arab resistance, killed by the British in 1935. Armed Hamas units also sometimes refer to themselves as "Students of Ayyash", "Students of the Engineer", or "Yahya Ayyash Units", to commemorate Yahya Ayyash, an early Hamas bomb-maker assassinated by Israel in 1996.

Since the death of the former Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat Hamas' political wing has entered and won many local elections in Gaza, Qalqilya and Nablus. In January 2006 Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, with the ruling Fatah party trailing on 43.

As Hamas keeps many of its members a secret, it has an unknown number of active members but tens of thousands of supporters and sympathisers. Up to 40,000 people rallied in Gaza City in December 2002 to mark Hamas' 15th anniversary."

Those are interesting details for the article, but they certainly don't belong in the lead section, which summarizes the most important and salient features of Hamas. Feel free to add them in more relevant sections. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Instances of biased information in the lead, if any, should be addressed, not moved to less prominent sections. --tickle me 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, how on earth can we have an introduction almost half page long without a single positive thing said about Hamas or even a mention of its supporters and then claim that it is not bias and our POV???!!?? Yas121 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Its support is mentioned, and it's a really bad idea to start a lead of an article by stating what we don't know. The real question is, how can you possibly have an introduction that doesn't mention the most salient and uniquely identifiable facts about Hamas, such as its fame for suicide bombings, and its purpose, which is the destruction of Israel? Trivia about exactly who various internal groups are named after belongs in the body, the raison d'ětre and fundamental tactic of Hamas belong in the lead. If you want to add something positive to the current lead, I'm certainly open to suggestions. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK good I agree the trivia about how they name the various units is not the best for intro...and yes their stated goals ie destruction of Israel should be there and their suicide bombings, although don't you think saying that's what they are chiefly known for a POV? If it is from the 'sources' then can you please point to the one that states that? I can't find anything like that anywhere...everywhere else they are chiefly known for fighting the Israeli occupation. What I mean is that is over all what they are known for and yes there have been times when they have been chiefly known for the suicide bombings just like they are currently chiefly known for kidnapping an Israeli soldier.

Are you telling me you haven't even bothered reading the references provided? Yet you've been commenting on, reverting, and modifying the text as if you had? Every single one of them made it clear! I've copied out the text from each one, and added even more. Please stop wasting my time. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OF COURSE I bothered to read the references, why on earth do you think I suggested we compromise that say that Hamas is best known by its critics...."!! Yas121 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you clearly didn't read the references, since you stated their suicide bombings, although don't you think saying that's what they are chiefly known for a POV? If it is from the 'sources' then can you please point to the one that states that? I can't find anything like that anywhere... when, in fact, there were at least 5 sources which stated that in the footnote directly attached to the claim. You have been wasting my time, and now you're dissembling, which wastes my time even more. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think following is vital in the intro as it explains how their current position was reached, their size and how they are seen by their supporters. So can I go ahead and put this in the Lead? anyone here object? (with good reason)

"Since the death of the former Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat Hamas' political wing has entered and won many local elections in Gaza, Qalqilya and Nablus. In January 2006 Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, with the ruling Fatah party trailing on 43.

Hamas has an unknown number of active official members but tens of thousands of supporters and sympathisers who see it as a legitimate resistance movement fighting the Israeli occupation. Up to 50,000 people rallied in Gaza City in December 2002 to mark Hamas' 15th anniversary."

Why would information from a rally in 2002 belong in the lead? And were is ths source for the "see it as a legitimate resistance movement... etc.? It wasn't in that link. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the reference provided? ...it is seen by its supporters as a legitimate fighting force defending Palestinians from a brutal military occupation.[1] It is mentioned, like all good articles, in the 2nd paragraph along with countries that have branded them terrorist org. I'd be more than happy to word it exactly like that if you want!

As for the rally it was Hamas' 15th anniversary! and shows the kind of support they have and was shown again by thier election victory. So can you please tell me what exactly is the problem with adding the above passage to the intro? does anyone else here have an opinion? Yas121 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The link provided was this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/10/world/main521360.shtml , which says nothing about it. So yes, I did read it, and if you want to make a claim, you need to provide a proper source. As for a rally in 2002, it's hardly relevant to the lead of a section in 2006. It's trivia, not encyclopedic information, and you are not using this talk page in good faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes sorry I thought you were referring the other link, that link (the relevant one) was directly above at least 2 times. As for using the talk page in good faith, well I don't think you are using your powers as an Admin in good faith....Look this really isn't working, there is no great debate going on here as I had hoped about this article rather just useless attempts to get your (Jayjg) approval. Well this is wikipedia, I dont think you are the judge of what goes in. So is there some kind of voting system here? ie lets say we want to add Russia in the list and you don't can we vote on it some how, so that would make it fair? --Yas121 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the link that followed, as all references are supposed to. And since I've been editing here for 2 years, and have made 40,000 edits, I suspect I'm rather a better judge of what's appropriate for a Wikipedia article than you are. I'm open to reasonable inclusions, but not crap. And, by the way, I haven't used my admin powers on this article. As for Russia, I'll start a vote for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Russia again?

Tazmaniacs, the consensus was that we wouldn't be listing all dozens of countries who don't list Hamas as a terrorist organization, but rather would simply be listing the small number that do. Please respect that. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Which consensus? Numerous editors disagree with your opinion, Jayjg, please also respect that. Again, the point is not to list "dozen of countries", but you must admit that being part of the Quartet on the Middle East, Russia is an important player on that. Why doesn't it list Hamas as a terrorist group? It has no such problems when dealing with Chechnya... Shouldn't it list it? Would that be more efficient, from the current Israeli government's point of view, than the current state? Or would it backfire, and, with this blocade that doesn't call itself by its name, only favorize religious radicalization in the Palestinian territories? Who knows? But whatever your POV — doesn't matter if you feel Russia is right, or should to the contrary list it as a terrorist org — you must admit that if they did list it, the situation would not be the same. Russia is not Zimbabwe. For the sake of..., this is a fact, not an opinion or a value judgment! Tazmaniacs 15:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs, the truth is that Russia does not list Hamas as a terrorist organization purely in protest of other countries not listing the chechen rebels as a terrorist organization. cacophony ◄► 06:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There are all sorts of reasons why Russia might not designate Hamas as a terrorist organization, most having to do with issues entirely unrelated to Hamas. In any event, it's not up to us to speculate, or to imply that their failure to do so is significant. As I recall, there were two or three editors who wanted to include Russia, most new, and with few edits, and 5 or 6 longstanding editors who disagreed with its inclusion. You haven't come up with any new reasons for including it. Please get consensus before inserting it. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I haven't seen any guideline stating that "longstanding editors" tell the truth more often than editors with "few edits". Second, I've personally noticed a fair amount of person who agree in including Russia. Third, we are not speculating nor is it Original Research to state that Hamas is not on Russia's list. And a five-years-old would understand that it would change a bit the situation for Hamas. Please get consensus before excluding it. Tazmaniacs 15:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't about "telling the truth", but about understanding policy. Unsurprisingly, new editors who've only edited 4 or 5 articles, often don't understand it well. The "fair amount of person" supporting the Russia inclusion turned out to be a small number of mostly new editors. As for Original Research, the issue is not whether Russia actually includes Hamas on its terrorist list, but rather whether or not this is significant. The constant inclusion of the statement that "however, Russia does not state it is terrorist" is merely an attempt to "introduce an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position" which is something WP:NOR forbids. Tazmaniacs, we know Russia does not list Hamas as a terrorist organization, the lead is already clear on that - so why do you feel the need to highlight Russia specifically, among hundreds of other countries? It is because you feel it is significant in some way - you are trying to make an argument here. Please respect policy and get consensus before re-introducing this material. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Implying that Russia's abstention is relevant is OR, even if true. It may only be mentioned in context, as opinion by relevant sources. --tickle me 13:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And implying that the US are relevant is not OR? Tazmaniacs 14:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We list the small number of countries that actually identify Hamas as terrorist; all others, of course, do not. Please answer the questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's twisting words: Both Russia and the US are relevant, nobody denies that. What the US wants, or doesn't want, follows from the sources cited and thus has not to be guessed at. I'm talking of Russia's abstention. That of the billion things Russia does not do, or could do, this one thing is relevant, has to be sourced - and certainly not to a wikipedian's assertion. --tickle me 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As a reader, I really must say that the sentence "Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by [several countries], and is banned in Jordan" seems to clearly imply that the international consensus is that Hamas is a terrorist group. I didn't know that Russia did not consider Hamas a terrorist organization until I read the talk page, and the exclusion of that information seems a bit... manipulative. Would it really hurt to include the sentence "However, Russia, a member of the Quartet on the Middle East, does not include Hamas as a terrorist organization." -a mere Reader

