Talk:Hamas/Archive 4

Le Canard Enchaîné citation

Tazmaniac, do you understand meaning of citation? online one? If you want to have that reference on page, you should remove link to first page 'cause it's totally irrelevant. The quotes will remain unreferenced, you're only confusing readers. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 20:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, removed the link to the front page. Tazmaniacs 01:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Funding

Can we see sources for the following section, please? In particular, we need to see exactly what the sources say, in case they're being misrepresented. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

However, various sources, among them United Press International , Le Canard enchaîné and L'Humanité have highlighted that Hamas' early growth - before its official founding and the creation of the military branch - had been supported by the Mossad as a "counterbalance to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)". Furthermore, the French investigative newspaper Le Canard enchaîné revealed that the Shabak had also supported Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO and the Fatah, in an attempt to give "a religious slant to the conflict, in order to make believe Occident that the conflict was between Jews and Muslims" .

Please don't re-insert this without showing what the sources say. Your revert said "see talk" but you've left no comment. Discuss here without reverting please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I was writing the answer!!

My dear Slimvirgin, as you are an habitual user of this page, I am sure you are aware that these sources have been on since February 2006. You can have a look at the edit history if you forgot. Because the Internet changes, the UPI source - which has been here long before February 2006, I don't know exactly when since I wasn't the one to introduce it - is not any more accessible. I'm afraid you will have to look it up in a library, if you are really interested. The Humanité source is perfectly accessible, so you may read it if you will. The Canard Enchaîné source, which, as the Humanité, has been on since February 2006, is accessible in a library, since this newspaper only provides its frontpage on the Internet. I feel this deletion is a bit of an intimidation, as you perfectly knew these sources were on, and deleting it after three months is a bit too much! So, if you really don't believe such things, which are, by the way, as an user has said in the past on this talk page refering to a Hebrew Wikipedia article, nothing extraordinary secret, I'm sure you have access to a library. You may also find informations about that on the archives of Haaretz newspaper. I am afraid that I am not really available right now to do your library job, and no Wikipedia policies force me to do it. I assume your good faith, I doubt that you do though. Now, you may also have a look at these policies that you perfectly know, WP:CS, WP:RS, etc. Cheers, take a deep breath, it's only Wikipedia, and everybody knows anyway. Furthermore, I don't see what you feel disturbing in that information, the situation in the 1970s is not the same as today. Tazmaniacs 01:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs, perhaps in future you could write your comment and wait for someone to answer it. The sources have been questioned and the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wants the edit to remain. Please see V and NOR. We need to see exactly what these sources said. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make lessons of Witiquette when you are deleting sources that have been on for such a long period (3 months). Now, the Humanite source is accessible, you just have to follow the link. You want it again? Because you don't take the pain to go at the bottom of the page to follow the link? Here it is then. This is most unappropriate behavior, whatever your political opinions. Tazmaniacs 01:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you please stop insulting me and concentrate on content? I saw that link. It doesn't go to the newspaper. Where does it say this was published and when? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not insult you, I am annoyed that you remove a source that's been here for three months. I'll also quote you this comment "

It's well known the IDF backed Hamas throughout the 80s as a counterweight to Ashaf. See the article on חמאס, section 2.1. El_C 04:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)". Now, if you want the original French version, no problem, why didn't you ask before? Wait a second, please. Regards, Tazmaniacs 01:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Original version: [1]. Tazmaniacs 01:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence because it does not make sense in English. I did not want to edit it for style, because I have not seen the original French. I am happy for someone else to put it back in in proper English, although I don't know if doing one's own translations violates NOR policy. Nomist 16:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC):

Furthermore, the French investigative newspaper Le Canard enchaîné revealed that the Shabak had also supported Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO and the Fatah, in an attempt to give "a religious slant to the conflict, in order to make believe Occident that the conflict was between Jews and Muslims"

de donner un tour religieux au conflit, afin de faire croire à l'Occident que le conflit était entre Juifs et Musulmans. The translation is not the most elegant one, I agree, but is it really impossible to understand? I suppose "giving a religious slant to the conflict" is correct, or am I wrong? "In order to make believe", maybe "in order to accredit the thesis" would be better? "Occident" is currently used in French, I understand that "West" is preferred in English. "that the conflict was between Jews and Muslims", I think this is correct, isn't it? Tazmaniacs 01:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Al Fateh here

I propose to merge Al Fateh TV here. It is not really notable to have a separate article from Hamas; its content may be transfered here without difficulty (actually, I had already added this new TV for children in the "Others" section in February) doesn't seems to be distinct from Hamas, and I don't believe anyone here considers that it will in the future represent a reliable source. Thus, it seems highly unprobable that we will start quoting "Al Fateh" in "Cite news" template, and even if we did, well, it seems more reasonable to REDIRECT it here to the Hamas entry. As a sidenote, I don't see the use of doing any propaganda for this hate media, and recall the words of dada: "people that like dada speak about dada, people that don't like dada speak about dada, everybody speaks about dada!". In other words, I'm not sure that creating a separate Al Fateh article is a wise way to counter Hamas' influence: it may well lead to the opposite effect, whatever the actual content of the article. This last argument was intented for Zek, but he doesn't seems to agree with me. Making noise about something is not always the most efficient way to fight it. To me, it seems rather like propaganda for a hate-site, or even spam-linking (it's like making an article about a revisionist site, writing that it's evil, and providing links for people to read it: actually, this seems a quite good idea to follow for would-be revisionists. Tazmaniacs 05:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a category of it's own: A web site to Children that golrifies suicide bombers. This is unique enough. Zeq 05:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tazmaniacs and support the proposal s»abhorreo»i 06:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Zek I suppose you wouldn't do it, would you? Tazmaniacs 16:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

The article refers to the deaths of Israelis as murder "the 1996 murders of Yaron and Efrat Ungar" and the death of Palestinians as assassinations.

The Israelis killed were civilians not involed in any conflict, thus by definition they were murdered. The Hamas or other militants killed were, of course, militants. —Aiden 16:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned about NPOV here. If the killing of civilians is murder then Palestinian civillians have been murdered; so a debate arises about the Palestinian right of self defence. If it is legitimate to kill"militants" then we need to examine the views of Israelis who died to see if they were "militants". I would prefer to use neutral terminology such as "the 1996 deaths of Yaron and Efrat Ungar" and killings rather than assassinations.Everef 16:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Headline text

Origins

I am pretty sure that Hamas was given life greatly in part by Israel. Israel helped in its creation because it thought it could be controlled and be used as a counter weight against the PLO.

So, if anyone has documents or citations for this let me know. I am going to try and look for it myself. I do feel that this entry has been biased against Palestinians in general. Everyone lets work towards moderation and balance no matter what the heck you are. :)

Smurfyninja--Smurfyninja 05:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You won't find any creditable citations because such claim is a load of racist horse shit. ForgetNever 16:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. This user is suspected to be the sockpuppet of User:KaintheScion, who is himself suspected of being the sockpuppet of User:ElKabong. I presume innocence, but this kind of comment above is not acceptable on this talk page. Please go air your anger on a blog. Tazmaniacs 22:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

destruction of any secular Palestinian state

Why has this unsourced contention been yet again reinserted into the introduction, without explanation and without regard for the discussion above or for WP:CITE? Palmiro | Talk 13:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It should'nt. Please remove it. I guess that some of us are tired of edit wars against people who fail to understand that maybe, apart of being an evil movement, Hamas has some political causes which explained its existence, and that an article should explain this. Tazmaniacs 20:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If you think it should be deleted, just delete it. Don't ask. This entire article is extremely biased and needs to be brought into context. The primacy the charter takes over everything out is pretty deceptive when you consider Hamas has announced it is willing to reconsider changing the charter IF Israel gives up occupation. Amibidhrohi 01:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hamas, even hamas, can not change the Quran. Zeq 05:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard of Hermeneutics? Tazmaniacs 16:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, it is really damaging for Wikipedia's credibility if we use this site for assigning personal interpretations of the Quran to Hamas. Bertilvidet 12:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Bertilvidet, edit the article to make it accurate, don't just complain on the talk page. We all have the ability to edit articles to make their content more accurate. With some people here, there's clearly no point arguing. The 'destroy secular palestinian state' phrase is totally unfounded and shouldn't be here; but those here with their own grudges don't care about factuality. Amibidhrohi 13:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to ask rather than delete, myself, because my edits on this article, notably including previous attempts to remove this particular unsourced claim, seem to attract automatic reverts. That's why I posted here rather than simply taking it out. Palmiro | Talk 16:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose the discussions continues at Talk:Hamas#Destruction of secular Palestinian state in order to not create this new section each week. Tazmaniacs 16:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This article reads like something off Fox News. There's no mention of the context in which Hamas operates, namely the illegal occupation and humanitarian crisis resulting from that occupation. Palmiro, they'll revert your edits regardless. If you disagree with something, edit accordingly. The dialogue is meaningless when everyone is committed to their own biases. Amibidhrohi 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please continue posting comments on talk page, we talk, they don't, that's their problem. We are not fanatics, to the contrary of some historical revisionism attempts that are being done here. There is nobody here who supports Hamas, it is sad to see that others users don't seem to understand that, and that they therefore make no differences apart from "Us" and "Them". Tazmaniacs 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to the canard that their existence has anything to do with "illegal occupation", their raison d'être is the destruction of Israel (and any other non-Muslim state in "Palestine"), as their anti-Semitic conspiracy-theory spouting charter makes clear. Furthermore, trying to shove that information down into a tiny section on the bottom is the grossest kind of whitewashing. Finally, Talk: is only useful when people talk in good faith, and don't keep repeating themselves. Remember, you are the people who wanted to actually remove "excess" citations from the article on some grounds that are still unfathomable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, this is your POV and it is respectable. That Hamas is an anti-zionist group is clear, but that they become a popular movement is without doubt due to some kind of "historical conditions". Tazmaniacs 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"You are the people"? I don't know what you're talking about. And their reason for wanting to destroy Israel is also clearly explained in the charter - namely the occupation of Israel of what was and is Palestinian land. "The Palestinian Question" is mentioned all through the charter. Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza illegally, as the UN resolutioned referred to clearly point out. The context in which Hamas came about and its related ambitions must be mentioned, if this article is to claim any sort of objectivity. I say this just for the record, since I don't believe you to be quite as stupid as you'd have us believe you are (note to admins: not to be taken as a personal attack but a backhanded compliment), and are quite aware of the humanitarian crisis that is suffered by the Palestinian people because of Israel's gross violations of international law and human rights. As for the charge of anti-semetism, arabs are semites too. Israel calls itself the world's only jewish state. As such, it's perfectly fair for the people Israel oppresses to describe the Israeli aggressors as "Jews". As representatives of Hamas clearly point out, they do not categorically oppose Jews simply because they are Jews (as England and France and Germany had in the past), but their actions through Israel. Amibidhrohi 22:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again I am sure many people will disagree with your interpretation. Hamas can state whatever reasons they want for why they want to destroy Israel, it doesn't make it valid. Also the UN general Assembly passes some kind of resolution at least once a year condemning Israel for something, they often do this while other countries are committing acts that only an insane person would think are less serious.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

