Talk:2009 Hamas political violence in Gaza/Archive 1

Article name

This article is looking good. May I suggest a renaming, though - "Gaza attacks" strikes me as somewhat ambiguous: it could mean attacks on Gaza from the outside or attacks from Gaza on the outside, neither of which is the topic of the article. Perhaps January 2009 Hamas violence, but the media should provide a name, at least eventually. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This is a totally misleading title. "Internal violence in Gaza" or "Internecine fighting in Gaza" is more to the point.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "fighting" is that it implies violence from at least two sides, whereas in this case all the violence seems to come from one side, Hamas. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

By whom?

Who is killing whom isn't so clear- perhaps that should be added to the first paraagraph? I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure even from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.235.178 (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A series of reprisal attacks and other.

I can't find any major news media that refers to the recent combat in Gaza as "a series of reprisal attacks." I don't believe this is a POV issue, but we should use an intro statement that is more reflective of the actual happening and media coverage of it.

I honestly can't think of a better substitute, other than completely rewriting the intro...which brings me to my next issue.

The first sentence needs work for sure. The statement: "A series of reprisal attacks within the Gaza Strip occurred in late January, 2009, during a ceasefire" is rather deceptive because it implies Israel violated the cease-fire, when in fact Hamas was first to launch rockets proceeding the initial truce, as documented here - Gaza rockets, and here BBC. There are several other stories indicating prior violations by Hamas, but I can't find it at the moment but I will continue if someone requests. Point being, however, is that these attacks were clearly in response to Hamas' actions, and were not an arbitrary operation, as the article implies. This needs to be emphasized, or in the least mentioned in the introduction.

Also, the second and third statements need to be reworked: "The attacks left up to 50 Gazans dead and dozens more injured. A great number of those affected were believed to have been Palestinians suspected of Israeli collaboration during the war, as well as members of the Fatah group, who are in rivalry with the Hamas party that currently controls the Gaza Strip."

It makes more sense to simply say the majority of casualties, or "a great number", of deaths were suspected Palestinian terrorists. Stating 50 Gazan's were killed (which is quite a round number) but then leaving little detail for the primary targets suggests a NPOV issue.

And, "suspected of Israeli collaboration", IMO, is too vague and will obviously lead to accusations of white-washing. Shall I edit? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You should always edit! I'm not sure about the last statement, however. The collaborators were probably not terrorists. Why then would Hamas kill them? Most likely they did not support Hamas' position, but were not terrorists. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've redone the lead. Thoughts? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, this may be a comprehension problem. Is this article about the IDF responding to Hamas's violation of the cease-fire or Hamas killing off the naysayers in their own camp? If it's the latter, I was confused. I doubt I'm the only one, so maybe we should retitle the article that clearly indicates this event was perpetrated by no Israeli's. Right?

I just happened by here from the news section on the main page. I expected to see a story about Israel attacking Palestinians, or Palestinians attacking Israelis. Neither is the case which means the title needs to be more descriptive. I am not positive about the best title, something like "Hamas retaliation against Palestinians" or some such (that probably isn't the best title but it at least says who is attacking whom.) The Seeker 4 Talk 15:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Logo of the HAMAS millitary brigade

The file Alqassam.jpg is missing. Hence, I've removed that particular part of the article (with accompanying caption) until it's sorted out. --MicahBrwn (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing important info and WHITEWASHING

Guys, come'on, We know how wikipedia works. If you intend on removing entire paragraphs or rephrasing critical information, go to discussion first. I spent 30 mins editing to fit standards and be more comparable to other Israel-war related articles. little edits, like clarifying the difference between killed and EXECUTED, listing # of wounded or simply the fact that many were wounded severely (like getting shot in the leg repeatedly), quotations from Hamas leaders, and many other adjustments.

I see plenty of articles lead by Israel that puts them in a far more darker light than this article does for Hamas. One could barely tell that this event even involved Hamas/Fatah. I thought it was yet another Israel operation. So stop the freaking whitewashing. If you want to edit extensively, go to talk!

Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

article could use a better title

Something like Reprisal attacks during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, that connects it as a WP:SUMMARY to the rest of the series.--Cerejota (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Did it, because this is like snowball, also did all kinds of prettying up.--Cerejota (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the new title; not so keen on the new section scheme. I think I preferred it when the Fatah and Palestinian attack section were subheadings of a larger heading. They seem to be related. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but I tend to disagree with the view: while there have been non-RS comparison of the two categories being related, it is also conceivable that Fatah units engaged "collaborators". There is a lot of fog of war, I almost found myself attributing the attacks to Hamas, but then stopped because we both lack sources, and because the sources actually say that attribution is iffy - implying even that some of the actions were not by Hamas (for example, the prisioners). Fatah and Hamas (and the PRC and the PFLP etc) have been known to collaborate against Israel even when fighting each other, and even in Gaza: there have been cases of suicide bombings claimed by one group, with the bomber belonging to another, and the "engineer" dying a few days later from an airstrike and being from a third organization. Seriously. Its a complex situation, and the more strict we are with sources, the better the article gets. I actually think this (of all the sorry messes the whole series is) one could have a good shot at GA if we keep it this way.--Cerejota (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and I understand where we're coming from. The fact that we're unsure if Hamas is attributable is something that I've been trying to impress on the lead, but Wikifan12345 seems to disagree with my phrasing. Compare: [1]. What's your assessment? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I reworked the lead a little too: the facts in the article included many incidents before the ceasefire. I think this is a worthy article as part of the series on the Gaza war. Certainly a nice WP:SUMMARY.--Cerejota (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a good title??? This is even worse than the other one. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why?--Cerejota (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop changing title without discussing here. Gilabrand, your version is way too vague and doesn't properly reflect the tone and voice of the article. I want to change it but I'm afraid of a revert war, so let's collect suggestions and then vote or something.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)

I reverted... BTW, are we actually agreeing on something? OMG! Surely I am a Shin Bet agent now...--Cerejota (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mossad actually. I know where you live. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't make it sound like I've ever changed it before. The current title is ridiculous - way too long, not to mention totally misleading and unencyclopedic. "Reprisal raid" is a term that goes back to the early years of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and is not appropriate here. The title of an article is not meant to be a 100-word abstract of the points made in it. --Gilabrand (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted to this title (Reprisal attacks in Gaza during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict), as the last moderately sensible version. I don't approve of this title, as it's too long, but the last one was nonsensical, and the one before that was wrong. Do not move this page again without reaching consensus here. seresin ( ¡? )  07:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gilabrand that the current title is confusing and possibly misleading, but I can't currently suggest an alternative. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest "2009 Hamas attacks on Gaza citizens." The virtue here is we keep away from words like collaborators, reprisal and such. These words describe the Reason for the attacks, and are better addressed in the body. Also, the part about this being part of the 2008-2009 conflict may be eliminated, same way the Intifada titles dont mention the greater Israeli Palestinian conflict. Thoughts? DimaLov —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

What bothers me is that the title of this article was changed in 6 minnutes (A short time for people to respond). Nobody made a single comment to the proposed change until after it was done so not everyone agrees here. My thoughts is that there could be a better title and the lead section is messed up saying the attacks occured during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. According to that topic the conflict ended January 18, 2009 but yet in the references I see dates these things were reported later than the 18th.Knowledgekid8722:51, 3 February 2009