Also as a reader, I was surprised to find that Russia did not list Hamas as a terrorist organization. However, I have a habit of checking the talk page of political articles because many times the talk page illuminates more than the article itself. The same goes for news articles on the internet that allow users to add their comments at the end. Recently, for example, I read a news article more or less bashing ex-President Carter in a one-sided tirade; the comments that followed provided an interesting contrast. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia suffers such systematic bias in its articles--however, it more than makes up for that flaw by offering the talk page. Taz, I suggest trying to find an article which explicitly mentions Russia's refusal to list Hamas as a terroist organization and concludes that perhaps consigning a group is terrorist is a politically motivated action, rather than constituting a universal consensus of condemnation. -also a mere Reader

==A much less bias Lead section is desperately needed==

I suggest we end these silly Rev and Edit wars with each day a new reason, and actually discuss on a proper, mature and unbias lead section. I'd be happy if we manage to get a section that is only 70/30 in favour of Israel! Anyway here is what I have...Yes it does begin by pointing out who Hamas are then pointing out ALL countries who list them as a terrorist organisation and no mention of other countries who don't share that view. It goes on to describe the organisation, their military and politcal wings. Only mentioning their supporters in the last sentence and of course ref are provided for all claims... Pleaes I challange all of you to point out the POV in this and if you can't then just let Wikipedia be what it was meant to be a free encyclopedia OPEN FOR ALL to contribute to regardless of race and religion!

" Hamas (Arabic: حركة حماس; acronym: Arabic: حركة المقاومة الاسلامية, or Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya or "Islamic Resistance Movement") is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist militant organization that currently forms the democratically elected government of the Palestinian National Authority. It is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Israel, and the United States, and is banned in Jordan.

Hamas has both a political and a military wing. The military wing of Hamas, formed in 1992, is known as the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades to commemorate Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, the father of modern Arab resistance, killed by the British in 1935. Armed Hamas units also sometimes refer to themselves as "Students of Ayyash", "Students of the Engineer", or "Yahya Ayyash Units", to commemorate Yahya Ayyash, an early Hamas bomb-maker assassinated by Israel in 1996.

Since the death of the former Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat Hamas' political wing has entered and won many local elections in Gaza, Qalqilya and Nablus .In January 2006 Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, with the ruling Fatah party trailing on 43.

Hamas has an unknown number of active official members but tens of thousands of supporters and sympathisers who see it as a legitimate resistance movement fighting the Israeli occupation. Up to 50,000 people rallied in Gaza City in December 2002 to mark Hamas' 15th anniversary."

I agree with your efforts. We should find an intro everyone could stand for. IMO, it should include Russia which is a member of the Quartet on the Middle East. However, sentence "to commemorate Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, the father of modern Arab resistance, killed by the British in 1935. Armed Hamas units also sometimes refer to themselves as "Students of Ayyash", "Students of the Engineer", or "Yahya Ayyash Units"" is probably not needed in an intro to Hamas. Concerning the last sentence, I think actually it would be nice inserting Hamas into the Palestinian context (relations with Fatah & others). Tazmaniacs 15:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not accept your claim that Wikipedia discriminates based on "race or religion", and will not respond to any sections or suggestions premised on that claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

But would you consider once trying to find an intro which we might agree upon? I'd like to think so. Tazmaniacs 15:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't be commenting in this section. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good starting point. I think the dates of the formation of the differnet wings not just the military wing should be added to the intro to give the evolution of this organisation and shape to the following article. And hamas's relations with Fatah and other groups should be mentioned. And the notable fact Russia has not made it a proscibed terrorist organisation. It is not OR to place this fact in the article, its only OR to say why they did not do that(ie hamas hasn't killed any russians that i know of), it is very USA centered to think such a powerful and important world power as russia is not notable. Given the arguments raised to stop russia being placed in this article, Jordan should not be in the introduction unless a notable source says so. Its OR under your rules to have it there to say look a muslim/middle eastern country banned them as well.Hypnosadist 15:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, Please don't twist my words, I said wikipedia was meant to be a free encyclopedia OPEN FOR ALL to contribute to regardless of race and religion and that's how we should have it meaning don't change that. Yas121 16:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There was only one reason for bringing up "race and religion". I will not comment on content in this section. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Russia in the lead

Should mention of Russia's [2] not designating Hamas as a terrorist group be included in lead? (see also discussion above).

Support:

1. Hypnosadist 23:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Yas121 23:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)::
3. 194.75.128.200 13:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
4. 81.6.244.40 21:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Da'oud Nkrumah 11:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2. IronDuke 22:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Tewfik^Talk 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. 6SJ7 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
6. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
7.  tasc ^words_deeds 04:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
8. --tickle me 05:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Nunya
10. cacophony ◄► 06:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - Russia refuses to list Hamas as a terrorist organization only in retaliation for other countries not listing the Chechen rebels as a terrorist organization

Even more discussion of the topic

The problem is not only of editorial consensus, but of factual accuracy. Russia is a member of the Quartet on the Middle East and its inclusion or not of Hamas is certainly relevant. If it changed it would be noted. If Russia is not included, than why should the States be included? This is ridiculous. Australia is irrelevant, as is Zimbabwe. Voting here is displaying an amazing moquery of democracy. If you want democracy, start by respecting other POV and by allowing various POV from expressing themselves. This is liberal democracy. Please cease this mocquery of democracy and adress the real issues. Tazmaniacs 07:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You're just repeating the same arguments you've made before. Factual accuracy is not the only yardstick for inclusion in the lead section of an article, as you well know. Please come up with some new arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Please cease this mocquery of democracy and adress the real issues." Ok, you asked for it. You want Russia included NOT because they sit on some silly, irrelevant council that no one cares about, but because they are the only signifcant exception to the opinion that Hamas is a terrorist organization. The fact that you fail to admit this when it is clear to the (much too) polite editors is especially infuriating, in light of how obviously disingenuous you are. So, DEAL WITH THAT, and THEN we'll discuss why including a country that hasn't done something is necessary, when the point is made simply and clearly by their omission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.115.211.122 (talk • contribs) .

If the countries mentioned are the only ones who have banned Hamas then the intro should be re-writen to actually say that Clearly that would de-facto show russia's position.Hypnosadist 12:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ps of course this is about the fact russia has not made it a terrorist organisation, what do you think we have been talking about Mr Unsigned.Hypnosadist 12:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Two things, first, it's plenty clear to everyone who cares to read it, with the exception of particularly partisan individuals. The list gives countries that have Hamas listed as a terrorist organization. There is only on other logical positino, not a terrorist organization. Please stop trying to substitute "not satisfactorily placative" to "unlcear". Second, I was specifically adressing the repeated insistence that the Quartet on the Middle East is in any way relevant to anything. It has been used as a (very weak, silly, meaningless) justification, when in reality, your real goal is to develop a list that counters the countries that list Hamas as a terrorist organization. Just say that, and stop trying to find justifications for it. It's unseemly in the extreme when someon thinks they can sneak such an obvious ploy by, couched in a pseudo-justification like you did.70.115.211.122 12:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Mr. Unsigned