deleted passages

Please justify deletion of passages. I've add new information today that is sourced & that has nothing controversial, I would like to know why it's deleted. Furthermore, they're have been calls to justify this interpretation of the Covenant which haven't been answered. Not only is this interpretation contested by various users (see section above), but some other users insist on putting it in the second sentence of the intro. When I add in the intro FACTS, meanly two: Russia hasn't cut all funds & hasn't support all the Quartet's conditions — it is plain revisionism to claim that — second, this article is here to describe Hamas and its policies, this includes describing bombings and terror attacks and stating that it is a terrorist group (of which no user here whom are trying to put a bit of something else than FOX News, as Amibridhoni above puts it, contest), but it also includes stating & in the intro since you insist on making the most POV intro possible that They declared that at best they would be ready to accept the Arab League initiative formulated during the 2002 Beirut conference, that Hamas is ready to accept the Arab League proposition of the Beirut summet of 2002, that is: "full normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 internationally recognized borders, implying Israeli evacuation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, east Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants." You may not agree with these revendications, you may think they are irrealist and dangerous, you may think HAmas is an islamo-fascist group, but here on Wikipedia there is nothing which allows you to delete it. IT is a sad fact to see such historical revisionism on a page like that, I have nothing else to add. Tazmaniacs 19:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Israel invests millions to push its PR campaign within US media. It wouldn't be too surprising if an Israeli agent or two were hired to boost Israel's image on major internet sources. Just make the edits you need to make. As long as they're factual and accurate, the revert warring shouldn't bother you. Amibidhrohi 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Quit your POV pushing, your personal attacks, and your 3RR violations. It's childish and tiresome, and entirely unoriginal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing? The pot calling the kettle black? All but one of the sources being used to support this article are either Israeli, American or British. I'm one of few people here trying to bring an ounce of neutrality here, and charlatans like you are trying to create a propaganda page in what's supposed to be an encyclopedia. I have no objection to the inclusion of every damning piece of rhetoric that you fish out; I merely insist that all sides be represented. As for personal attacks, I'm sorry but I have no respect for the likes of you- people who seek to spread disinformation by censoring the truth. I say what I feel, and if you feel that constitutes a personal attack, well... Amibidhrohi 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of complete POV rewrite of article

I have reverted the massive edits of Amibihrodi. Besides the fact that it is frowned upon to make a complete rewrite of the article in one or two edits, Rodi's version was also extremely POV and revisionistic. Also I changed "calls for the destruction of the State of Israel as well as any Secular Palestinian State and its replacement with an Islamic state based on Sharia." to "calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and calls for the dismantlement of any secular Palestinian State and its replacement with an Islamic state based on Sharia". I feel that a more compromising version will help cool down the escalating conflict on this page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you also revert to SlimVirgin's version, who reverted the changes I've done today, without any justification although she wrote (see talk). Mainly, refering that Hamas would at most accept the Arab League 2002 Beirut Summet proposition. Regards, Tazmaniacs 00:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why keep deleting factual information regarding Hamas' reasons for existing, namely the illegal occupation and gross human rights violation on Israel's behalf? Why keep deleting the quote BY an Israeli official stating 90% of Hamas' operations are social/humanitarian? Clearly the editors here (including "Silverburg") aren't operating with good faith. This isn't an encyclopedic entry. This is pro-Israel propaganda. Amibidhrohi 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi, funny you mention that, because the above is pure propaganda. Blowing children in discos and pizzerias doesn't alleviate "illegal occupation and gross human rights violation", does it? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hamas' charters and the many statements of its members clearly shows Hamas' actions are in response to Israel's crimes against humanity. I never said their operations were solutions to the oppression. They are responses though, and this is obvious if you were interested in collecting the facts. Not relevant to this article but in response to your statement: Attacking pizzarias and discos does alleviate occupation. We wouldn't be talking about two-state solutions and dividing Jerusalem had it not been for Hamas' suicide attacks. Whose fault is it that Israel doesn't consider doing the humane/legal thing unless coerced to by violent force? Amibidhrohi 01:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

We're not here to act out the dispute but to discuss the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

and I assume when the two state was proposed in the 40s and rejected by the Arab leadership within Palestine that this too was Israel's fault.

You claim that Israel doensn't do the "humane/legal thing unless coerced to by violent force". Isreal's position on negotiation (since 1967 when Israeli forces captured the Sinai, the Golan and the West Bank) with all of its arab neighbours has always been one of land for peace (and in the case of several groups, recognition of Israel's right to exist and the cessation of terrorist activity and incitement). The first major manifestation of this position was the drafting of a peace deal with Egypt. Since then, Israel's position on negotiation has remained constant, and eventually characterized Israel's approach in the Oslo Accords and various Camp David Accords. Land and sovereignty in exchange for mutual recognition and the good faith efforts to prevent violent incitement on either side...doesnt' seem like such a bad deal. Enlightened minds might wonder why SOME arab nations, para-military and independent groups refuse even the most basic tenets of peaceful co-existence..........AlexiKobayashi

Hamas's covenant doesn't really call for the "destruction of Israel" in this particulat wording. It does however, include a quote by [Hasan Al-Banna], the founder the Muslim Brotherhood, in which he said something like "The State of Israel will exist as long as the Muslims are divided" Marwan123 07:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

2002 Arab League initiative

IT has been repeatedly deleted that Hamas was "at most ready to accept the Arab League iniative proposed in 2002 during the Beirut summit, although it is a sourced fact. Could this undeleted motivation be explained, please? Tazmaniacs 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is probably being removed because your edits are not just adding that piece of information, but making other big changes to the article. Try adding solely your sourced content in a single edit. I'm sure it'd stay. —Aiden 04:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So only the POV intro should be reversed. When I make edits & that I see new things that I don't like, I don't just reverse everything except in drastic case, I edit the thing so it goes better. No justification have been provided, this is unacceptable. Everyone on this page must be aware that we all come from different backgrounds & that we have different policies, and that we are all dependent on a way or another on the media that gives us the info. It is clear that the media don't paint the same picture whether you live in the States, in Israel, in Europe, or in Russia. I particularly ask to the Americans people to show more tolerance to other ideas, especially since they are not directly concerned by the conflict, to the contrary of Israelis. I personnally have Israelis friends that are ashamed of what some others may say "in their name", I think that they should be thought upon. Furthermore, the article should also states the different policies adopted by Israel, the US ("hard line" to put it like Le Monde has), the EU (which finally aligned itself on the US' decision, but has since been looking for a way to transfer funds to the Palestinian civil society through the World Bank), various countries in the EU, and finally Russia (we all love Putin, don't we?). Thank you, in particular to you Aiden that at least took the time to give a response. Tazmaniacs 10:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is fairly precise in listing Hamas' own stated reasons for exisiting. If you wish to alter this an insert a new segment, significant sourcing- sufficient to overcome Hamas' own stated intetntions- must be supplied.

Edit war

Can we please get a lock on this article? Amibidhrohi has reverted and been reverted over 6 times in the past 24 hours. —Aiden 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's closer to nine times, but he's been blocked now so things should calm down. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi = Alberuni ? Zeq 06:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Finding a consensual and NPOV decision for the intro

See Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy for points discussing the factual accuracy of the article and opinions presented as facts. Tazmaniacs 14:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC) See also Talk:Hamas#Intro for current negociations attempts on the contents of the intro. Tazmaniacs 13:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to transfer, as was done in February with limited success, the contents of the intro here so everybody can comment on it & explain his personal choices. I'd like to add, before, that there are two points that we have to take in mind:

• first, it must be "consensual", this means that we can all endorse it although we will clearly all disagree with one point or the other (for the time being, it's more like one side likes it & the other says that it is factually wrong, concerns which haven't been addressed on the talk page, showing a lack of elementary Wikipedia:Etiquette and ignorance of the basics of Wikipedia:Etiquette#Working towards NPOV.) I'm not going to claim total naïveté, this also means that in any cases, it will never be really consensual as obviously there are much more of you that are interested in underlining only all the terrorist FACTS about Hamas (which neither Bertildvet, nor Palmiro, nor I for that matter question -) while some of you delete things concerning relatively "positive" things about it (I'm not saying the movement is following a good policy, I'm not saying I agree at it, but you can't just stop on portraying it as a terrorist movement without even speaking once about its revendications - whether you agree with them or not is not the problem, not speaking about them is plainly insulting the Palestinian people, and such intolerant attitude only explains — without justifying — their radicalization - by the way, I saw someone added something on ISraeli Human Rights Assoc., it would be nice to know the names if someone does).
• the second thing is that if we tried to follow Wikipedia policies with a minimum of honesty, the intro shouldn't be only "consensual", that is about our "personal opinions" which we should be able to keep for our personal lives, but also "NPOV", this means "FACTUAL", i.e. stating policies adopted by the VARIOUS members of the "international community", but also Israel's policy, but before everything else the FATAH and HAMAS' policy. You can't ignore the Palestinian side, in doing this you only give reason to yesterday's user who obviously hasn't understood well how Wikipedia works. But don't claim, as Saint-Just, that "virtue" is on your side and "corruption" on the other side; if you want to endorse such manicheic views, please go blogging in other places. I'd like to point out that if we finds a consensual version, I'm sure we will all try to protect it from new users to the page who want to do drastic things (in the moment, nobody is really interested in protecting others' edits, we are not engaging in cooperative games). Now to the important things:

"Hamas (Arabic حركة حماس) is a militant Palestinian Islamist organization. Its charter, written in 1988 and still in force, calls for the destruction of the State of Israel, as well as any secular Palestinian state, and its replacement with an Islamic state based on Sharia. Hamas won 74 of 132 seats in the January 2006 Palestinian legislative election and is now the majority party of the Palestinian Authority Legislative Council.