What bothers me is that we title things with no consideration to WP:SUMMARY. The war is ongoing in spite of unilateral ceasefires.--Cerejota (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I just think a new title should be discussed. Oh and if the war is ongoing then why does the article about it say it ended on the 18th? A Ceasefire was put into affect and this article tells about killings in Gaza by Hamas during and AFTER the so called ceasefire.Knowledgekid877:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Reprisal Attacks covers the first two sections but not the Prevention of humanitarian aid. I agree there is a common theme to all the events described but it is difficult to summarise in a few words. Something like Hamas-led violence not directed towards Israel during and after the 2008-2009 Isael-Gaza Conflict. Far too long... maybe Gaza internal violence of 2008-2009. This second one is much snappier... the article could then put the violence in the context of the Israel-Gaza conflict and explain that most internal violence came from Hamas... unless someone can get some examples of some internal violence which did not. - Yaris678 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this article should be merged into Fatah-Hamas conflict. But I really do not think there is consensus for that. And, the RS are mostly clear in not attributing the attacks to Hamas. Remember verifiability, not truth. "Gaza internal violence" is an interesting formulation.--Cerejota (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This event is beyond the scope to merge it into Fatah-Hamas conflict. It also involved a significant number of civilians and the Fatah who "collaborated" with Israel. If we are going to be a merge it, it would have to be in 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. For now, I suggest we leave it be. Considering how bloated Fatah-Hamas conflict is, the article would likely get lost and trashed among the POV pushers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How about temporarily naming the article 2009 Hamas reprisal attacks? This would be supported, kinda, by this headline from the Guardian. Eventually the media will come up with a consistent name and we'll use that, but in the meantime we should at least use something decent. I agree with Cerejota that this article is more naturally a part of the Hamas-Fatah conflict than of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, though I'm not convinced it should be merged with the former. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the name suggested not the merging. There is just too much information and details to warrant a merge IMO. Including an external link is more than enough. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, does anyone have a reasoned objection to renaming the article 2009 Hamas reprisal attacks until the media decides on a name? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm just not really sure about the casualties...very few news bases have pursued reporting...totally bizarre.

"recent attacks"

What recent attacks? you mean Dec 2008? can you be more specific about "recent"? 193.194.138.135 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC) ?

Fatah Section

The following is a quote from this section of the article: "Hamas and Fatah have been bitter rivals since June 2007, when Fatah launched a bloody coup against the Hamas government after Hamas won the Palestinian elections[10], seizing control of the West Bank from Hamas." Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it Hamas who staged the bloody coop, after they heard rumors of Fatah prepararing to stage a coup? The citation is there for the statement "after Hamas won the Palestinian elections".Kinetochore (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. I think the section doesn't give the situation justice as the playing field was far more polarized. From what I understand, Hamas won the legislative elections. Then, Israel, US, and Egypt started training and sending weapons/funds to Fatah to encourage a war with Hamas. What really tipped the cow over was arrogant decision to undermine Hamas' "democratically-elected" authority. I'm probably getting my history wrong here, but Hamas won, "fair" and "square." Then Abbas acted stupid and Hamas honored its charter as a terrorist organization and dropped the semi-diplomacy act for what was bound to happen anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate quoting of the number "400" as number of Fatah killed by Hamas in 2009 reprisal attacks

Someone has said in the article numerous times that 400 Fatah officials were killed by Hamas during these reprisal attacks. They cite this article in order to justify this claim:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/21/MNHV15EHUT.DTL

This article contains this passage that mentions the number 400:

Hamas and Fatah have been bitter rivals since June 2007, when Hamas ousted Fatah from Gaza after launching a bloody coup against the Abbas government. About 400 Fatah supporters were killed and many others badly maimed.

The number 400 in the above passage appears strongly to refer to the casualties that resulted from the major fighting between Fatah and Hamas when Hamas took control of the Gaza strip during the Battle of Gaza (2007) and other related fighting during that time, not the most recent reprisal attacks in which all reliable sources I've read to date state that the casualties are less then 50 at the upper bound (and specifically 19 according to the introductory paragraphs of this SFGate article.)

I have remove these erroneous claims of 400 Fatah dead in the recent reprisal attacks. It is pretty egregious that this false claim has remained in this article for so long (more than 8 days by my count.)

--John Bahrain (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I just realized that. Either it was a comprehension issue or something more sinister...; )

this article's popularity has been pretty low so I doubt it made much of an influence LOL. I'm trying to find more info the casualties because from what I understand the witch hunt is on-going. Surprised so few media sources have failed to report. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian aid involvement isn't a reprisal attack

The addition of the following section within this article is original research as it doesn't discuss "reprisals" in any fashion. It belongs in a separate article. If you want to claim it is a "reprisal attack" you must be able to show that the sources you are citing claim that it is a reprisal attack:

Prevention of humanitarian aid

During the uprising, Hamas is believed to have stopped Palestinians from reaching an Israeli field hospital on side of the border at Erez. Hassan Halaf, Hamas's deputy health minister, said, "We don't care about it, they are just claiming they care about human beings but they don't."