Then no-one will have any problem with adding ONLY to the front of the list of nations that have banned Hamas to avoid confusion in my or other particularly partisan minds and stop the insults.Hypnosadist 12:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that inserting "only" is designed to push a POV, how do you know they're the only nations who have labelled Hamas as terrorist? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But in my understanding of 70.115 highly literate put down of me "The list gives countries that have Hamas listed as a terrorist organization. There is only on other logical positino, not a terrorist organization. Please stop trying to substitute "not satisfactorily placative" to "unlcear"." thats exactly what hes saying ,but it is hard to tell with the long words and bad grammar. All i want is the intro to list the notable countries that ban this organisation as a terrorist organisation and list the notable countries that do not list it as such. This is very basic NPOV and editors with 40000+ edits should know this. PS no-one has yet said why Jordon makes it in but not Russia, where is Jordans notabilty?Hypnosadist 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please abide by WP:CIVIL; mocking another editor's grammar is inappropriate behavior. The intro lists every country we know of that has banned Hamas. It's a small list, only 7 entries. Please stop repeating earlier arguments as if they were never responded to - the fact that this discussion has been placed in yet another new section doesn't mean yesterday's debate is forgotten. And finally, it's rather astonishing that you cannot see why Jordan's banning of Hamas is significant, given that over half of Jordan's population is Palestinian, it borders on the West Bank, and it is the only Arab or Muslim country to have done so, or, as far as I know, made any sort of negative statement about Hamas. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps you could just re-read the comment I made on exactly the same question 4 months ago: "Jordan? 75% of the original Palestine Mandate? Whose population is 60% Palestinian? Which borders on Israel and the West Bank, and annexed the West Bank for 20 years? Are you asking why that Jordan's attitude towards Hamas is relevant? Or did you mean some other Jordan, like Michael Jordan?" Jayjg ^(talk) 15:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, I didn't put you down, but now I wish I had. More importantly, you attacked me ( and my "bad grammar") yet failed to address my point. In the future, if you plan to claim the high road make sure you're not acting like an ass in the process. As to my "bad grammar" please feel free to correct the errors you see, just be sure they exist and aren't a diversionary tactic designed to allow you to avoid addressing my points. 70.115.211.122 07:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Does acting like a jackass on wikipedia make you feel powerful? That explains why you shill for Hamas.

70.115 i did address your point, if the intro clearly says all the countries that have banned then adding the word ONLY makes it totally clear to those of us with "particularly partisan minds". Don't use phrases like that in you first message to me if you want to be treated with some respect by me. Now you accuse me of "shill"ing for Hamas, this is just typical theist thinking, dare to question even the slightest point and you are EVIL. Don't worry i get it off the Islamic fundamentalists as well, and i can't be a "shill" for both of you. I'm working on a compromise wording Jayjg to see if we can make the intro clear as to who has and has not banned Hamas.Hypnosadist 13:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

PS Yes Jayjg i think Jordan is very notable not least for beig part of Trans-Jordan back in the day but thats just our POV's what sources say its notable? The Jamestown link below does give an interesting take on why Hamas is not banned, just like the Iraqi Insurgency.Hypnosadist 13:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, how do you know that they are the only organizations which have banned Hamas? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Simple it has be claimed repeatedly on this talk page that the intro is clear because if you have not banned hamas you are not on the list, hence only would clear this up. I want the intro and the article as a whole to be encyclopedic, hence russia's not banning hamas is notable, does this desperately need to go into the intro? No but it needs to be properly explained in this article. The intro is highly POV because Hamas has two distinct pov camps and only one is represented in the intro when talking about its being banned as a terrorist organisation. The problem is there are two groups of countries that have not banned Hamas 1. Those who overtly support Hamas 2. Those who for geo-political reasons or lack of interest don't ban them. Both reasons are notable, this article should explain who supports hamas as well as who oppose it.Hypnosadist 16:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source which would allow you to claim that those were the only countries which had labelled Hamas terrorist? Or would that be original research on your part? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope wikipedia verifiabilty, you have to provide a source for each county that bans them. So according to the article they are the only countries which had labelled Hamas terrorist.As i say i just want the article to say who has banned thwm and who hasn't.Hypnosadist 19:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:V says that if you want to claim these are the only countries which have banned them, you have to provide a reliable source which says so. Wikipedia articles don't count as reliable sources; nor do Wikipedia editors, for that matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No they are the arguments you have been using here not to have russia added to the intro, ie its obviouse from the intro that russia hadn't banned them. You can't have it all ways. The failure to include russia in the intro is pure POV. And it does not matter whether i support that POV, NPOV means russia should be included, simple.Hypnosadist 20:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the argument has been that this is the short list of countries that we actually know have banned Hamas. That's simple enough. If you want to include something about Russia's complex and unique stand on this in the body (apparently refusing to list Hamas as a terrorist organization as a tit for tat because the West won't list Chechen groups as terrorist), feel free to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving comments

Jayg please do not move contents of this talk page. Comments above were written above, don't change the section. If you add a comment, do it wherever you want, don't touch to my comment. And don't calll me a vandal because I oppose your moving my comments around. Thanks very much. Tazmaniacs 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayj, your first edit was moving MY comments. I reversed this move. What rights have you got on where I write my comments? And then you call me vandal and threaten me on my talk page? Your behaviour is sickening. Tazmaniacs 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you hadn't been blindly reverting me, you wouldn't have this problem. Please restore all of my comments, not just some, and my spelling correction as well. Re-factoring Talk: page comments does not qualify as Wikipedia:Vandalism, but "Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages... is generally considered vandalism." Also, please abide by WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

POV

I whole heartadly agree with not "injecting" a POV into articles but please don't delete the following without giving a good reason. It has already been discussed (see above) I can't see why it's a POV, (perhaps someone can enlighten me) it is clearly sourced (both statments) and only a very tiny bit at the end of the introduction that mentions Hamas' supporters. So I hope people would do the decent thing and Rev back to this when someone delets or changes it.

" Hamas has an unknown number of active official members but tens of thousands of supporters and sympathisers who see it as a legitimate resistance movement fighting the brutal Israeli occupation. Up to 50,000 people rallied in Gaza City in December 2002 to mark Hamas' 15th anniversary."

It has been explained above. Please don't re-insert it without consensus, and please don't pretend that you haven't been answered on this before. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I havn't. You claim that "brutal" is a POV. I agree. It is the POV of Hamas supporters as clearly SOURCED (If you like I can get many more sources). It's just the same as "Terrorist" is the POV of the non-supporters of Hamas but I don't see you chaning that!

Rally in 2002 as you very well know is an example of their support so date is irrelevant. Had Hamas not won the recent elections in 2006 you could claim that their support has diminished so the 2002 ref is not valid, and you would prb be right. But they did win! also where in wikipedia does it say that a source from 2002 is not valid?

Jayjg, please stop Rv just because you don't agree with the supporters, its only 2 sentences in the intro about its 1000s of supporters and without it the entire intro just read like a POV (We hate Hamas) and that my friend is not Encyclopedic at all!

--Yas121 16:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, but you can't state POV as fact, and a rally from 2002 is old, old news that doesn't belong in the lead section. Feel free to add this fairly trivial detail in a timeline somewhere in the body of the article, and please stop falsely attributing motives to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Until recently the intro had a ref Human Rights watch from 2002 condeming Hamas...why didn't you change that or say anything about that? it was from 2002 after all and old news! Yas121 16:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A Human Rights Watch report condemning Hamas's leadership is far more relevant than a rally in 2002. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. How can we call them terrorist and then not allow the use of freedom fighter on the basis that it's a POV! Do you think Hamas supporters call them terrorists? Russia doesn't! onl we call them terrorists, right or wrong we have to acknowledge that their supporters do exist and dont see them as terrorists. Thats what an encyclopdia is! Yas121 16:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say they are terrorists, it merely lists the countries which have designated them as terrorist. If you can find some reliable sources which say they are not terrorists, that would be helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I agree only facts. It is a fact that their supporters think of Hamas as an legitimate resistance movement Are you saying that is not a FACT?!? or are you saying it is a FACT that you don't agree with? Yas121 16:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And this article doesn't say they are legitimate resistance movment! it says to their supporters they are....why do you find it so difficult to understand this? Yas121 16:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you find it so difficult to understand WP:3RR? You've violated it yet again. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've inserted that into the intro in a NPOV way. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Continually creating new sections to discuss old topics