Created in 1987 by Shaykh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas is known chiefly for its suicide bombings and other attacks directed against Israeli civilians, as well as military targets, to further its goal of creating a Palestinian Islamist state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Its popularity among Palestinians is in part explained by the extensive network of welfare programs it has set up throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. According to the U.S. State Dept, Hamas is funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. It is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States, and is banned in Jordan.

Following the organization's victory in the 2006 elections, the Quartet on the Middle East (except Russia) — the European Union, United States, Russia, and the United Nations — announced that future aid to the Palestinians would be tied to three principles: that Hamas renounce violence, that it recognize Israel's right to exist, and that it express clear support for the Middle East peace process, as outlined in the Oslo Accords. Hamas leaders have rejected these demands as "unfair".

• First comment: the community has obviously chosen the word "terrorist" & not "militant", this should be replaced.
• Second comment: not only this interpretation of the Covenant has been contested, but talk to try to resolve the problem has been ignored. See Talk:Hamas#Destruction of secular Palestinian state. I will add that in any cases it is POV to put the Covenant in the second sentence, as it implies a POV judgment (contrary to some of us, I respect my opponents' opinions, but they must be aware that they are only personal opinions - doxa in Greek) that the 1988 Charter regulates all the Hamas' actual activity. This is not only a POV judgment in my eyes, but also factual accuracy. Again, we are confronted to the problem of interpretation, that is of hermeneutics. I would like not to have to remind on this page the great achievements of the Kabbalah concerning this wisdom (read a bit of Borges if you don't like "sacred books", for example Pierre Menard). I think we ought to find a solution about this (talk concerning this sentence has its subsection already quoted)
• Third comment: it is factually false that the whole of the Quartet has cut funds. Russia opposes this move, we should state it.
• Fourth comment: although the EU has aligned itself on Israel & the States' "hard line" (as does Le Monde put it), they are also trying to find alternative solutions in order not to have 40% unemployment next year, which will be to nobody's benefit. It is strange that we have to remind this in a liberal world, especially when economic liberalism is not supposed to be a minority's opinion here. Montesquieu used to say (rightly or not) that "le commerce adoucit les moeurs" ("trade soften mores").
• Fifth comment: if we put Israel & the Quartet's policy concerning the election of Hamas to the Palestinian Authority, we must state what Hamas says its ready to accept, that is, the Arab League's proposal during the 2002 Beirut summit (normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 internationally recognized borders, implying Israeli evacuation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, east Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants — if anyone forgets basic things like that). The question is not whether you agree with those propositions (I'm sure most people — I don't have any personal opinion on it — totally oppose the question of refugees, since it seems that Leyla Shahid, speaker of the PLO, has stopped talking about that — in my personal experience at least —), but Wikipedia:Etiquette states: "Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV), instead of supporting one over another, even if you believe something strongly."

• If some of us refuse to negotiate on these things, I believe this is because they are only interested in pushing personal agendas, which, moreover, goes in the sense of radicalization of both sides, and thus of praising of fanaticism. I can hardly understand how those persons fail to understand that they are only playing Hamas' games, but furthermore it is a sign of total despise for the Palestinian civilians, who are not all "terrorists" (strange that I have to remind this). Albert Camus used to say that "despise [was] the worst fault in politics". I remind you that he wrote a whole book, L'Homme révolté, in 1951 (before anybody was asking himself those questions), on the problems of terrorism, which started on a reflections about the revolutionary Russian nihilists. As a Juste person (universally recognized for his ethics - Juste means Righteous...), maybe some of you should re-read this book. Thank you for listening to me & trying to negotiate. Tazmaniacs 11:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those remarks Tazmaniacs, and I hope we can discuss the issues on the talk page in a collaborative way. Some remarks of my own in relation to your points:

1. I don't think the community has chosen terrorist; there is a deadlock between those who want to insert "militant" and those who don't feel any such epithet is required.
2. As long as Hamas hasn't renounced its covenant, it is reasonable and even desirable to put it in the first paragraph but it should of course be qualified with information as to what Hamas' effective stance as expressed by the organization is now.
3. This seems to be developing; let's keep an eye on events. Sourced material about Russia's stance should be respected.
4. This also seems to be developing.
5. Of course. This seems elementary.

Palmiro | Talk 13:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm having enough trouble keeping militant in the intro. Good luck. —Aiden 22:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we all have enough trouble if each of us aim at having an article just as we want. So what about searching for a compromise that we can agree upon? I support Tazmaniacs' effort to find such a consensual intro. Bertilvidet 11:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep this simple: what is the definition of a terrorist? See Wright-Neville for a clear one or provide an alternative. I've yet to find an academic who does not class Hamas' 'militant' activites as terrorist. The word militant equates to one involved in military-like activities. Part of 'military' is conventional warfare, not targeted, unconventional, suicide warfare against civilians. This is not a value-judgement- this is a definitional matter. Dave

French sources

I have nothing against French sources, however, there are so much in English on Hamas that we can limit ourselfs tio English sources in this article Zeq 11:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Due to systemic bias of US sources & of many English-sources, I think it is only NPOV to use French sources, especially since France is an important member of the EU & follows specific policies concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please refrain from deleting them as you did concerning Russia. Tazmaniacs 13:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Alleged plot to kill Abbas

The article contains a claim, presented as a fact, that Israel "thwarted" a Hamas plot to assassinate President Mahmoud Abbas. The only sources given for this in the UK Times article cited are anonymous "intelligence sources" and an equally anonymous "Palestinian source who was an adviser to Arafat and is a close acquaintance of Abbas. [2]. This is not an adequate basis on which to present these claims as a matter of uncontested fact in the article. Palmiro | Talk 13:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This was published in israel in 'Ma'ariv' and independently in UK in 'Sunday Times'. Please reisert the sourced material. Also you should note that Jordan also announced the arrest of 20 member hamas cell that was plotting against the Kindom.Zeq 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't taken anything out, but the claims of anonymous sources, especially intelligence sources, can't be taken as established fact; anyone who is familiar with the media is aware of how unreliable such sources can be. The section needs to be rephrased. Palmiro | Talk 14:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Once sunday times published it it become the source. This is how wikipedia works.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2168494,00.html Zeq 15:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And the jordan story: http://www.albawaba.com/en/news/197856 ,

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3249415,00.html http://za.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-05-10T135937Z_01_ALL050353_RTRIDST_0_OZATP-MIDEAST-JORDAN-HAMAS-20060510.XML

Zeq 16:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:V. Zeq is right. —Aiden 18:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as long as the source for a passage is reputable and reliable, then it doesn't matter what their source was.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks (excuse my French). This is a reliable source for the claim that anonymous Israeli intelligence sources said they discovered such a plot. It is not a reliable source for the existence of the plot. Common sense and any experience of the media will tell you that claims attributed to anonymous sources, especially security sources briefing on contentious political matters in which they have an interest, must be taken with a considerable pinch of salt. What is wrong with saying in the article here what our source says: that unnamed Israeli security sources (and an equally anonymous "adviser of Arafat") claimed such a plot existed? Why the anxiety to give the claim a greater degree of certainty in the Wikipedia article than anyone reading the original source would gain from that? Palmiro | Talk 13:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

We say there was a plot according to the Sunday Times. We don't question it; we just report it and cite our source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we cannot just report that there was a plot; we must report what the Sunday Times says when it gets into detail, which is that anonymous Israeli security sources said there was a plot. Otherwise we are giving people a misleading impression, that is, a stronger impression of the factual certainty of the issue than they would have had they read the source themselves. Palmiro | Talk 14:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing the source means that we must say it is an anonymous Israeli security source, Palmiro is completely right. Please see Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy for other debates concerning the opinions which are presented as facts in the current article. Tazmaniacs 14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think putting "anonymous" in the article seems to cast editorial doubt on the claim, which wouldn't be in line with NPOV; let's just keep it as "security sources", or at any rate "unnamed security sources" might be OK. Palmiro | Talk 14:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky edit summary

Nice[3].

Normally, I wouldn't even check such edits, but if that's the way you're going to play it, I suppose your username is enough to warrant a look. Please don't do this, as it introduced mistrust where none previously existed. Thanks.Timothy Usher 03:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't attribute motivations to editors, and please keep comments like this off the article talk pages. Use the talk page of the editor you are addressing. —Viriditas | Talk 03:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has done this multiple times and people have asked him multiple times to stop. It is no accident. —Aiden 03:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please take it to the user talk page; this page is for discussing the article. —Viriditas | Talk 03:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Then consider my previous comment solely in light of the edit history of this article. I rephrase:

'Please do not summarize such edits thusly on this article, as it obliges me to distrust certain editors to this article's edits to this article.'

I hope I've done a good job confining my comments to this article.Timothy Usher 08:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? If you have a message for an editor, then please place your comments on the editor's talk page. This page is not for discussing "certain editors". If you require further assistance, please consult Help:Talk page. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 08:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To disambiguate as per your request, in the first and third lines of my previous post, I am responding to your previous comment, while in the second, indented one, I am rephrasing my original comment to Slim Virgin, to account for your objections.Timothy Usher 08:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I don't make "sneaky" edits or write "sneaky" edit summaries, so if you ever see apparent sneakiness from me in future, there will be another explanation. I've argued several times for the removal of "militant," and I've seen other editors I respect argue the same on this page. I've therefore been removing it routinely whenever I make an edit and will likely continue to do so, unless I see a change in other people's opinion here. I stopped mentioning it in edit summaries only because removing it is a minor matter (in my view). Therefore, until further notice, whenever I make an edit, the removal of "militant" is to be assumed, unless of course I forget, which means that my failure to remove it on any given occasion will be attributable to my bad memory, and not to a sneaky new twist on my previous sneakiness. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, this was indeed debated above. Slim's view on the subject has been known and clear for a long time. you may disgree with her on the edit content but "sneaky" it is not. Zeq 12:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, I left you a note on your talk page that I want to repeat: This fight over "militant" is not worth it. You can safly assume everyone know what hamas is: Terrorist, militant and engage in charity - all together in one organization. Zeq 12:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

Many unsourced claims and obviously false have been noted by various users on this page. I advise users to refer to:

• Talk:Hamas#Russia about the false claims made about by Russia (mainly that it would have agreed with the US & the EU in cutting funds - Russia HAS NOT CUT FUNDS).
• Talk:Hamas#destruction of any secular Palestinian state
• and to Talk:Hamas#Finding a consensual and NPOV decision for the intro to witness the overall will to negotiate on this page. Some users with to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here instead of explaining it.
• Finally, an user found it relevant to delete sourced sentence about the World Bank report concerning unemployment, I will advise him to refer to the recent Quartet's decision; he may understand that this report has been one of the important cause justifying the new decision of the Quartet, mainly that the US has accepted the EU proposal. This shows too UNDENIABLE facts:
  • first, confusing the US & the EU as if they followed the same policy is making a gross mistake and shows definite lack of understanding of international relations.
  • second, trying to delete facts about the Palestinian economy also shows definite lack of understanding of the situation of the Palestinian occupied territories (it is not "POV" saying they are occupied: it is the case since 1967, has been recognized by UN resolutions, and the observation of this fact & and of what it brought even convinced Ariel Sharon to implement his controversial unilateral disengagement plan.