A United Nations spokesman accused Hamas police in the Gaza Strip of seizing thousands of blankets and food parcels meant for needy residents. Christopher Gunness, spokesman for the UN's Relief and Works Agency, said Hamas police raided a UN warehouse in Gaza City, snatching 3,500 blankets and over 400 food parcels.

I have not removed the above because I feel it is not noteworthy (it is), I have removed it because it is off topic in this article. It should be covered in the main article on the conflict or the sub article that deals with the humanitarian response, not in this one (because it isn't a "reprisal attack" -- Hamas was not attacking the UN in retaliation, it was taking supplies for in order that it could be the one to distribute the supplies and thus win favor with Palestinians -- isn't a "reprisal attack.") --John Bahrain (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion at the moment whether this section should exist, but I'll point out that the current title of the article should not be the standard for relevance, since it is only the most recent in a long list of temporary titles. The standard should be the topic itself, and both the title and the section should be judges against that. You could make a case that the topic inherently embodies the content in this section, e.g. the topic is basically Hamas establishing its control in the Gaza Strip in the wake of the chaos caused by the Gaza War. I don't see anything artificial or tailored about a definition such as this, but even so, it's not clear that that definition is desirable. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is about Hamas killing other Palestinians for reasons related to the current conflict -- collaborators or its rivals. But it is a screwed up article in a few ways: (1) It does contain this humanitarian aid section that is related to Hamas exerting control over the strip, which doesn't fit with the topic being attacks on Palestinians, rather aftermath of the conflict. (2) It contains a conflict info box that lists two belligerents: Fatah and Hamas (but the article contains a section on humanitarian aid and another about Palestinian collaborators with the IDF -- both of which aren't related to the Fatah-Hamas conflict.) I think that these are recent events and thus we have improperly grouped them and thus a reorganization of the content distribution between articles is in order. --John Bahrain (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It occurred during and as a result of the reprisal attacks. No more edit warring. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, you haven't addressed my objection, you are just repeating a currently unsupported claim. There are currently no provided RS that say that the content in this section is related to reprisal attacks. I have said that the material is notable, but that it is off topic in this article.

Re: edit warring? I am using the talk page effectively to communicate, you are reverting me and repeating unsupported claims. Why does this content have to go in this specific article where it is off topic? I don't understand your insistent here, it seems misplaced and you seem unnecessarily rigid.

If you do not provide an RS that shows that this is related to reprisal attacks, then the content should be removed or the article renamed (and the other issues I bring up above in my response to Jalapenos do exist should be addressed as this article is poorly organized and poorly focused at the moment.) --John Bahrain (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John that there's a focus problem with the article. By the way, if we do decide to reorganize, I think this section would go more naturally in an article on humanitarian aid to Gaza in the wake of the Gaza War, say 2009 humanitarian aid to Gaza. The topic of humanitarian aid is currently a section in the far-too-long International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, and should be spun off. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing it is an iffy inclusion, but it occurred during the reprisal attacks and was influenced by them. I believe we should leave it....Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Says who it was influenced by the reprisal attacks? are u saying the the aids are blocked only from collaborators and Fatah rivals? this is untrue, there are mulitple reasons for holding up the aids, non of them is to retaliate against spies and rivals. Therefor, I'll remove this section until a RS is provided to link the terminations with the aids.--Yamanam (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The matter is simple: Hamas uses various tactics in its war against Israel; preventing Palestinian citizens from getting any help outside the authority (thus, physically harming them) is a part of that war and therefore, must be included in the article. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter how simple you think this is, this article is about reprisal attacks by Hamas during this conflict. Bring a source that connects these issues, you cant just do it yourself. Nableezy (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please respond to the points I've addressed. I don't need a source to tell me which war tactics are appropriate to include in an article that speaks of that same war - simply because they all are. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about the war, this article is about reprisal attacks. What dont you understand about that? Nableezy (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See answer on my talk page. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Which I will place here:

You need to provide a source linking humanitarian aid to the reprisal attacks, the article is about something in specific. The article on the conflict is 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. This article is about reprisal attacks by Hamas, not whatever you think Hamas did wrong. Nableezy (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Elementary, Dr. Watson: this falls under the same category, albeit indirectly. An attack can be carried in a number of ways; one of those ways is to harm Palestinian civilians by depriving them from any humanitarian aid in order to have a very convenient excuse to point at Israel as the aggressor. You know it very well, do you really think you can undo history by sweeping traces? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That isnt a reprisal attack unless a source says it is. You cant just use your own thinking as justification for text in articles, doesnt work like that. if you want that section in the article bring a source that connects the topics, dont just use you own WP:OR to WP:SYNTH together separate topics. Nableezy (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The title and the aid section

First off, the title is misleading, the attacks are denied by Hamas, nevertheless, according to some primary sources, that should not be used at wiki, it says that those attacks were carried out against traitors (israeli informants) so the title should mention that. The aid section, has nothing to do with reprisal or attacks. Yamanam (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You actually moved this article to 2009 Hamas reprisal attacks against traitors? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes and then I did move it back as I think it needs a more balanced title. Yamanam (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Now the new title is more balanced, first it indicates to what exactly Hamas did: termination of spies, and those were the spies that were active during the last assault, this way the title is more clear. Yamanam (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is going straight to ArbCom. Sorry, but this is an extreme disruption of a consensus process, unsourced, POV pushing etc.--Cerejota (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, if you mean me in the above comment, then please note that the last thing I'd like to do is to break consensus. I can't see a POV in the new title, it reflects what is in the article: Hamas is retaliating/terminating collaborators/spies. Yamanam (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Yamanam provocative non-neutral.2C non-discussed.2C inflammatory page move in WP:ARBPIA article. Done.--Cerejota (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For posterity, let it be noted here that this page was once called: Hamas’ termination of spies active during the 2008-2009 Gazan-Israeli conflict !! Chesdovi (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the page back, based on a rough consensus here, not to mention common sense. PhilKnight (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Fateh-logo.jpg

The image File:Fateh-logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Prevention of humanitarian aid

This article is all about Hamas' reprisal attacks, how come prevention of humanitarian aid be considered as a reprisal attack? it has no place here, unless an RS is provided to prove the link between the reprisal attacks and the prevention of the humanitarian aid. Yamanam (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've posted this remarak on 1st of Mar and no one objected it, so I think it would be safe to remove the section now, after more than 2 weeks. Yamanam (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

POV

This article holds an obvious POV for the followign reasons:

1. The article says that Hamas dismisses the allegations of conducting reprisal attacks, and it says those are family feud or criminal revenges nevertheless, the article's title is Hamas reprisal attacks! this is an obvious POV, how come Hamas' opinion over those attacks is not reflected and the title takes it for granted that those are reprisal attacks done by Hamas.
2. This sources says the number of Fatah killed on the hands of Hamas is 6 while in the same source Hamas refuses this false accusation and say those were killed as family feud or criminal revenges: why was the part that illustrates Hamas opinion disregarded this is another obvious POV.
3. This source is not a neutral source in this regard how can we take it for granted to be a reliable source in regard to the israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is as neutral as this [www.alqassam.ps/english/ source]

Another thing, this paragraph "Meanwhile, sources close to Hamas revealed over the weekend that the movement had "executed" more than 35 Palestinians who were suspected of collaborating with Israel and were being held in various Hamas security installations" who are those sources and how did Jpost interview them and why wasn't this number repeated in anyother source.

And when reading this paragraph "The officials claimed that at least half of the victims were killed by relatives of Palestinian militiamen who were killed as a result of information passed on to Israel by the "collaborators."" from the same source you can find how contradicted the source is, at the first paragraph it says that Hamas says that they executed 35 collaborators, and the second paragraph says that Hamas says that hald of them were executed by relatives of Palestinian militiamen: apparenlty there is a huge difference between Hamas and Relatives of Palestinina militiamen, it is not a must that the relatives of Palestinian militiamen to be Hamas activists!