Can editors here - specifically Tazmaniacs and Yas121 - please stop creating new sections to discuss old topics, particularly as they simply repeat arguments made and answered earlier, as if they discussions had never taken place before? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I note that Tazmaniacs has been making the exact same arguments for four months now! Talk:Hamas/Archive_3#Canada.2C_Australia.2C_etc._are_not_members_of_the_QUartet

Tazmaniacs, why do you continually raise these questions anew as if they haven't been discussed already ad infinitum? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm and when it finally comes time to take a vote to determine if Russia are worth mentioning he doesn't even bother voting! --Yas121 16:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I raised these questions four months ago, and you still haven't found any way to refute them, Jayjg. And Yas121, I'm sorry for refusing to vote, but I don't see the use of voting as it is not a matter of majority (Wikipedia is not a democracy) but of simple will to do some encyclopedical article on Hamas which could raise the two important geopolitical issues. As a matter of vote, I prefer voting with my feet, in particular when I know it's not gonna change anything. I reserve my vote for important issues where it might make a difference. Tazmaniacs 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you don't accept the refutations doesn't mean your claims weren't refuted. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Introducing "facts" via negative evidence has been refuted conclusively several times: it's OR at best. Voting with one's feet is arguably acceptable, fighting by attrition is not. --tickle me 09:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Eurasia Daily Monitor

RUSSIAN AUTHORITIES PUT VIRTUAL ORGANIZATIONS ON TERROR LIST BUT IGNORE HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2371354

Putin: Hamas not a terror organization

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3213707,00.html

Thank you anon. We don't so much need source however as trying to understand why some editors refuse to include Russia in the intro. Tazmaniacs 14:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Things can only be explained to you so many times. By the way, the source is quite fascinating; it states "The Russian authorities do not recognize Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations not only because they believe they pose no threat to Russia, but also because the Kremlin is very angry at Western countries that do not recognize the Chechen rebels as terrorists... The Kremlin’s decision to omit Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency from the list of terrorist organizations sends a clear message that terrorist threats to the West will be recognized only if Western officials recognize the Chechen insurgents as terrorists." Is that what you were suggesting for the intro? Something like "Russia has not designated Hamas as a terrorist organization because Hamas does not pose a threat to Russia, and in retaliation because Western countries won't designate Chechen rebels as terrorist"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you heated yourself Jayjg all alone. Keep cool, it's only Wikipedia! Obviously Russia doesn't list Hamas for political reasons, did you think the US or the EU only listed them because "they know good from bad"? Why do you think they listed the People's Mujahedin of Iran? And why do you think that they're going to remove them? Of course listing an organization as terrorist is a political decisions with afterthoughts, that's precisely why we should state that Russia didn't. What's its afterthougths? And what are the US and EU's afterthoughts? Tazmaniacs 15:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zionist [Personal attack removed] Jayjg -- if you would get your head out of your ass for a minute you would realize that, absent the editorializing, the July 29 WP:V info is that Russia has determined Hamas is not a terrotist org, and Putin has said as much. You don't give reasons for the US declaration, so why list them for Russia in the lead? Stop trgying to WP:OWN the article, and let another POV in, other than your own (pro-Israel) one. -- 69.29.202.123 06:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, you can't stand actual citations, so you "protect". You self-serving POV cowards. -- 69.29.202.123 06:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I found this article under ongoing anon attack, so I have sprotected the article and blocked one especially disruptive anon. If you feel this is wrong, let me know or feel free to report me. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with semi-protecting pages against abusive sockpuppet IPs. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

HRW report

It the Human Right Watch report from 2002 is deemed important enough to be in the intro, I'm certainly not going to argue against that. But simple NPOV would require not to cherry-pick from this report, and HRW, just as Amnesty International, are always very careful not to seem to favorize one side on the other. That's because their business is human rights and medicine, not politics and wars (although how far both are distant is everyone's guess). Thus, I restaured the version on which we had agreed for a long time: "In a 2002 report, Human Rights Watch stated that Hamas' leaders "should be held accountable for the war crimes and crimes against humanity" that have been committed by its members. The same report also quoted Reuven Paz, former head of research for the Shin Bet (Israeli intelligence agency), who described Hamas as "an authentic product of Palestinian society under Israeli rule, more so than the PA." (Palestinian Authority)." Tazmaniacs 16:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, this has also been discussed before, yet Tazmaniacs again pretends that the previous discussion never happened: Talk:Hamas/Archive_4#Paz_quote Reuven Paz's statement is not endorsed as factual by the HRW report, and Tazmaniacs in any event would not in any event consider former Shin Bet people to be reliable sources when it came to Hamas. The conclusion of the report is significant enough for the lead, but cherry-picking one quote from a Shin Bet person that one happens to like, is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect Taz, cherry-picking means not picking random quotes from within the report. If we carry on like this, we could all find nice passages to include, and eventually just post the whole thing. That is why the authors' conclusion is really the only part that should be quoted. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Since everyone is so adamantly determined to follow facts, can someone think of a good place in the intro to add the following I think it would at least give something positive to the critics of this article...

"Approximately 90 percent of its (Hamas) work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz.[3] --Yas121 17:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the source that says it's not only a terrorist group? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And that isn't part of the conclusion. Also, I'm not sure why you deleted the whole [sourced] criticism passage, or the sprotect tag (it is still sprotected). Tewfik^Talk 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

INTRODUCTION SUGGESTIONS

Dear all, since there seems to be quite a lot of disagreement about the introduction in particular (we havn't even begun to address the rest of the article!) I thought we could put our suggestions here first rather than taking the cowboy approach and just adding things.

I would like to add a little more detail about Hamas' activities other than suicide bombings. There are lots but the intro seems to ONLY really focus on that....how about the following (Of course source provided)

Hamas has further gained popularity by establishing extensive social services network, funding schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, and sports leagues. [4]

OR Hamas, which devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network and then the above...

What do you think?

--Yas121 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that if you want to avoid the cowboy approach, you'll stop inserting and deleting stuff without consensus. Show good faith first, then we'll talk. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see this paragraph restored to the 2006 Israel-Gaza Conflict section:

"The operation to capture these Hamas ministers was reportedly planned several weeks before and was met then with the approval of Israel's Attorney General, Menachem Mazuz.. - - The Economist reported that plans for the capture and the incursion were laid in advance. They also theorized that Israel could have used the capture of Shalit as an excuse to launch them."

It is directly related to Hamas, it is relevant to establish a real timeline, and it is helpfull in understanding the cause-and-effect relationship in this recent crisis.

-- User:Nantoz 19:51, 11 August 2006 (CET)

I'd like to avoid conspiracy theory views in the article - the conflict itself was triggered by the Hamas kidnapping, regardless of whether or not Israel also planned to capture various Hamas ministers. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the original intro much better. You (Yas121) seem to be a constant thorn in this article and I'm frankly suprised that you haven't been banned. You've not only vandalled the article, but you continue to persue your fairyland POV into what is a highly sourced terrorist organization. In general, your intro sucks.--Skwurlled 19:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Skwurlled, are you new? not seen you on this article before. Anyway, I have vandalled you say...Hmm well why don't you look at what the article was like before I started editing it[5] and then look at it now. So which one reads a little like an Encyclopedia article and which is like an Right-wing Israeli rant!?!? As for Hamas I may not like them much BUT this is an Encyclopedia! we have to have at least a little unbias in articles and where exactly did you get your statment that Hamas were ONLY just a "highly sourced terrorist organization"!! according to Israeli scholar Reuven Paz "Approximately 90 percent of its (Hamas) work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities,". Looks to me you've got your own issues with "POV" --Yas121 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"in response to the military occupation by Israel of Palestinian territories."