Thanks you to all users who show a will to negotiate, I think the others users plainly show their fanaticism in whatever POV they wish to support. Since we are on the English Wikipedia, I will again urge US users to understand that there is absolutely no need to speak of a supposed "conspiracy" to influentiate US medias to recognize that they give a POV view which is not shared by all other European medias. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Best regards, even to my fellow political opponents, I hope they understand that it is not worth it carrying "edit war" here when we already have enough wars. Spreading hate has never been a way for peace. Tazmaniacs 14:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Talk:Hamas#Alleged plot to kill Abbas which didn't precise the source thus making difference between fact and opinion about fact. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some definitions to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. Anonymous security sources should be named as such (or you take the risk of having some Islamic fundamentalist stating what Hamas said as "automatically true". There is no more reason to believe Hamas' statements concerning security stuff than Mossad or other security services' statements. Intelligence agencies may be used as sources, but Wikipedia should of course precise that they were used as the original source. Tazmaniacs 14:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that's exactly what we don't do. We say there was a plot according to The Sunday Times. We don't judge beyond that because we're not in a position to. See WP:V and WP:RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking part in negotiations. Let's follow this point in Talk:Hamas#Alleged plot to kill Abbas and see if we can find a consensus on this particular point. Regards, Tazmaniacs 15:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Talk:Hamas#Hamas Covenant in the intro discuss the necessity of including the 1988 Covenant in the intro. This is considered by some users to be biased, since it gives more importance to the 1988 covenant than to the current policies followed by Hamas, which may contradict (& do indeed; see hudna & its acceptance of the Arab League 2002 proposition) the Covenant. Tazmaniacs 14:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Then Hamas must change its covenant. Until such time as it does, it's not for us to say that it doesn't matter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking part in negotiations. Let's follow this point in Talk:Hamas#Hamas Covenant in the intro and see if we can find a consensus on this particular point. Regards, Tazmaniacs 15:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm brand new to editing.

I just edited the article on Hamas to remove a paragraph which claimed Hamas allegedly targets civilians. Until a source can be provided it's fiction.

The paragraph said:

"Suicide attacks are an element of what the group sees as its asymmetric warfare against Israel. Since the group considers all Israel to be a "militarized society" (there is mandatory military service for most Jewish men and women) and Israelis to be participants in an illegal occupation of Palestinian land, Hamas does not distinguish between Israeli civilian and military targets. This failure to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants and the group's willingness to target civilian facilities including buses, supermarkets, and restaurants is one of the main trait which supports its classification as a terrorist movement (although Hamas claims being a national liberation movement)." --U$ Retard 08:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you than deleted the whole article on a basis that you haven't ever seen hamas members? -- tasc ^words_deeds 08:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the article is substantiated with sources. This claim is unsubstantiated. --U$ Retard 08:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Could people please not add every single development to the intro, otherwise it's going to get very long? Probably the detail about what the various ministers said should be removed too. It can go in the body, but remember that details like that get outdated very fast. This isn't a newspaper. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs, see WP:V about using English sources. That's policy, unlike countering whatever it's called. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Sources in languages other than English. It is countering systemic bias. Concerning the intro, I and others users would really appreciate if you engaged in negotiations in the relevant Talk:Hamas#Finding a consensual and NPOV decision for the intro. Thank you very much for your help. Tazmaniacs 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's accept French sources; they are acceptable, although English ones are preferable, and they may give a slightly different balance than from using English ones alone. I'd like to agree in principle with SlimVirgin;s remarks; this page is deeply overbalanced towards current events, and while a certain focus on current events is necessary, we do need to tilt it back towards giving an in-depth explanation of Hamas' origins, political stance, and activities in the various fields in which it operates. This page shouldn't be trying to resume a newspaper article on Hamas; ideally, it should be designed if anything for someone who has been reading about Hamas in the news and wants a comprehensive background on the organization. Tazmaniacs has made some good points above in trying to discuss what content should be in the article and the intro, and I think we will have a more harmonious and productive editing environment if everybody focusses a bit more on that discussion for the moment, and a bit less on the need to get the article right immediately. Perfection can wait, and there's no point us all getting angry in the meantime. Palmiro | Talk 14:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro should be capable of standing alone as a relatively stable overview of the organization, without the day-to-day views of whoever happens to have commented on it recently. I think that even the previous part about the Quartet withholding funding was misplaced, because it was bound to change quite quickly and indeed it did. The more stability we can bring to the intro, the fewer POV wars we'll have, because when people change one thing in response to a news update, they invariably find other things they want to change at the same time, and off we go again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good basis on which to design the intro all right. Palmiro | Talk 15:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the version below. I can only beg about the word "militant": it makes me think of slightly unreasonable trade unionists or angry feminists in dungarees. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hamas (Arabic حركة حماس) is a Palestinian Islamist organization. It has been the majority party of the Palestinian Authority Legislative Council, with 74 out of 132 seats, since the January 2006 legislative election.

Created in 1987 by Shaykh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas is known chiefly for its suicide bombings directed against Israeli civilians, as well as military targets, carried out in pursuit of its goal to create an Islamist state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Its popularity among Palestinians is in part explained by the extensive network of welfare programs it has set up throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Funded, according to the U.S. State Dept, by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States, and is banned in Jordan.

I'm happy to take this version as a starting point for discussion; I had quite a few detailed comments under way, but a weird computer (or stupid-computer-user) glitch made them disappear, and now I have to go. It will have to be tomorrow. In the meantime, I can only say that while my personal background inclines me to (perhaps unreasonably) resent any association of the words "unreasonable" and "trade unionist", I think your remarks on that score spell out the problems with the term "militant" admirably. Palmiro | Talk 15:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My own background inclines me to resent the use of "angry feminists in dungarees" as objects of ridicule, but I forced myself. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, I think SlimVirgin & Palmiro have a point in saying that the intro should be "relatively stable" in order to avoid endless edit revertings (and not "wars", I hope). Maybe this would allow us to then put the "Talk:Hamas#Stable version of introduction" in the talk page & refer new users to it. We do however need to adress the concerns lifted by Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy.

• The point that it is a "terrorist organization" seems to be shared by most users (I put scare quotes not because I contest the appelation but because it's an appelation & of Wikipedia's concerns with this appelation; I do agree personally that it should be labelled as such).
• Citing the Covenant in the intro does not seem to have general consensus. See Talk:Hamas#destruction of any secular Palestinian state for various comments on this. I add that this implies that the 1988 Covenant has more importance than Hamas current policies, which is an opinion, that may be sourced, but certainly not a "fact". Discussions about the Covenant should be kept in the relevant subsection for better stability.
• Fundings? I'm not sure we can consider that the US State Dept. is a 100% source to trust on these controversial claims. For all I know, Iran of course denies does this funding, and many users probably are not ready to take the US State Dept's word for granted.

Again, I think that the relevant subsection assures better stability.

• Creation & 2006 elections, everybody seems to agree on it.

The point about the Quartet either should be said, and completely, or kept for the relevant subsection. It is historically false to claim Russia endorsed the view. The EU & US cut the funds, but the US did it immediately while the EU has also decided, later, to withhold them, and has since looked for alternative ways to give it. The US also increased help to charities. The Quartet has now decided, after suggestions from the EU & Arab states, to verse the wages directly to the public servants. Furthermore, if the 3 conditions gaven must of course be stated, Hamas reaction must also be explained: it is the center of the situation, to the great disappointment of all of us. Tazmaniacs 18:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

reverts edits

Ahhh..I'm back from my 3RR detention. Tazmaniacs, I appreciate you trying to keep this edit factual and all...In the end, I'm sure you recognize that these few others here aren't editing to make the article factual or accurate, they're here to push a certain image of Hamas onto the less-informed readers. They've deleted verifiable information from reputable sources for no reason other than that the said information implies that Hamas might not be the reasonless terrorist monsters they're so often painted as by US media. The context in which Hamas exists is essentially illegal content in this article, immadiately deleted as soon as it's added in, as is mention of the ratio of social work to their military resistance. Prominent Hamas members HAVE stated that their stated position on Israel is negotiable, IF Israel changes its policies towards the Palestinians - but that's not allowed in the article. To mention Israel's occupation of Gaza and the WB as illegal and that Hamas' action are in response to Israeli's continuous occupation is veriable and factual, yet adding that to this article is also essentially illegal. I don't want to point out individuals, but I should point out that 'admins' here are absolutely useless, and have no sense of obligation towards making the article truly informative and NPOV. Of course, since qualification isn't the basis on which these people are chosen, I shouldn't be surprised by anything. I didn't expect better than that..Such is the nature of this Wikipedia nonsense. Encyclopedias are things that demand intellectualism and scholastic integrity from those who edit them, and an encyclopedia where every dim-witted propaganda-pushing joe can participate in compiling content isn't an encyclopedia at all. Amibidhrohi 00:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi, I advise you to review WP:AGF, WP:TALK, WP:NOT (hint: search for "soapbox") and other WP:RULES. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? Do you need me to read them to you? I know everything; all that WP: garbage. I know it's selectively enforced depending on what view is most popular with the predominantly ango admins. Fox News has got you guys by the nuts. Oh,and I know not to take the likes of you seriously. Amibidhrohi 01:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny that you lecture us. I'm sure that "but mostly for its heroic resistance to the Israeli military forces." is completely neutral and unbiased, and it is only a evil conspiracy to delete it. BTW I don't watch Fox News.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, that was a bit of a response to the blatant pro-Israel tone of this article. It's no fun being the only NPOV fellow here, so I went a bit overkill on that one. Once you get an idea of how lacking this place is in unbiased editors (and admins), you stop taking this crap seriously. The points I made earlier still stand. Any info that could be seen as putting Hamas in less negative light, or Israel in less positive, is deleted by the likes of you. And yeah, of course you don't watch Fox News. Bill O'Reilly isn't a conservative either. Amibidhrohi 01:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don;t exactly doubt that you believe that. But you have just violated the 3RR, please revert yourself to avoid being blocked once again. Also perhaps you should cease these personal attacks, I do not think it helps your cause.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I didn't point out a person, it isn't a personal attack. You made mention to yourself and thus essentially opened yourself to any criticism I might havey directed towards you. And my edit wasn't a revert, as I haven't deleted that bit of text before. At least not in a 24 hr period. Or a 48 for that matter. Back to the topic: Why are the following bits of information repeadly excluded: 1) That Hamas' militancy is a result of the Israeli occupation (verified sources abundant for this). 2) That the vast majority of Hamas' works are humanitarian. 3) That Palestinians principally support Hamas for its resistance to Israeli, militarily (the social programs are only mentioned). Amibidhrohi 01:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You've been repeatedly warned and still you continue to use WP to promote your political views. Stop now. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because you did not specifically mention another single editor does not make it isn't a personal attack, if I went to a page that I was having problems with and said "you guys are a bunch of POV wiki-assholes" do you think that wouldn't be a personal attack? Also just because you slightly changed what your wrote with every additional edit doesn't mean you didn't violate the 3RR, you think nobody has ever thaught of that before? you still purposely inserted similar tendatious edits 4 times.