1. This source is describing Hamas to be a "radical Islamist movement" this means that it is not a neutral source whatsoever, on the other hand, it was used in the article to indicate to the killing of Palestinians on the hands of Hamas and the paragraphs of this source that says that Hamas says they only arrested Palestinians without killing them was not cited in teh article, this is another obvious POV.
2. For some reason, this source is not opening.Yamanam (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Continued:

1. The most neutral source is this and the spirit of the article of this source is not 100% reflected in the article, it seems that this source was refined to reflect only the same POV that's been repeating all dering the article, and I mean the following:

• This source says: Some of the victims were prisoners who escaped from a jail and the killers were relatives of those victims' victims (this was not mentioned).
• The source says: "But there was not yet enough evidence to suggest this was an organised campaign by Hamas" but this is not reflected in the article, on the contrary and as I previously said, the article takes it for granted that those attacks are organized and accomplished by Hamas.
• Another phrase that was diregarded from the same source: "It's not all necessarily Hamas actions against Fatah." Yamanam (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources in these types of situations tend to contradict themselves. Remember: every important fact in the article is cited, and yes there is clearly a POV issue but that is natural in all Israeli/Palestinian article. The problem with Hamas is reliable information is hard to come by, considering they're a recognized terrorist organization, so we are forced to become dependent on "contradicting" sources. But as editors, we don't have the privilege to decide what is "POV", all we can do is paraphrase and cite. If you would like to balance the article with neutral language or more information that is supported by RSs, please do. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid you have admitted that youare trying to push your POV, simply since you agree that those sources tend to contradict themselves and you pick only certain paragraphs from the sources and leaving the other "contradicted" paragraph means that you are picking what is suitable for you, Leave aside that contradicted sources are not RS. Hamas from one side is a terrorist organization and from another side is a freedom fighter organization, so leave your POV aside here. And as far as the article is not balanced the POV tag should stay. At least try to cite the information as they are mentioned in the sources.Yamanam (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yam I've already pointed out your flawed logic in proving "POV-pushing." The articles contradict themselves because Hamas and Fatah are enemies. Hamas says this, Fatah says that, Israel doesn't care, Western media reports. You have accused many users of POV-pushing in the past, this nothing new and I urge you to stop doing that or you will likely get blocked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

12345 I don't go with Yam, Yamanam only, you didn't prove anything, rather u've been throwing some false allegations against me that Falastine and me refuted them successfully. If the articles contradict themselves and you want people to assume good faith with you then quote both opinions, Fatah and Hamas - I didn't ask you why the sources contradict themselves, I asked you why do you quote whatever suites you and leave the other part of the story, which is exactly what is meant by POV pushing. Yamanam (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yam is shorter and takes less time to write when responding to your defense of disrupted editing. Please report to a noticeboard, PLEASE. You won't convince anyone here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No I think I am convincing you at least, as you have fixed some of the issues I raised here, especially quoting the numbers from the sources correctly. Still, I beleive more work need to be done on this article.Yamanam (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

who was injured or killed

All of the sources talking about 'reprisal attacks' say that one of two groups were attacked or killed. Either those attacked or killed were associated with Fatah, or they were suspected by Hamas of collaboration. Is there a reason why the article should just say 'Palestinians' other than to make it overly inclusive of groups that it would otherwise not include? Nableezy (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We had a lengthy discussion on your talk page which you oddly removed. None of the sources conclude all Palestinian executed/killed/tortured for suspected collaboration. Hamas' language is too vague and Fatah's complaints don't cohoborate. We could just as well say, "Fatah believes Hamas also killed party members unrelated to "suspected collaboration." I do not understand your reasoning and quite frankly everyone here with the exception of Yam (who is a vandal) disagrees. You have to prove these kinds of statements before inserting them, not the other way around. Reverted. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not oddly removed, archived because I dont want to have to read nonsense. If something is pertinent to the article place it here. And you still dont seem to understand basic English, saying members of Fatah or those suspected of collaboration does not mean that all those killed were members of Fatah who were collaborating. Nableezy (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, archived. Sure. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you dont seem to believe me, here you go: User talk:Nableezy/Archive 4#Reprisal. Nableezy (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

see alsos

what does this have to do with Islamic fundamentalism? Or does any article discussing Hamas need to have that see also? Nableezy (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, because Hamas' government screams Islamic fundamentalism? Because Gaza/West Bank is the one of the few epic centers that breed fundamentalism? LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