Yas121, considering the fact that the article already states this in the lead section, why do you feel that you need to keep inserting it twice? Also, considering the fact that the sources listed do not state it is "in response" etc., how do you feel your original research is justified? Additionally, why do you claim that there is an agreement to insert this into the article on the Talk: page, when the Talk: page contains no such agreement? And finally, why do you admonish Aiden to "Please discuss changes 1st on the talk page" when you adamantly refuse to do so yourself? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way Jayjg, but I am tryig to discuss (see above) changes I would like to make to the introduction. AND YES having read the intro a few more times I agree with you, there is no need to repeat something twice in the introduction so I'm quite happy with leaving that bit out. what do you think of the above proposals about writing a bit more about Hamas activities other than SBs? --Yas121 00:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a constant effort to have the following in the introduction when the exact same info is in the relevant sections! why repeat it seems to be just there to incite and nothing else of merit!

According to the U.S. State Dept, Hamas is funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.[7] In a 2002 report, Human Rights Watch stated that Hamas' leaders "should be held accountable for the war crimes and crimes against humanity" that have been committed by its members. Yas121 00:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to go quoting HRW on Hamas, lets not forget that Israel has been condemned by HRW on more than an occasional basis. Oh yeah and the UN. . .

The fact that you've now injected it into the body of the article doesn't mean it's not relevant for the lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, was that the end of your discussion? "considering the fact that the article already states this in the relevant sections, why do you feel that you need to keep inserting it twice?"

--Yas121 11:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well? I think the intro is too long as it is and we need to shorten it. Yas121 01:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEAD disagrees. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you answer the above question? "considering the fact that the article already states this in the relevant sections, why do you feel that you need to keep inserting it twice?"

--Yas121 22:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The article should state everything in the relevant sections, as well as the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary of all important points in the body of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK fine, fantastic even. I'll hold you to that as I'm going to do a Support section soon for Hamas and look forward to adding a summary of that in the lead.

--Yas121 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Support for murdering entire families just because they went out for a pizza? 6SJ7 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the U.S. State Dept, Hamas is funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.[7] In a 2002 report, Human Rights Watch stated that Hamas' leaders "should be held accountable for the war crimes and crimes against humanity" that have been committed by its members

Interesting.. this means i can hold bush family accountable for the war crimes against the iraqi, afghani and panamanian people. DONT include shit like this, or i will include something on the bush talk page or this page which will directly attack this bias. HRW is simply a tool for Corporate America to point out the faults in OTHER nations BESIDES north america.Jeremy D. 14:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually HRW has complained about the USA supplying weapons to the Isrealis, along with the existence of Gitmo and many other Human rights issues. They are my opinion very fair, for example the letters they sent the USA and Iran and Syria over there involvement in the Lebanon conflict where identicle except for the names.Hypnosadist 15:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg, it's quite simple. If you include a Report from 2002 damming Hamas in the lead I will include a well sourced Rally from 2002 supporting Hamas in the lead. You decide. I won't put up with hypocracy. Regards --Yas121 17:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because two things happened in 2002 it doesn't mean they're equally important. A HRW report accusing Hamas leaders of war crimes is important, and if they're culpable, that culpability doesn't disappear with time. On the other hand, a rally is just a rally - I'm sure there have been many Hamas rallies before and since. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinions

It'd be much easier just to ban him dont you think admins? This is tarnashing the name of wikipedia by allowing such a bias into your articles. Im ashamed of the admins for this. GROW UP and stop acting like the pro-zionist biased pukes you seem to be. Jeremy D. 03:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I know this may seem like a new and revolutionary concept, but your opinions are not facts and it is, in fact, legal for people to have different opinions than yours. Jtrainor 10:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not if those facts involve personal bias and Ad homiem attacks. Ad hominem attacks are not fact ... they are simply opinions attacking the personality of a person and ive seen the person stated do that MANY times to people.. especially on this talk board.Jeremy D. 14:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The main ad hominem attacks I've seen here have been the ones you've just made. Please stop, as per WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No. You please stop, as per WP:CIVIL Or i will Report all your posts that involve said Ad hominems. Also, racist comments are NOT considered WP:CIVIL OR WP:NPA. SEE. I CAN QUOTE WIKI GUIDELINES TOO :) Jeremy D. 15:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Which of my posts do you think contain "racist comments"? Or involve "said ad hominems"? Please be explicit. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And please review WP:NPA. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hamas video link

I want to propose the inclusion of the following link: [6] to the external links page. It is a page that includes a number of Hamas-produced films, or interviews with its leaders. I don't think that this will in any way slant the article.

CDacco

Hamas "arguably 'anti-Semitic'"

I think a distinction that should be made is being missed. Hamas is not for the destruction of Israel - that is not their Chargter - it is for the LIBERATION of Palestine. If some 3rd party hadn't taken Palestine and given it to another 3rd party . . . Oh wait i guess if i say that i am an anti semite. . . Its the most absurd conflict caused by white folk (i.e. england and their cronnies) thinking they own the world and can make borders and take land at will . . .

This is just another example of the widely-popularized, irritating, and disgusting psycho-babble that the Western Mass Media uses to control the minds of the populace. Is Hamas "anti-Zionist;" perhaps... are they "anti-Semitic;" ridiculously IMPOSSIBLE!!! Arabs are Semites! Palestinians are Semites! HOW CAN SEMITES BE ANTI-SEMITIC!?!?!?! Absurd!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a semitic thing. You wouldn't understand. Gzuckier 15:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Never heard this argument before!Hypnosadist 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The term "antisemitism" has come to describe racial hatred of Jews only, even if all Arabs are thought to be of semitic racial descend. Terror apologists (make that "peace activists") love to cease on that trivial point, as if it somehow vindicates all that Jew-baiting propaganda that Hamas is spewing. Fine; you can call Hamas "organization dedicated to extermination of Jews and destruction of Jewish state"; it is not arguable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.155.196.168 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the word antisemitism, replace it with Judeophobia or racism. Arguing over semantics is silly (can Argentinians not be anti-American because they live in the Americas?) 165.146.75.183 14:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Most English readers of this article will understand that calling an Arab organization antisemetic means that they hate Jews. The word may describe both groups but is not widely seen as such. If this is every really seen as an issue, we can also replace it with a cleverly devised synonym. However, Princeton's WordNet gives this definition for the word:

adjective relating to or characterized by anti-Semitism; hating Jews [syn: anti-semitic]

"antisemitic." WordNet® 2.1. Princeton University. 07 Jan. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisemitic>

Infinite state machine 03:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Infinite don't bother thinking about this argument as its just chaff to distract from the suicide bombings and the other terrorist activities.Hypnosadist 13:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hudna?

G-Dett has added the following text to the intro:

in recent years, however, Hamas has floated the idea of a long-term hudna (truce) and expressed a willingness to "live side by side [with Israelis] and refer all issues to the coming generations."[7][8]

I've removed it to here for discussion for a number of reason. To begin with, the first link makes clear that the claim is from an anonymous "senior member" of Hamas - we shouldn't be giving this much prominence to something that not only is not an official position of Hamas, but something no-one in Hamas is actually willing to admit to publicly. In addition, rather than supporting the contention, the second source actually states But Hamas has always shied away from signing up to a permanent ceasefire while Israel occupies Palestinian territory and its troops are responsible for the deaths of Palestinians there., and the quote used is a cherry-picked and shortended version of a claim made by one individual in 2002, that It is forbidden in our religion to give up a part of our land, so we can't recognise Israel at all. But we can accept a truce with them, and we can live side by side and refer all the issues to the coming generations. In other words, the conditions of a hudna are onerous, keep changing, and are unofficial in any event, and inserting any mention of it in the introduction would require so many qualifiers that it would rapidly exceed the scope of what is already a lengthy introduction. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg has deleted from the intro all mention of Hamas offers of a "long-term hudna" on three grounds: 1) the offers have been anonymous, and wikipedia should be suspicious of non-official Hamas positions; 2) the source's sentence about Hamas shying away from signing a ceasefire while the occupation continues contradicts the assertion that Hamas has in recent years floated the idea of a long-term hudna; and 3) the quote about a willingness to coexist has been "cherry-picked" to exclude expressions of rejectionism, therefore it's a misrepresentation.

Each of these objections is based on a fallacy, and the first is moreover based on a factual error.