Regarding your other points- 1) Just because some sources say that Hamas' militancy is a result of the Israeli occupation doesn't make it NPOV and acceptable. 2) This is not verifiable, even if it was it doesn't really change much, Al Capone operated more Soup Kitchens during the Depression that anyone else in Chicago. 3) again this is an unrefererenced POV.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a retarded rebuttal. Hamas sources state their actions are responses to Israeli occupation over decades. The organization's explanations for its own actions aren't worthy of mention, while some Jewish backed think-tank is? Do you people even know what NPOV means? Humus, what political view am I pushing? I merely demand that all perspectives be introduced. Either both or neither. Not just the Jewish view of things. Neutrality demands you take into consideration of either the views of those that have no bias whatsoever (that would exclude American, Israeli and arab views), or of both biased sides. This article takes into account the Israeli view and American view, but none others. Not even the organization the article is about. Though the organization is Arab, no arab sources are mentioned save the old charter which Hamas STATED is alterable and open to reconsideration. Also, though my edits share a common perspective (it's me, after all), the changes aren't even to the same point. Reintrocing the same idea isn't a revert. Amibidhrohi 02:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well you're not just showing all perspectives, you are writing from a single highly tendatious POV which is why you are being reverted. None of us are commenting on your motivation or what single POV you are writing from because that could be innappropriate. Once again pklease do not make personal attacks or condenscending remarks, it is not very helpful.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll try not to make personal attacks, but given the kind of people here, it's hard to be sincere and not condescend. My first edits here were the inclusion of information that are based on statements by Hamas leaders. Surely how an organization explains its own actions is relevant to any article on the organization. That's been deleted. Any mention of 'occupation' is deleted. Aren't those deletions POV? A Jewish reporter mentioned that 90% of Hamas' actions are humanitarian and social and not militant. That fact is deleted by your kind over and over again. Why? Simply adding factual information is intolerable when that information doesn't support the view that Hamas is made up by rabid animals. THAT's POV. I spell all this out knowing your mind won't comprehend it- instead hoping others who visit the page realize the article is written by pro-zionist activists. Amibidhrohi 02:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is going in circles. I will leave saying that I will continue to remove any more of the highly pov additions, if you start following normal policies I will be happy to let them stay, but until then I do not see any reason tio continue this discussion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Define normal policies? Support the American and Israeli perspective on things to the exclusion of all others? Buzz off. Amibidhrohi 02:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you make any comments like that edit summary again, you may be blocked from editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi, I'm sure if you get familiar with Wiki you will understand why nobody support you. That's a shame because I see that you attract much more attention than attempts to have a true NPOV stable intro; also because you seem to fall in the trap of seeing the conflict as a Jewish/Muslim issue, which is what Hamas was created for; and finally since you seem to lack elementary understanding of Wikipedia you can't improve its global "quality", which ultimately depends only on us — there's no point in saying "Wikipedia is stupid" or "Wikipedia is the best source of info", ultimately each page depends on its users & Wikipedia is not a source of info but a place where various competing opinions may be exposed — of course it will represent the mainstream opinion, but it may also overrepresent an opinion if some users are keen on it. It's up to you to try to improve the page, going in edit-wars against everybody doesn't make people eager to take you seriously. Again, that's a shame, because I do also consider that it is strange that there is no Arab source on this page (Arab doesn't means "Hamas" either), and I do also consider that to erase all references to "occupied territories" is POV, since it is the official UN terminology (not much more "POV" than the US or Israel; by the way, France called the Algerian War an "operation of public order" until the 1990s, what would Wikipedia have called it?). But you see that any good points you bring are automatically cancelled by your refusal to play the "rules" of this site... Now back to our standard program! Tazmaniacs 15:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't presume that just because I dislike the concept of Wikipedia aside for its entertainment value that I don't understand its workings. You're still pretty much blind to what's going on here..I've tried 'playing by the rules'. The ideologues here DELETE information that present sides to the issue other than what they support. Look up and read the types of information that's been repeatedly deleted here. The other editors here are disingenuous in claiming to be open to dialogue. These people have no real knowlege about the region or its history. Probably stupid Americans who can't diffrentiate between opinion and knowlege. When the topic is controversial, there is no comprehensive collection of information to be found here. It makes more sense to post information in the talk page than in the article itself. Amibidhrohi 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You can always claim that it is the others' fault if negotiations are not engaged, you might even be right in some specific situations, but you may be sure that if you refuse to negotiate than they will do the same. Amibidhrohi, you must be displaying some sort of diplomatic skill that I'm unaware of; have you learnt that from Bush' decision to claim Arafat "out of the game"? The cannonball diplomacy? That works if there's a policy behind the "edit warring", I certainly hope for you that there is one. Else, it would probably be better to help improve the balance of the article instead of trying to disrupt it (did it work?) Tazmaniacs 15:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Charter in the intro

I moved that to discuss it:

Its charter, written in 1988 and still in force, calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic state based on Sharia.

See Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy for discussions concerning the relevancy of this inclusion of the charter in the intro. Tazmaniacs 15:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing

POV's one thing, but writing's another. I keep having to correct the same spelling, grammar, and punctuation in this intro. If someone corrects writing or punctuation, do not revert them. Also, please note that footnotes come AFTER punctuation, except where it's a colon or semi-colon. No periods/full stops after footnotes. This sentence has three periods: one after the sentence (correct), one after the first footnote (wrong), and one after the second footnote (wrong). "Israeli minister of foreign affairs, Tzipi Livni, said the measure was "acceptable", while PA minister of foreign affairs, Mahmoud Zahar, welcomed the promise of aid but criticised attempts to bypass the PA. [8]. [9]." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, please don't use the cite templates for the references. They make extra work for anyone needing to fix them or add something, and it's actually faster just to write them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Russia again

See also Talk:Hamas#Russia

I moved this to discuss it:

Following the organization's victory in the 2006 elections, the US and the EU cut funds to the PA. The Quartet on the Middle East [4], [5],[6] — the European Union, United States, Russia, and the United Nations — announced that future aid to the Palestinians would be tied to three principles: that Hamas renounce violence, that it recognize Israel's right to exist, and that it express clear support for the Middle East peace process, as outlined in the Oslo Accords. Hamas leaders have rejected these demands as "unfair". In May 2006, following a World Bank report about the Palestinian economy, the Quartet agreed to transfer funds directly to the Palestinian population. Israeli minister of foreign affairs, Tzipi Livni, said the measure was "acceptable", while PA minister of foreign affairs, Mahmoud Zahar, welcomed the promise of aid but criticised attempts to bypass the PA.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but those of you who followed the issue have seen that Russia has considered this a "mistake", did not cut funds, & the intro can therefore not states that for once, the US, the EU & even Russia actually managed to find unanimity on which to base their decisions on. See Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy and Talk:Hamas#Russia. Tazmaniacs 15:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Beside, if we state the Quartet's three conditions, then we must state that Hamas has agreed to the Arab League's 2002 proposal. This is WP:NPOV representing both points of view. Tazmaniacs 15:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The lead section

The article begins with "Palestinian Islamist organization". I think we should describe the purpose and means of any organization. I added "with a goal to improve the Palestinian living condition by political, militant and other means.". This covers the aspects that it attempts to make good to Palestinians (whatever it sees as good) and that it's a political party, engages in suicide bombings and various other activities. Someone removed it twice without mentioning why.--Marielleh 19:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it but it is clear that is a very POV way of putting it. I'm sure most people would probably argue that that isn't their actual goal.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

"Clear that is a very POV"? So how is it clear?--Marielleh 12:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see a variety of problems with the way that's written, and its placement. If anything, that should somehow be incorporated into the "Its popularity among Palestinians is in part explained..." part. On another note, the way the same talk section is recreated every day is getting ridiculous... s»abhorreo»i 08:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So what are those problems?--Marielleh 12:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The lead supposed to stand on it's own. This rev [7] had a good NPOV lead. Since that time it went downhill. Zeq 09:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What are the problems? You have to give explanations for replacing citated introduction with uncitated one.--Marielleh 15:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What specifically?

I agree. Although that rev is in need trimming and refining itself, it is much closer to where the lead should be.