and what does it have to do with reprisal killings? Nableezy (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What does it not have to do with "reprisal killings"? This is yet another conflict grounded in extremism, shooting people in the leg, torturing them, "dishonoring" their authority, etc..I'm assuming you don't consider Hamas as an islamic extremist organization, but the United States and a couple European states disagree. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with considering Hamas as an extremist organization or not, this is very simple, all countries, civilizations, ruling organization execute spies, whether they were Mulims, Christians, or Jewish. So executing spies has nothing to do with Islamic Fundamentalism, it has to do with punishing betrayals. Yamanam (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

what? a conflict grounded in extremism? can you specify what reprisal killings have to do with 'Islamic fundamentalism'? Nableezy (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I just did. Let' see. Hamas executing civilians for "suspected collaboration" (dubious claim and unverifiable), Hamas defending it's "territory" through ruthless and extremist tactics, and considering there charter, which is sactioning all of these cordial disputes, is based on islamic extremism, it is evident that this conflict is based on islamic extremism. Basically, guys with guns read a book written 1,300 years ago and decide to kill everybody. Comprende? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see now, the Hamas charter is an example of 'Islamic fundamentalism' so this must be as well. Sorry, doesnt work like that, what about these killings has anything at all to do with Islamic fundamentalism? Nableezy (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I just said. Let be break it down: Hamas charter (fundamentalist - Hamas actions (fundamentalist) - Hamas killing civilians, activists, political party members (fundamentalist - You (Hamas' actions not fundamentalist). Nab, if the attacks aren't grounded in ISLAMIC EXTREMISM, what are they based on? Civil and polite violent disagreements? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all and is a compete synthesis of sources going back as far as 10 years +. These actions have nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism, and you cant provide a single source that raise fundamentalism as regards these actions. Nableezy (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the source need to say, "Islamic fundamentalism" to be such a thing? No. Just like reports of Al-Qaeda killing 40 Iraqi civilians doesn't have to include statements like "example of Islamic extremism." Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So when the French Resistance and the Belski partisans killed collabrators during the Second World War, they were doing it because they were Islamic Fundamentalists? Wodge (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. Wait, are you implying Hamas aren't Islamic fundamentalist? Well, most of the real world begs to differ: Hamas is considered a fundamentalist terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union. Does that make sense? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My question is this: is this an act of islamic extremism? or the one you just added, islamic terrorism? Nableezy (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think both are the same in certain circumstances. What drove Hamas to kill and torture all these people? Yeah, to suppress "collaborators" but the inspiration comes from Islamic extremism. What else could it be? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because a group is a so called extremist or terrorist group does not mean that everything that they do is an act of extremism or terrorism. Internal security, or suppression of dissent, or torture of opponents, or however you want to define it, does not equal islamic terrorism or extremism. What makes you draw the conclusion that this act is inspired by islamic extremism or terrorism? Nableezy (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it does. Hamas = Islamic extremist organization. Killing and torturing citizens = extremist. Result = Islamic extremism. Why is this even an argument?! What do you consider Hamas in this particularly situation? Please, I'd like to know. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No it doesnt and that equation you just provided is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. My personal feelings dont enter into the conversation, neither should yours. Nableezy (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