1) There have been multiple Hamas offers of a long-term hudna, some anonymous, some not. Senior Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a ten-year truce in 2004 in exchange for withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza; spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin went further and spoke of a "hundred-year truce." (Both were subsequently assassinated by Israel.) Even if Jay's factual assertion were true, which it is not, his conclusion that Wikipedia should in principle give a wide berth to non-official, anonymous, or strategically leaked offers is silly. We are a neutral encyclopedia, not Israeli diplomats or negotiators.

2) There is no contradiction here. Hamas has floated the idea of a long-term truce, while linking it to the condition of an end to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

3) This objection is based on the same fallacy as 1) above. The statement was "cherry-picked" for the relevant part, the part that would add something new to the introduction. If Jay or others want to add the qualifying first sentence – "It is forbidden in our religion to give up a part of our land, so we can't recognise Israel at all" – that's fine. It's just that alongside of the preceding sentence in our article – about how Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and how it's still in effect – pretty much covered that territory. Jay says we'd need to add so many qualifiers to make it clear that Hamas's offer was full of conditions and contradictions that we'd forfeit concision. I say nonsense, Hamas' contradictoriness is there for all to see: they still call for the destruction of Israel, while floating ideas of coexistence and a long-term hudna. All diplomacy involves doubletalk; the work of weighing and interpreting it should be left to Wikipedia readers. It is clearly not our role to screen out what we consider disingenuous or overly "onerous" elements in Hamas's negotiating stance.

Floating trial balloons about a long-term ceasefire has clearly been a central part of Hamas' political strategy for the last couple of years; it is a crucial fact about what Hamas is and the historical pass it finds itself in. It speaks volumes about Hamas' stance not only vis-a-vis Israel, but also vis-a-vis its domestic constituency and the international community; and it speaks volumes about how Hamas is attempting to balance these pressures. Omitting any mention of it in a paragraph about how their goal of destroying Israel is still "in effect" looks very much like POV-pushing.--G-Dett 00:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hudna is a cease fire not a truce there is a massive difference.Hypnosadist 02:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you might want to edit the Hudna article, which begins as follows: "Hudna (هدنة) is an Arabic term meaning "truce" or "armistice" as well as "calm" or "quiet", coming from a verbal root meaning "calm". It is sometimes translated as "cease-fire"." The exact definition has no bearing on the dispute about whether it should be mentioned in the intro.--G-Dett 04:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

G-Dett, regarding the two sources you provided, the second seems not to support your claim, and the first, Henry Siegman, is relying on one unnamed individual from Hamas. If you want to add what Seigman says to the body of the article, that's one thing (fully attributed), but it's not a widespread enough view for it to be included in the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks SlimVirgin. I'll source it properly and then restore it. The repeated floating of ceasefire proposals (including unofficial leaks as well as official announcements) obviously belongs in the intro. --G-Dett 15:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Simply asserting your POV that something "obviously" belongs in the intro does not make it so. If you want to make a case for including unofficial leaks from anonymous sources in the lead, please discuss it on Talk first. Isarig 16:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about sourcing the official announcements, not the leaked offers, which are already sourced. Read through the conversation you're adding to from the top, Isarig, thanks. --G-Dett 18:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Semites

Hamas is anti-semitic...you cannot use the old argument that arabs are semites. Anti-Semitic, as we all know, refers to hatred of jews, not semites....ONLY JEWS....please do not try to feed us a liberal loophole....Oh, and Hamas is a completely terrorist organization...it would be better if they and all scum like them were wiped off the face of the earth....

Enjoy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.250.81 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, anti-semitic has been exlusively used to refer to hatred of anything jewish. And by the way, I thought the jews were the victims too fellow anon, until i this video that opened my eyes > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DTBVNTt3Ic . What Israel is doing is disgusting and inhumane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.253.21 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• The video you linked to has been deleted due to terms of use violations. I can only assume it was because it was a propoganda film or simply an anti-semtic one. cacophony ◄► 06:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So because the term is biasedly used to refer only to one group of people we should retain the status quo instead of aim for fairness? And what confuses me more about people like this is how they would love nothing more for organizations who have killed hundreds of people in "cold blood" to be wiped off the earth, but they fully support people coming into someone else's home and forcing 800,000 people into exile in mass democide. Would someone mind clarifying for me the logic that these people use for both of these arguments please?

See Antisemitism#Etymology and usage or a good dictionary. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not move the stuff about the conflict with Israel to the relevant wiki article?

An Israeli article with title Hamas Murders Children in Palestine is extremely POV and doesn't really belong to this article, unless you want to fight the Palestinian-Israeli conflict via revert wars here on wikipedia  :-). There is already an article about the palestinian Israeli conflict, so why not move such stuff there?

This article should be mainly about Hamas, not specifically what Israel's POV of Hamas is, although Israel's POV should be mentioned. Similarly, we know that Iran is very hostile w.r.t. Israel, but we don't spam the article about Israel with refs. from Iranian newspapers. Count Iblis 23:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying Hamas doesn't murder children ? Amoruso 23:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you wanna go there Amoruso?

“I have seen children shot in El Salvador, Algeria, Guatemala, Sarajevo, but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.” -- Chris Hedges A Gaza Diary” (Harper’s Magazine, October 2001)

Yas121 00:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So your answer is no ? Amoruso 00:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The article's title is too polemic. Let's stick to the facts. And let's not focus more than necessary on the conflict with israel. Of course, one has to mention suicide bombings, the fact that Hamas is considered to be a terror org. by many countries etc. etc.

But the moment you put articles in here like the one saying "Hamas Murders Children in Palestine" all you achieve is to damage the reputation of wikipedia as a reliable source of information. Count Iblis 00:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What's not reliable in saying Hamas murders children ? Amoruso 00:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, for a start, assuming that Hamas is indeed a Palestinian child killers organization, then where are the mass graves of murdered children? Count Iblis 00:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

here for example. [9] Amoruso 01:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Are these victims of suicide bombings? The article does mention that Hamas is involved in suicide bombings, not? Count Iblis 01:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I just wondered what bothered you with an article that was saying that Hamas murdered children. Amoruso 01:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably the same thing that bothers you about an article saying Israel's IDF murders children. And everyone knows the IDF have murdered at least 10x more children than Hamas! Yas121 21:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that including that in the IDF article is appropriate, feel free to discuss it there, rather than here. cacophony 01:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Gaza conflict

Ah why is the following being reverted (Especially by Amoruso who is in serious vialation of the WP:3RR Rule) for no apparant reason. It just adds further factual detail to the section...

• • The ongoing operation initially consisted of heavy bombardment of bridges, roads, and the only power station in Gaza. Several PA facilities were also bombed, such as the Palestinian Interior Ministry and the office of the Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya.

Please explain your reasons before reverting. Yas121 23:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yas121 you're apparently a real vandal. If you don't know what's WP:3RR then you stay quiet. You are in fact the one violating this and all other conventions. Take your WP:POV elsewhere. Also you might want to familiar yourelf with WP:CITE and WP:V and not use unsourced bogus material again in the future, thank you.Amoruso 23:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic Rhetoric subheading