Can we try to keep discussions of the intro under one heading? Most of this talk page is dedicated to attempting to work out the opening paragraph, yet there are bits and pieces of the same back and forth all over the place, often with the same opinions and arguments repeating constantly. For all the time spent trying to work this out, it seems that little progress has been made towards finally resolving the issue. There were a few false starts (of using a unified section for discussing this), but after a few days, a new section was inevitably created and the cycle began again. s»abhorreo»i 09:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Abhorreo! You may refer to Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy for points which are being discussed and Talk:Hamas#Intro and the section above for tentatives to find an intro which bases would be shared by everyone. This means everyone needs to make compromise, & we may then defend it as a stable version. Tazmaniacs 16:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Lead

Some editors seem to be obsessed with the notion, that "destruction of Israel" should be mentioned right away as the first and only thing, without covering the large image. I have no interest to participate in the article, but to me the intro appears blatantly written by someone who has a extremely sentimental world view that Hamas is a sole baby-killer organization without any logic or other activities. I recommend reading the research "The Palestinian Hamas" [8][9] by Shaul Mishal and Avraham Sela. It introduces Hamas quite differently than some editors here want it to be introduced.--Marielleh 15:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No said that that hamas is "baby killer". I think they would like all jewish to live (as long as they either leave or live as "dhimmi"). As far as obssetion goes, you should really talk to Hamas, maybe they would give up their charter. read it and then we should talk again.Zeq 16:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about. The charter and Israel destruction buzz is a only one part of the political science's interpreration, but this intro is focused completely around it. Read again what I pointed out.--Marielleh 16:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy & Talk:Hamas#Intro for further discussions concerning this subject. Tazmaniacs 16:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I totaly dis agree with the way you are handling this. Is this a war of attarition ? many times you have received answers on the disgareements you have. You have not generated a consensus. Please restore the lead section and if you choose proceed with mediation and /or arbitration. Your last edit should just be reverted but I'll wait a while and let someone else do it. It would be nice if you would do it yourself and find a way to resolve this edit conflict. Zeq 17:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Marieh's point. The charter is a significant aspect of Hamas' workings, but it isn't the most important or the most prominent. It certainly doesn't need to be in the introductory paragraph. Amibidhrohi 18:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is perfect Original reaserch. The issue is not how you see hamas but what is in this article. The lead should refelct the article. Do you want us not to mention Hamas charter at all ? Zeq 19:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The lead section should reflect how it's introduced in literature. This is an encyclopedia.--Marielleh 22:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you'd read on, you'd find an entire section dealing with the contents of the charter, including their desire to return Israel to the Palestinians. In addition to being inappropriate content for the introductory paragraph, it's redundant to repeat the content when there is an entire section devoted to the charter. Amibidhrohi 20:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The lead should cover all the main points of the article. Not just those who fit one POV. Zeq 21:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, although it's actually main points of the subject itself.--Marielleh 22:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The lead should introduce the topic matter to the reader. Bits and pieces of the remainder of the article are redundant. Also, the intro would be much too long if ALL the main points of Hamas' activities were added into the intro; and adding those points that certain partisan parties like to push is POV. ANYWAY, there is clearly no consensus on the addition of the charter mention, so that's reason enough to exclude it. Please don't add it back in. Amibidhrohi 21:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed again discussed passages of the intro, where we will surely find a lovely consensus all together on the Talk:Hamas#Intro section, for example, after a little passage by Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy, of course. Tazmaniacs 00:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You removed these passages after only discussing the matter with a couple other people, before the main editors of this article could throw in their opinion. If you want to delete such a large amount of material you better get actual consensus of all the primary editors.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There are no 'primary editors' in Wikipedia. An editor is an editor, and so long the content at issue here isn't supported by consensus, it shouldn't be here at all. Given that there's a very large separate section dealing with the very topic, I don't see why this is a problem. Amibidhrohi 02:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Moshe Constantine, I think you're misunderstanding the point. I've purposefully asked for negotiations concerning the intro repeatedly since more than a few days, based on various users' revendications and edits, this in order to avoid endless edit-wars & find a stable version on which, maybe, we could agree on. The current version has never been stable, and is full of challenged facts. Please see Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy and Talk:Hamas#Intro & the section immediately above. Thank you. Tazmaniacs 04:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I particularly urge you to refer to Talk:Hamas#Hamas Covenant in the intro. Who are the happy few who have the chance to be called "main editors"? Now that would be nice if those "main editors" accepted discussing with primitive savages such as Amibidhrohi above, who is of course only a dangerous Hamas-POV pushing editor &, because of that, should be treated with only, at best, despise. I'm sorry, but on Wikipedia there is & there should be no differences between "main editors" and "anon users", since "main editors" are as anonymous as anybody else. Tazmaniacs 04:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You can not create an edit war, with the help of a banned editor, on an issue that was long regarded as consensus and later say :" there is no consensus". Restore the lead section to what it was for long time. It was explained to you why the covanenet is part of the article and the lead. Zeq 04:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not "creating" an edit war. I am not "helped" by a "banned editor" or an "anon user". There is & has been no consensus in this intro, & you may address your justification for this contested inclusion of the Covenant in the intro in the relevant subsection Talk:Hamas#Hamas Covenant in the intro. Tazmaniacs 04:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there is a class of "primary editors" that should have more privledges. I am saying that if you want to avoid an edit war you should try to get the consensus of the 5 or 6 editors who make 90% of the edits of this article. I can understand the importance of creating a stable version, which is why I agreed to allow your removal of a paragraph that only talked about current events. However you also deleted reference to the Hamas covenant in the introduction. I do not see how that helps create a stable version of the article, to the contrary it merely seemed like you removed important and relavent information.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

POV of Sources Being Used

I raised this point earlier. Take the time to do this bit of an exercise: go through the sources at the bottom of the page. Except for Marieh's last entry, ALL of them are Western sources, either American or Israeli. Several of them are think tanks that explicitly state their goal of promoting American interests. Can an article built on these sources be possibly considered NPOV? I intend on introducing a section that gives the perspectives from the Arab media sources. "Arab views on Hamas" or something like that. Given the balance of opinion here, I can't change the fact that the remainder of the article will remain American/Israeli propaganda. If there's any opposition to including non-American/Israeli sources, please voice the reasons for them here instead of just deleting them from the main article. Support for the idea would be appreciated too. Amibidhrohi 20:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Any positive contributions to this article would be welcomed. Tazmaniacs 04:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was this edit removed:

Hamas is a product of Palestinian uprising started in 1987 in the Israeli-occupied territories. It confronted PLO's secular nationalism with Islamist nationalism and tendency to violent resistance. (based on the book Palestinian Hamas by Shaul Mishal and Avraham Sela from Tel Aviv and respective institutes)

I think we should incorporate the uprising and comparison to PLO. Also, the lead claim about founder is incorrect even according to Wikipedia.--Marielleh 04:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of this section, see WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they be considered reliable? This seems like a descriptive statement, doesn't it? Tazmaniacs 05:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hamas PR blitz

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1690610,00.html?gusrc=rss

Zeq 06:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was this removed ?

"Throughout this time Hamas has never once denounced the noumerous suicide attacks that killed and wounded hundrdes of Israeli civilians, the nearly daily bombardment of Kassam rockets from Gaza into Israel, rockets that periodically kill Israeli childrens and civilians." - This was a section that NPOV hamas self claim for a "ceasefire". It is not a ceasefire when from hamas controlled territory civilians are bombarded by rockets. Hamas does control the PA (since the election but in actuallity it control Gaza even before). Removal of this was POV - please restore. Zeq 06:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. Go ahead. —Aiden 15:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This passage doesn't exactly sound like a textbook example of NPOV to me. Palmiro | Talk 19:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"rockets that periodically kill Israeli childrens and civilians" is a sentence you listen on TV, but that you don't read on geopolitical articles. "Throughout this time Hamas has never once denounced the noumerous suicide"... is also a POV judgment, not to the advantage of the balance and size of the article. Tazmaniacs 14:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying the Kassam rockets continually fired on cities in Israel are figments of our collective paranoid jewish imaginations? Geez, in the newspapers here I read about them all the time, and see pictures too. As for Hamas not denouncing suicide bombings, this is not a judgement but a fact (notice no adjectives were used), and it's very relevant to the article.

-Sangil 23:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's a paranoid question, isn't it? Tazmaniacs 23:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Meaning? -Sangil 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi

If you look at the edits Amibidhrohi has made, his explanations and arguments, and his history (look at his talk page), I think at this point its obvious that he is only going to hinder the progress on this article, and be of no productive value whatsoever. He should be blocked from editing this article, if not banned from WP entirely. Disruption, Excessive reverts, and what amounts to Vandalism... Is slimvirgin (edit:I remembered that admins are not supposed to take such action if it's related to an edit war that they are personally involved in editing; I am not sure if slimvirgin falls into this catagory or not), or another admin who can address this issue hanging around? s»abhorreo»i 18:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A highly disruptive editor. —Aiden 18:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OOh, a topic just for me. The article as it stands is completely founded on Israeli and American sources and perspectives. All but one of the sources used were either Israeli, American or British. Many arguements pushed in this article uses highly partisan policy think tanks as sources. Address that issue. You people are using WP as a means to push propaganda.So long as what I'm 'disrupting' is your pro-Israeli propaganda nonsense, I'm happy. Until I see some neutrality in the article's tone, I'll keep editing. Slimvirgin is as much a party to this POV pushing as the other zionists here. Amibidhrohi 19:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

DDDUUUUHHHHH!!! That's beacuse what comes out of the Middle East is heavily edited by the government!! are you really that stupid?!?! The Middle East is designed and wired to obsure the truth! BOOT HIM, PLEASE. DEATH TO THE SOVIETS!! 22:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, if left up to you, you will persist in doing exactly what you are now. And as what you are doing now is counter-productive, I am suggesting that it not be be left up to you. s»abhorreo»i 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please prove points by points what Amibidhrohi has done here is "vandalism"? Taking out a sentence about the Covenant although it is discussed? "Highly disruptive editor"? Than it is so nice to make a topic just for him. Your lack of understanding to "exterior" actions is amazing. I suppose that we don't have Arab sources because of lack of knowledge, but it is a good point lifted. Furthermore, writing stuff like "they threated (sic) to decapitate everybody" is not really NPOV style in the way of writing, and is not even put in scare quotes... Tazmaniacs 14:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you were saying in your last couple sentences, but if you want me to write a point for point argument, sure. I began doing so before in reply to his "OOh, a topic just for me" post, but decided not to do, as getting into a tit-for-tat argument with the perpetrator in this sort of situation rarely ends up accomplishing anything. But, since you requested it, I will happy to show you how I came to my conclusion.

First, I assume you realize that I am not disputing his right to an opinion of how this page should be written, but merely how he is going about "sharing it".

I mentioned Disruption, Excessive reverts, and Vandalism are activities which qualify a user for being blocked.
His comments are constantly littered with digs and mockery, he is constantly pushing his political views and accusing other editors of "being Zionists", not being here to make "the article factual or accurate, they're here to push a certain image of Hamas onto the less-informed readers", and is constantly telling everyone that they are biased, slanted, one sided, and prejudiced.
He continues to insert and remove bits of information into the article as he feels like it, while ignoring the talk page consensus (or lack of it) and violating the 3RR.
And as for Vandalism in particular, I said "What amounts" to vandalism because he has not committed any specific acts of outright vandalism. But, I feel his cumulative impact on this article is comparable. (This alone was not the basis for creating this section).