These aren't MY personal feelings. Hamas is recognized as Islamic fundamentalist movement by 10+ nations, including the United States and the European Union. Killing people for "collaborating" is simply honoring their fundamentalist protocol. Not my opinion. I believe they're a free, liberal, and democratic party. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You havent been able to show how these actions are either actions of islamic extremism or islamic terrorism other than to say that Hamas did it so it must be ectremist/terrorist. Can you do that or is that whole basis of your argument? Nableezy (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to show anything, the proof is right in the article. I was simply repeating it. Perhaps this is a comprehension issue, because I did not just say the events were extremist because it was Hamas. I think you're being argumentative here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it an act of Islamic extremism? Just because it was done by Muslims? Nableezy (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, because it was done by muslims who went into civilian homes, shot them in the legs, knees, and hands. Then they executed members of a rivaling political party under dubious claims, while detaining dozens of civilians into former elementary schools...and torturing them. What more evidence do you need? 2 planes and a building? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How does that constitute Islamic extremism? If you didn't catch my drift with the bolding, is your argument that this political violence is Islamic extremism only because it was committed by a Muslim group, or because this Muslim group is considered a terrorist organization by a set of countries? Nableezy (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And what I need is a source saying this violence is Islamic terrorism or Islamic extremism, something you apparently are unable to find. Nableezy (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Uh, [2]. Well, Islamic extremism does require the extremist to be a Muslim (or appear to be one). The extremism is relatively self-explanatory, in this case manipulating the Quran to impose radicalism/violence/etc... on others. Hamas is: A) An Islamic extremist movement and B)Exclusively relies on extremist tactics to dominate the Gaza Strip. Thus, these reprisal attacks justify a "Islamic extremism" catagory. Is it that hard to understand or do you truly condone Hamas? LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, that isnt a source. Whether or not I 'condone Hamas' is both irrelevant and none of your business. Stop making this about you and me and just provide some justification, not your own but through sources, for an 'Islamic terrorism' see also, which is what you last put up, or 'Islamic extremism' which was there before. Show some relevance to these acts being either Islamic terrorism or Islamic extremism based on sources, not your own use of twisted language that doesn't even mean much. Nableezy (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You made it about me. You're confusing argument with elementary knowledge. I provided plenty of justifications, ranging from complex to juvenile simplifying so you wouldn't have an excuse to say "not enough." To deny this is nothing short of Islamic extremism is suspicious. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You misjudge my intentions. Although I appreciate you changing it back to extremism. My argument here is that to call this an act of Islamic extremism you need to be able to show the motive was something other than internal security or the purging of political rivals. This is political violence, as in violence taken against a political opponent or to silence dissent among the population. It isnt somehow special because it is Hamas that is the government doing these things. All I really want is a source saying that this is somehow an act of Islamic extremism or motivated by Islamic extremism. Synthesizing that this is an act committed by Hamas and Hamas is an Islamic extremist organization to say that this is an act of Islamic extremism isnt sufficient. Nableezy (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...still confused. Do you want an article to explicitly say..."Hamas' killing, torturing, and executing individuals for collaboration demonstrates Islamic extremism..."? this is not Wikipedia:No original research, it is recognizing Hamas' charter as a terrorist organization by the the US, EU, etc...and applying that fact (not OR) to the conditions imposed in Gaza. From your favorite reporter: Hamas executes collaborators and restricts Fatah movement. There are currently no policy rules to verify a topic meets a category's criteria of inclusion. I refuse to apply your cookie-cutter reasoning and argumentative character as a reference. I've provided plenty of justifications and dismissing them as OR and demanding more proof won't convince anyone. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If by anyone you mean yourself then I suspect you are right. But your reasoning is backwards. You say that this is an act of Islamic extremism because it is an action by an 'Islamic extremist' organization and are bringing in a decades old charter that bears no real relevance to this discussion. What about this action shows that is an action of Islamic extremism? Stop obfuscating the issue and just answer the question. Your only answer has been that Hamas is an Islamic extremist organization and this was an action by Hamas so this is an Islamic extremist action. Again, that is pure WP:SYNTH. Provide a valid rationale. Nableezy (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And it is a fact that some governments say Hamas is a terrorist organization, it is not however a fact that it is a terrorist organization. Nableezy (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have brought this to the OR noticeboard to get some more eyes to take a look at it, please feel free to comment here Nableezy (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...."decades old charter.." does that somehow reduce its effectiveness and imposition in the Hamas government? Was there a recent democratic revolution within the territory...say...in the last 6 minutes? No? It can't be....Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well they did win free and fair democratic elections, but that is not really relevant to the article. If you have a source saying that the charter has anything at all to do with this please bring it forward, but I do not want to hear your own formulations trying to connect the two. Nableezy (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct they did win a free and fair democratic election, then they orchestrated a violent coup...I also provided a source. Your post at noticeboards was about the See Also crap. I had nothing to do with that, you should have messaged Ed. Nice going. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

you need to read up, it was Fatah that attempted a coup and got beat back, not Hamas orchestrating a coup. And what does being democratic even have to do with the issue at hand? Try to stay on topic. Nableezy (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)