I have changed the subheading "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" to "Anti-Semitic Rhetoric". Aside from the tedious and meaningless conversation about whether or not anti-Semitism is synonymous with Anti-Jewish, I didn't see any conversation on this particular point (although perhaps I missed it). On the main issue, however, it is deceptive to discuss "allegations" of anti-Semitism (or anti-Judaism); the statements provided are plainly and self-evidently anti-Semitic, and thus a subheading mentioning "rhetoric" is more appropriate than one using "allegations". Dasondas 21:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Hamas has ever denied being antisemitic? I think that's probably relevant. IronDuke 22:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not suppose to pass judgment in an encyclopedia!! hence Allegations! we are NOT judge nor Jury. This is not a forum for POV Yas121 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. So, Yas, as far as you know, Hamas has never denied being antisemitic. Correct? IronDuke 22:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect! what is correct is that this point has been discussed before many times and resolved on the Talk page so I'm not going to discuss it again. Thanks Yas121 22:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it discussed, but I may be missing something. Could you point to a citation where Hamas has denied it? IronDuke 22:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See last part of Hamas#Allegations of Anti-SemitismCount Iblis 22:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Count. Upon further reflection, I'm not sure that either title being warred over is appropriate. IronDuke 22:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hope that settles the matter for you. And yes it maybe a load of horse cra* or it may not...my point is/was it's not up to us as editors of an encyclopedia (that claims to have a NPOV) to decide. Yas121 22:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see your point, Count Iblis. Just like racists, most anti-Semites will tell you that they are not anti-Semitic. This section has no relevant sources whatsoever defending Hamas against the charges of anti-Semitism. Calling these charges "allegations" is extremely POV. This article needs sources to back up the claims that Hamas is not anti-Semitic. The charges of anti-Semitism against them are widespread and have been around for a long time. Where are the counter-arguments, and why aren't they in the article? Dasondas 22:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to hot debate at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid to see how such issues are dealt with. There, the issue has been debated for months now and there was a concensus to use allegations. -- Szvest 22:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "allegations" quite covers it. It's a little like "Allegations of Nazi antisemitism." But we should be sure to include, as we have, the denials of Hamas. IronDuke 22:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean here or in every controversial article? Your point is very important and i think there's a clear denial by Meshaal in the section. -- Szvest 22:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be very reluctant to say every controversial article must contain "X", except where WP policy (not guidelines) demand. But perhaps I'm not fully addressing your point? IronDuke 22:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Iron, i think you addressed my point but you haven't compared this w/ the debate at article above. -- Szvest 23:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't read it recently. Honestly, there's a good deal more heat than light at that debate (and I'm talking about both sides of it) so I'm not anxious to wade through hundreds of KBs of flame and counter-flame. If you'd care to summarize any points you consider relevant, I'd be glad to reply to them. IronDuke 23:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of not repeating the same process here i gave a related and similar analogy (which is the article i mentioned above). If you simply read that article (or only the intro) you may understand that there are statements and denials (same as in our case here). However, participants at the debate agreed to use allegations. -- Szvest 23:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dasondas, my POV is that you can't just take statements that are made in the context of a big conflict where both sides are fighting and killing each other and then judge those statements in the same way you would judge similar statements if they were made by your neighbor in a casual conversation. But anti-semitic statements are what they are, regardless of the precise context. The denials by Hamas are qualifications to put the context back in. I.e. they say that they aren't against Jews per se, their conflict is with the occupying forces. Count Iblis 23:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Fayssal, the allegations in the article you reference refer to allegations made by people who compare Israel with South Africa, because that comparison is controversial and might not be vallid. "Allegations" would be used in a different sense here, that is, allegations that Hamas has somehow made antisemitic statements, indicating that might not be true. At present, I would have trouble supporting this, as they are prima facie antisemtic statements. That does not mean that every Hamasnik is therefore an antisemite, but the nature of their statements cannot, I think, be reasonably questioned. IronDuke 23:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Listen to yourself... "because that comparison is controversial and might not be vallid" don't you think there are also people out there who think this comparison is controversial and might not be valid"?....dont' you think your POV is clouding your judgment? Yas121 23:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what answer you're expecting to your question? "Yes, my POV is clouding my judgment, thanks for pointing it out?" I don't know if you legitimately fail to grasp my point or are just trolling, but you might want to read my post again. IronDuke 00:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(removing indents) I would be more comfortable with "alleged" or somesuch if there was some organization besides Hamas willing to say that they aren't anti-Semitic. I'm not looking for an endorsement by the ADL or WJC, but really, does anybody anywhere besides Meshaal himself make this claim? And if not, why is it so POV to just call these statements what they are? I acknowledge that not every statement quoted in that section right now is anti-Semitic, but there are some statements that IMO are beyond question anti-Semitic. I think it is wrong to use "alleged" around those statements unless somebody wants to step up and present a (citable) contrary argument. Dasondas 00:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

UPDATING my previous post: I just saw the new attempt "Anti-Semitic statements and Denial of Anti-Semitism". I think this is pretty good. Is there a chance of getting a consensus on this formulation? Dasondas 00:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't we need an Admin to decide this? (or are you one?) E Jaffe 16:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we would, if there is consensus among the editors. cacophony 01:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cacophony is right; the issue (and it is a tough issue sometimes) is forging a consensus. This isn't an admin decision. Admins can weigh in like any other editor, but on a content discussion such as this their status as admins don't give their opinions any more or less weight than they otherwise would have. Generally speaking (with some unfortunate exceptions, however) admins have more experience at managing disputatious issues and applying Wikipedia policy, so any input any of them might want to share here is obviously welcome, but the issues raised so far don't actually require administrative assistance. So, E Jaffe, what do you think of the substantive issue (title for the subheading)? Dasondas 02:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it to a middle ground NPOV version -Accusations and denials of Anti-semitism. -- Szvest 11:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

Thanks, I feel this is an appropriate and NPOV version. cacophony 23:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD on Policide

I've out the article Policide on AFD, it is written in an entirely anti-Arab POV. It's like an article on the Atomic bomb that starts with the sentence: "An Atomic bomb is a very powerful weapon that Arabs are trying to obtain to wipe Israel off the map". While the topic itself may be encyclopedic, it isn't the current form and rewriting it would defeate the purpose for which it was created by the POV pusher. Count Iblis 14:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Link description

The Palestinian Information Center is described here as "Mideast news from the Hamas point of view. In English." Clearly from a Palestinian point of view; what is the basis for saying it is from the Hamas point of view? - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

this article is great

This is a great article. Hamas always wanted to eliminate Israel. The Hamas charter which says that peace with Israel is contrary to them and a violation of Islamic law was always in force to the Hamas organzation even though hama sclaimed that they only wanted a Palestinian state with the capital as jerusalem. Also, Hamas did do suicide bombings. Hamas wanted a truce s they could build up their strength and when they are strong enough, would attack Israel again. Hamas sarted firing Qassem rockets a tIsrael and then Israel responded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.93.27 (talk • contribs) 14 November 2006.

Thank you for clarifying that, because I'm sure that tons of people who knew what Hamas is were greatly confused about the group's tactics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.35.11.39 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

"Outside of the Palestinian territories"

In the lead: "Hamas is known outside of the Palestinian territories chiefly for its suicide bombings". Much cited, but all of the citations are not merely outside of the Palestinian territories but outside of the Arab or Muslim world. Is there a basis for claiming that, even among Arabs outside of the Palestinian territories, Hamas is known chiefly for its suicide bombings? Or should this statement have a stronger qualification than "outside of the Palestinian territories"? - Jmabel | Talk 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Asymmetric treatment of violence

We have extensive sections dealing with violent acts by Hamas. Violent acts against Hamas are almost exclusively covered briefly in the timeline. - Jmabel | Talk 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hamas to be removed from list of terror organizations on this site

Hamas was elected by the Palestinian people in a democratic vote in which the countries that now call them a "terrorist organization" SUPPORTED. If you want to cheer for democracy and then put someone on a "terror" list the next day because democracy was not in your favor, you are not for democracy at all. This needs to be removed from the terror list as it is a legitimate political organization in Palestine. If you want to use the argument that a few countries have them on their list for terrorist organizations, then I would like to see Israel put on a list as a terror organization, it is considered that by a ton of Islamic countries, ALOT more countries consider Israel to be a terrorist state, than Hamas. Haramzadi 00:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The deadliest terrorist action in the history of the Middle East was the King David Hotel bombing where 91 were killed. On Wikopedia neither the Irgun or Menachem Begin who carried out this act are categorized as terrorists or terrorist organizations. If my memory serves me correctly the Begin appears under the Rebels and Revolutionaries category! If the wikipedia wants to appear impartial it should define what it means by terrorist and apply this definition impartially to organizations without bias. Abu ali 15:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No both Irgun and Hamas should be called what they are, Terrorists! only that is considered un-PC by left wingers and the supporters of whichever terrorist group.Hypnosadist 20:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Hamas was widely considered a terrorist organization well before the election in question. Gzuckier 15:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hypnosadist. Both Irgun and Hamas were/are terrorist organizations in the sense that they both killed people for political gain and so they both deserve a place on the list of terrorists. Hamas is certainly worse though since the Irgun specifically tried to minimize civilian casualties (read the King David Hotel bombing if you don't believe me) while Hamas repeatedly tries to maximize civilian casualties. So, yes, they are both terrorists. Including them on the same "list of terrorist organizations" is similar to adding Franklin Roosevelt and Adoph Hitler on a "list of leaders of countries during World War II." --GHcool 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Historic Palestine (including Israel)"

Historic Palestine is in fact, the entire region of modern day Isreal before Partition and the creation of Isreal. Please, for humanity's sake avoid manipulating historical facts like this again.