Overall, I think dealing with him is wasting the time and effort of the editors here, and the effort to improve this article would be aided if he was out of the picture. Due to his attitude, his own lack of assuming good faith, and his meeting the criteria for a block, I think he is beyond mediation, and (assuming he doesn't suddenly change tact, leave on his own, or respond to a warning,) this calls for a block. I thought getting the opinions of the editors here would be a good idea instead of immediately reporting him on an appropriate admin noticeboard. s»abhorreo»i 01:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If pointing you and those like you out as disingenuous editors who selectively add and delete information to push a certain perspective is insulting to you, that's your problem. I raise the same questions each time, and each time you pretend to be blind to them. Factual (factual my ass DEATH TO THE SOVIETS!! 22:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)) information from the Arab/Palestinian perspective has been repeatedly reverted or deleted without discussion or explanation. Why is that? Why are only American/Israeli perspectives and sources being allowed to remain in the article? Hamas being a Palestinian organization, why is it described in relations to Israel before its meaning to the Palestinians is expressed? Why is that one PARTICULAR point in the Hamas Charter in the introductory paragraph but not the others? Why has the fact that Hamas leaders have ACCEPTED the possibility of accepting Israel on the condition that occupation end been deleted from the article when that was added to the article? Address the issues I raise. These issues are why I repeatedly edit this article to bring some neutrality to it. To assume good faith on your part would be blindness. You demand that I treat you nicely when you show through your edits that you deliberately wish to mislead the readers by filtering out all non-western perspectives. Sorry, but I have absolutely no respect for the likes of you and I'd rather not pretend to acknowlege you as an equal when you're clearly not. And until this article starts to reflect a broader perspective, including the Palestinian one, it's not an encyclopedia article at all, but zionist propaganda. Amibidhrohi 03:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that you are wrong on a number of counts, you are also using faulty logic. Firstly, not everybody here is American or Israeli, nor are all of the sources we are using, though they generally come from English speaking countries because this is English wikipedia. You have also shown that what you mean by removing the "zionist propaganda" is deleting anything that is not negative about Israel, along with anything that is not positive about Hamas, this is usually what is considered propaganda by rational educated people. Then again I suppose I am showing myself not to be rational by even engaging you in a normal discussion at this point.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd by lying if I said I only started questioning your education and rationality now. Your reading skills are certainly lacking if you're making these assertions while being blind to the points I actually raise. I'f I'm wrong on a number of counts, please take the time to point them out. I never claimed everyone here is Israeli or American, so you're rebutting a statement never made. The sources being used for this article ARE however limited to American, Israeli, and European ones. "This is an english encyclopedia" is a poor excuse for your partisan editing- most Middle Eastern/Asian/African countries have at least one major english daily, most have several. "You have also shown that what you mean by removing the "zionist propaganda" is deleting anything that is not negative about Israel, along with anything that is not positive about Hamas, this is usually what is considered propaganda by rational educated people." You're clearly not 'rational' or 'educated' if your capacity to read and comprehend is this low. I have NEVER suggested removing pro-Israeli rhetoric from pro-Israeli sources. I merely insist on allowing BOTH sides of the conflict to have their view expressed here. Yes, all this time I've said this article amounts to zionist propaganda. It is propaganda not because of what it includes, but all that it excludes. I don't mind that this article voices statements from sources that include pro-Israeli advocacy groups within Israel or the US. What I mind is the repeated deletion of all other perspectives when introduced, so often and so regularly that I find it not worth the time to add any more information to the article. Of course it's not worth your time to address me in dialogue, I expose you for what you are every time you try. Amibidhrohi 14:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is no benefit in engaging him at this point. As I mentioned above, the only reason I gave my point by point reasoning was Tazmaniacs request. I originally resisted to try to avoid instigating a long tit-for-tat argument that would lead nowhere. s»abhorreo»i 06:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi is in violation of WP:AGF , WP:Civility and WP:NPA - appology is in order. Zeq 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep waiting. Amibidhrohi 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting. When do you plan to appologize on your policy violation and your behaviour toward other editors ? Zeq 15:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As soon as you guys vow to give up this pro-zionist POV pushing and demonstrate it by editing the article to include Arab sources in addition to what's already there. You want an apology? Earn it. Amibidhrohi 15:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• We edit according to all Wikipedia policies. It seems you need to review them. Zeq 15:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I thank you Abhoreo for heeding my call. I agree with most users here that Amidhibrohi hasn't always been "cool" enough in his remarks, to say the least. He's not the only user, however, to be a bit "hot-headed". I don't think this warrant any "block" for vandalism, as I didn't see him erase the page to simply write "MOSSAD" (which was the case when I first saw this page; maybe some of you realized than inserting a certain statement in the text immediately stopped this vandalism). Although I don't like the term "Zionist propaganda", we do acknowledge, for a few of the users here (obviously not the majority else the article wouldn't be like that), that the current article lacks Factual accuracy on a certain amounts of points. That is the real debate, and that is what Amibidhrohi tries, as he can, to lift. I doubt you can argue that the way he is doing it is ineffective, because the way I'm doing it, that is using talk page to try to find a decent Intro, seems completely irrational. "Punishing him", then, is not only ineffective — the page is still subject to real vandalism from numbered users — doesn't solve the problem — the page is still contested for its lack of accuracy — and shows your bad faith in not wanting to discuss the real NPOV issue. You say "vandalism", to be a vandal you have to destroy something worthy of culture. On Wikipedia, any thing "worthy" that is deleted is usually reversed: it's no big deal. Tazmaniacs 10:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My belief that he qualifies for a block is not based on vandalism; as I said, I just feel that it cumulatively amounts to vandalism and I made sure to point out that "This alone was not the basis for creating this section". Instead, it is based on his editing/reverts (he clearly broke the 3RR), and Disruption. Both of those are enough for a block. And I would like to mention one more time, I don't think he will change his ways. If you look at his history and talk page, his manner is similar to how it is here everywhere, and he himself said he wont stop until all the "Zionist, pro Israel" etc propaganda is gone. And, as he is now, he is impeding progress and not aiding it. This isn't a case of a hot headed editor; this is a case of someone who unabashedly doesn't care about consensus, civility, and a dozen other WP rules and guidelines, and obviously doesn't intend to change.
I am not arguing the point that the article wouldn't benefit from an editor with his beliefs; I am arguing that his method is destructive rather then productive. s»abhorreo»i 16:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually according to WP:Civil, recommending a ban or block on the talk page does qualify as 'incivility'. But never mind that. WP:Civil also does state that in the hierarchy of behaviors to be maintained, NPOV comes before everything else. Your blatantly obvious POV-pushing therefore has to be the first thing to be mended, since it was the first offense to be committed and the most severe. Correct that, and I'll become a friendlier participant here. I WAS a friendlier participant before it became obvious to me that you and your collaborators have no interest whatsoever in having views that aren't pro-Israel reflected here, hence my tone. I'll assume good faith and take it that you're a poor reader when you again state that I said I want all the pro-Israeli material gone. I'll assume you're not lying or slandering me by associating statements to me that were never made. I support the addition of all pro-Israeli comments from any pro-Israeli source. NPOV demands however that the view from the other side be heard as well. I made this point too many times, I make it again. Even with the mentally retarded I have limits to my patience. For the last time, get it into your head. Amibidhrohi 17:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you are actually quoting rules and guidelines, as you break many of them a sentence later... I am not going to engage you unless another editor requests it. I will say that I didn't remember that point from WP:Civil, and perhaps in order to get the opinion of the admins here, it would have been more appropriate to ask them directly. I still stand by my belief that you will continue to act as you are now; if you believe me to be wrong, prove it. If you begin to argue your points without ignoring half a dozen rules and guidelines in every other sentence, and overall in a way that will help the article move forward, I will apologize and step aside. But, if you don't come to the realization that throwing a tantrum and doing and saying whatever you want unless you get your way isn't acceptable, I will continue with what I am doing, and let you prove my point for me. s»abhorreo»i 17:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, anything can be reverted but such "editors" cause additional harm by either radicalizing or driving away constructive contributors of all political views. The nature of Wiki is to be open, sometimes we need to choose the lesser evil: block one to invite many others. User:Amibidhrohi continues being disruptive and uncivil nuisance. I see no sign of improvement on his side and I would support blocking the offender. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Amibidhrodi is obviously an Hamas supporter and cannot be counted on to give factual info as his perspective is distorted by his asisineness. Block him from all servers related to terrorism at the least, and possibly prevent him from editing anything at all. DEATH TO THE SOVIETS!! 23:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't support religious extremists of any kind, but the armed resistance by Hamas was a necessity IMO. If not for the suicide bombings that kill significant numbered of Israelis, there would be absolutely zero interest in the world directed to the occupation. There would be no talk of peace or two-state solutions had Hamas/Hezbullah/Islamic Jihad not carried out the attacks that they did. As I've said before, the Jews have nobody to blame but themselves for not taking a more humane approach early on. The Israelis are the occupiers of Palestinian land, The militant wing of Hamas are the freedom fighters against Israel's oppression. Amibidhrohi 05:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. But, Ambidhrodi, if your going to state your POV, do it in a serepate section about whatever. Just stop the revert war or whatever it is. DEATH TO THE SOVIETS!! 15:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Amibidrohi is a muslim and probably an arab. If you feel so badly for the Palestinians go tell them to stop blowing up restaurants and pizzarias. Until they clean up their act there will be no sympathy for them and nobody wants to hear about their problems. Amibi if you want to talk for the Arab, make your own website. This is an english/western project, and you dont belong here.We're in a war against terrorism and you're defending terrorists. I would be careful with my words if i were you. 207.159.196.2 18:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an arab, and I'm not a Muslim. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; western-in-origin or not, it should be factual. The Israel-Palestinian conflict that is ongoing is as it is because of the history behind it. To consider things as they are without considering the past is blindness. Describing Hamas' actions without putting it in the context of the illegal Israeli occupation and what the UN sees as the world's largest and worst refugee crisis in history, is to put forward an image of Hamas that is historically and factually inaccurate. I thank you for saying what alot of folks here think but are too smart to actually voice. Amibidhrohi 21:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you claim that you desire to be factual, and than say something like the UN sees as the world's largest and worst refugee crisis in history? This claim is not only unsourced, but is utterly false, unless you consider the Palestinian refugee problem to eclipse those of Rwanda, Darfur, and Congo, not to mention the aftermath of World War 2.