Quote:

"Hamas was elected by the Palestinian people in a democratic vote in which the countries that now call them a "terrorist organization" SUPPORTED. If you want to cheer for democracy and then put someone on a "terror" list the next day because democracy was not in your favor, you are not for democracy at all. This needs to be removed from the terror list as it is a legitimate political organization in Palestine. If you want to use the argument that a few countries have them on their list for terrorist organizations, then I would like to see Israel put on a list as a terror organization, it is considered that by a ton of Islamic countries, ALOT more countries consider Israel to be a terrorist state, than Hamas. Haramzadi 00:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)"

1.) Let's get one thing straight. What happened here is NOT democracy. It was a vote, yes, but don't you think aristocracies take votes, too? Democracy is not "democratic voting to determine what TYPE of government rules. It is a certain type of government. What we saw here was an attempt at democracy that fell short, and became smiply: a vote. You cannot accuse someone of "[not being] for democracy at all" just because they call an undemocratic government a terrorist organization, which it is.

2.) "If you want to use the argument that a few countries have them on their list for terrorist organizations, then I would like to see Israel put on a list as a terror organization, it is considered that by a ton of Islamic countries, ALOT more countries consider Israel to be a terrorist state, than Hamas." -- First, there should be a period between "terror organization" and "it is considered"... but seriously, now: Most people tought the sun rotated around the earth. But just because they were the majority didn't mean they were right. When looking for the truth you have to look at the quality of the studies, not the quantity of the studies. Sure, maybe a lot more countries have Israel on their list as a terrorist organization (just as the majority thought the sun rotated around the earth), but WHO thinks that? Take a look, and be real...

"Hamas is a terrorist organization" -- Australia, Canada, UK, EU, U.S.

"Israel is a terrorist organization" -- tons of Islamic countries

Just recently the UK, and the U.S. have been attacked by terrorist organizations FROM those "tons of Islamic countries." Who are you going to trust? Who crashes planes into buildings and kills 3000+ people? Who are the terrorists? Saying that you can't call Hamas a terrorist organization because then you could also call Israel a terrorist organization (when they're called that by two different sources, one reliable, the other not) is a very bad argument, it won't hold up to good review and criticism, therefore you should not use it.

Just my two cents.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gondon91 (talk • contribs) .

I'm probably gonna trust the one that killed 2,986 people from a country that supports an immoral, illegal, illegitimate political entity currently occupying the land of another ethnic group after driving 800,000 of them purposefully from their homes, unnecessarily destroying their villages, and looting their former possessions while barring them from returning in the name of retaining the status quo, which demands that they accept their forced exile in good grace.

Furthermore, there is going to be a response about them not being forced from their homes or whatever. Save that crap. There is no way in hell that 800,000 people voluntarily got up and left everything they have ever known just for a quiet stroll into the neighboring countries. Second of all, I find it strange that most would say that Jews were forced from Europe by coming of the Nazis when they actually did voluntarily flee, even if it was for their safety. If the Jews fled for their safety and that was involuntary, it is the same for the Palestinians. Try to argue about 9/11 all you want, but the bottom line is that the lives of just less than 3,000 people cannot justify the democide of almost a million others. Period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.35.11.39 (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Recent edits

This page has been protected by User:Jayjg who is abusing his administrative powers in order to promote what is definitely not a NPOV. he is also banning users improperly and without any evidence. Someone needs to stop his abuse and strip him of his ability to censor POV's besides his own extremist one

Please assume good faith, Jayjg has not done anything inappropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to find a more balanced statement, addressing both the external and internal images of Hamas. Hopefully, this should help. --Stampcollector 16:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It will only help if you can find a reliable source; until then, it cannot stay in the article. The eight sources provided all say that Hamas is known mainly for suicide attacks. On the other hand, the stuff you inserted does not have any sources whatsoever backing it up. Please read Wikipedia's WP:NOR and WP:V policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding Jayjg's bannings, it does appear that the user who'd earlier made changes,Juloppy, wasn't vandalizing oranything. As far as I could tell, the banning of that user (who'd barely contributed anything to Wikipedia) does appear to be rather problematic. We all need to be careful, regardless of our own opinions on contentious topics, to avoid trying to silence those we may not agree with. --Stampcollector 16:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The previous editor was banned, period. We need to be careful to assume good faith, and not give opinions regarding matters about which we know nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence cut from article

"On November 2006 Hamas ended the truth sending a 64 old grandmother to a suicide bomb mission" cited to http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1742512006. Cut because "ended the truth" makes no sense at all. - Jmabel | Talk 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the person who entered it meant "ended the truce"; do you think it wasn't noteworthy? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I restored the sentence under the Hamas#2006 Israel-Gaza conflict sub-section. I am not sure if it marked an end to the truce but i am sure it takes part of the 2006 conflict. Note that i rephrased it as well. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Basis of Hamas/Fatah Association

I am interested to know how people choose whether to associate with Hamas or Fatah. E.g., religious association, geographic residence, ethnicity, political views of the groups, etc.

I think this is relevant in light of the recent conflict and potential civil war in the West Bank/Gaza.

--207.151.249.24 19:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

combination of political religious and most of all clan based: If you are hamas all your cousins are Hamas - but there are exceptions of people who move from fatah to hamas after becoing more religious. Zeq 19:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Help???

Just wondering if any of u could help me with an artical on History of Fatah/Hamas tensions, which i know very little about, but believe its an important subject--Boris Johnson VC 13:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[10] looks interresting Abu ali 18:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Chears, i will add it as soon as i have time...even if it is from the Socalist party...lol--Boris Johnson VC 21:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity

"Hamas has, however, repeatedly stated that it is only interested in operations against the Israeli occupation and not one single terrorist attack outside Israel/Gaza/West Bank has ever been attributed to Hamas." Is the latter claim here ("not one single terrorist attack") intended as part of what Hamas has stated (in which case it should probably be "and that not one single terrorist attack"), or is it intended as a statement of fact (in which case it should probably be a separate sentence, should be cited for, and the emphatic wording "not one single" should not be there)? - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy Shift: Hamas Leaders recognize Israel's right to exist

"Hamas leader says Israel's existence is a reality" -Yahoo News

Excerpt:

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Hamas acknowledges the existence of Israel as a reality but formal recognition will only be considered when a Palestinian state has been created, the movement’s exiled leader Khaled Meshaal said on Wednesday.

Softening a previous refusal to accept the Jewish state’s existence, Meshaal said Israel was a “matter of fact” and a reality that will persist.

“There will remain a state called Israel,” Meshaal said in an interview in the Syrian capital, in what appeared to be clearest statement yet by the Islamist group on its attitude toward the state it previously said had no right to exist.

“The problem is not that there is an entity called Israel,” said Meshaal, who survived an Israeli assassination attempt in 1997. “The problem is that the Palestinian state is non-existent.”

--Kitrus 09:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a Hamas leader saying that Israel exists. Where is the "right to exist" which is in this section's headline? What is the "Policy Shift"? Has the Hamas charter changed? That charter also states that Israel exists. (SEWilco 16:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

No policy shift here, its the "right to exist" (ie not be geoncidally wiped out) that Hamas needs to accept.Hypnosadist 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Legal action against Hamas

This subsection would seem to be open for significant future expansion. AnonMoos 20:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)