-Sangil 21:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Godsquirrel. You might want to check out some articles like Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. _si»abhorreo»^T 23:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again Abhorreo! It is actually quite interesting to note that although many here have claimed Aibidhrohi was disturbing edits here (edits here?), NOT ONE VOICE has been heard against an obviously POV attack name such as "death to the soviets!", who, beside, claims being the one helping negotiations making this stupid section below (which should be deleted & I am doing it, because Godsquirrel should have signed under his real pseudonym, not this POV one.). Am I going to sign "Death to Islamists!" know? Tazmaniacs 20:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is POV but...

This article does have some point of view, although in this case it is a good thing. As Hamas is a terrorist organization responsible for countless killings of innocent civilians, the article should not paint an even picture of them, as if it where discussing a normal political party. At the moment, the article's stance seems fair and neutral. Theonlyedge 00:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your statement seems a bit contradictory... There is no "good" POV... If the article seems "fair and neutral", that would make it NPOV... I believe I see what your point is, though. _si»abhorreo»^T 11:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the frank speaking, saying that this article should be a pamphlet against Hamas. I enter the POV-tag, and will thus let you paint the uneven picture of Hamas that you want to. Bertilvidet 20:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't actually done anything; if the POV tag wasn't appropriate before, it isn't now. Nothing's changed. _si»abhorreo»^T 02:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

All articles are NPOV, but some articles are more NPOV than others. I'm insisting that a "globalize" boilerplate be added. Clearly this article has a Western viewpoint, and as the cliche goes, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Though I agree that Hamas supports terrorism, as most Wikipedians probably do, it is intellectually dishonest and propagandizing to exclude Hamas and its supporters' perspectives in this article. --Aeki 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aeki what do you believe needs to change in this article to make it less "intellectually dishonest and propagandizing".Hypnosadist 17:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that the article has already been changed. At any rate, take a look at the writeup for Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq for comparison. It clearly and factually lists exactly what they do, history, etc. Clearly Al-Qaeda in Iraq does horrible things, but in that article the reader is empowered to come to that conclusion on their own, rather than instructed as to what they should conclude. --Aeki 18:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq page is one of the best i've seen.Looking forward to your edits.Hypnosadist 18:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Composition of the opening section

[Forgive me for stating the obvious, but] The beginning of the article is the most frequently edited, and most of the edits consist of rearranging the information and adding and removing small snippets at a time. The goal here, it appears, is to create the right balance (I'm generalizing and being blunt here) of anti and pro information, as to give the first time reader the "correct" impression of Hamas. This may be especially important to some editors due to the current political situation, as when a newspaper or TV news show features a piece on Hamas, it is likely to start with "The Palestinian government party Hamas...", rather then "The fanatical/militant/terrorist/extremist group Hamas...", thus risking that an observers perception might not be the "right" one.

Here is the current lead section. The parts that to me appear to be pro are bold, and the anti is left alone.

Hamas (Arabic حركة حماس) is a Palestinian Islamist organization, and is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union[1], Israel, and the United States, [2] (but not by Russia) and is banned in Jordan.[3].

Created in 1987 by Shaikh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas is known chiefly for its suicide bombings [4] and other attacks directed against Israeli civilians, as well as military targets. Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in force) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamist state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[5]

According to the U.S. State Dept, Hamas is funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.[2] 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 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) [6].

Hamas won 74 of 132 seats in the January 2006 Palestinian legislative election and is now the majority party of the Palestinian Legislative Council. Its popularity among Palestinians is in part explained by the extensive network of welfare programs it has set up throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

These elements have been juggled around constantly, I don't think they have remained in the same positions for more then a couple weeks at a time at most, and usually much less.

My opinion on the matter is that the "correct" portrait of Hamas does include mostly anti information. However, the right balance is necessary. At the moment, I believe the bottom paragraph regarding their involvement in the Palestinian Legislative Council should be featured more prominently towards the top. This is important information, and likely an issue that someone looking up this article would be looking for information on.

I think the fact that they are categorized as a terrorist organization is important and should go near the top, but it shouldn't be the opening sentence, as it simply isn't the most relevant information at the moment. I don't believe though that "(but not by Russia)" is necessary to mention. It might be appropriate if the sentence said "listed as a terrorist organization by the worlds superpowers", and it deserves to me mentioned early when this topic is discussed later in the article, but not in the first sentence as it is currently written.

It also doesn't seem appropriate that it's said to be chiefly known for its suicide bombings; I see why some would want to have that information prominent, but I simply don't think that's true at the moment. That is indeed a major part of their identity which should be mentioned, but right now they are also associated with the current controversy, which does not center around their suicide attacks.

Finally, to touch upon a well worn topic, I think the word militant is justified. Their very nature is based around violence; Suicide bombings, rocket attacks, an AK-47 toting militia (militants) known for firing their guns into the air (admittedly not a unique trait among extremist organizations in the area) show-of-strength street marches. I think that there should be a defining word that expresses that. To a lot of readers, "Islamist" for all intents and purposes is interchangeable with "Islamic".

This is just one mans opinion. I would love for others express their own opinions on the matter. _si»abhorreo»^T 08:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "but not by Russia" part, which was insterted a couple of days ago. It hasn't been listed as terrorist organization by literally 100 countries. There no particular reason for singling out one country - all we need to do is mention the ones that actually have called it terrorist, not the dozens that haven't. As for it being primarily known for suicide bombings, that's exactly what the many references say. The reason so many were provided was precisely because people kept claiming it wasn't true, but the references prove otherwise. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Terrorism

Reading Category:Terrorism,

This category deals with topics relating to events, organizations, or people that have at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc., including state terrorism.

Hamas is an organization that is relating terrorism. Hamas activists are considered to be terrorists in the US and the UN. Hamas was and is referred more than once as terrorist. Hamas' policy from western perspective could be could state terrorism.

Then why isn't Hamas in this damn category? Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hamas is now in the NPOV "Category:Organizations accused of Terrorism" (which is a subcategory of terrorism and contains a large number, 49 or so, of other such groups.) There is also a "Category:Terrorist organizations" category but I'm not up for the fight that can go with putting gruops into that category. --Ben Houston 19:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

WHAT THE FUCK! So let me get this straight, Hamas is not a terrorist organisation but Meibion Glyndŵr who have never even be accused of killing a single person,THEY ARE! I'm going to put it in that category, as it should be, if the word terrorism is de-facto POV then there should be no category but its there so hamas are joining it. So should most of the others such as the Irish Republican Army, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and Al-Qaeda.Hypnosadist 20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You should calm down a bit. Also these groups should go into the category "Terrorist organizations", which is a subcategory of "terrorism" - this keeps the main "terrorism" cat clean and manageable. --Ben Houston 20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my language but the Meibion Glyndŵr thing was to much. I do think they are terrorists as they where using violence for political ends, and if they are Hamas sure are.Hypnosadist 20:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Your changes are being reverted -- this is the battle I was talking about. Why not move your Meibion Glyndwr into the "organizations accused of terrorism" cat? --Ben Houston 21:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If the article fits the description of a category, it should probably go in it. If you think the category itself is POV, then you should discuss it on the categories page, not here. _si»abhorreo»^T 00:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The category "Terrorist organizations" has gone now. We now only have those accused of terrorism, now if i can only find the right place to post to find out what you need to do to be an actual terrorisst group.Hypnosadist 10:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Addition to new terrorism category

A new category was created for so-called designated terror organizations, but if you go to that category page, you see that the US and the UK are considered as powers that have the right to designate organizations of being in that class. This page has now also been aded to that category, i.m.o. this cannot be justified.

Perhaps the category itself should also be placed on the AFD list.

Count Iblis 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Al Fateh

I merged Al Fateh into the Other subspection of Activities. The original article was very stubby, so the proposed merger made a good bit of sense. However, I do not follow the controversy surrounding Hamas, so please make sure the content I merged is in line with good NPOV with respect to the rest of the article. Kevin_b_er 06:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This was an article that is about a specific web site and children education. There was no reason to merge and delete it without proper procedure. Zeq 07:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

WTF This needs its own article and much more info, i'm on it.Hypnosadist 22:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorists?

Hamas is looked at as freedom fighters by supporters, and as terrorists by opponents. This is a POV, then. For example, the Mujahedin in Afghanistan were looked at as freedom fighters by the US Government but were seen as terrorists by the Soviet Union. The same could be said about numerous conflicts around the world. It is a POV.

This is the same BS as usual, it is not name calling that defines groups as terrorist but thier actions. As a proud Briton and proud European i stand by the EU's deffinition that is completely absenting of any POV.

The European Union employs a definition of terrorism for legal/official purposes which is set out in Art. 1 of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002) [10]. This provides that terrorist offences are certain criminal offences set out in a list comprised largely of serious offences against persons and property which, "given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation."

This and other definitions of terrorism can be found at Definition of terrorism, its not POV its a legal definition in the EU.Hypnosadist 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that being elected, by majority, would give them some credibility, so they are not just terrorists. Whether they are or not (terrorists), they are also a ruling political party. The legal definition *is* POV, its the POV of a country. --Therm3l 16:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the definition of terrorism and uses of defining it is a POV because Hamas defines Israel as a terrorist state as well, that is there POV. W123 21:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I found a compromise. I added "while others consider it to be an independence movement" at the end of the list of countries considering it a terrorist org. Well actually I just copy-pasted that line from wiki entry for Irgun, the former Zionist terrorist group. That seemed fair :-) --Yas121

Incidentally, the definition given by the EU quoted above could just as easily be applied to the American militias during the American Revolution, the Roundheads during the English Civil War, the peasants during the German Peasant War, etc. Obviously the term is not applied in the same "neutral" way that it is defined. Otherwise the existing "political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or international organisation," which are considered the object of terrorism would be revealed to have their very basis and origin in terrorism.Gregor Samsa 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

terrorist organisation

I didn't see the need to label it as a terrorist organisation right in the first sentece since this is discussed in the next sentence. --69.119.50.159 18:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)LIO

Anti-semitism section

In this section there are anti-Zionist position described as anti-semite ones. Examples:

• The Covenant cites The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, describing it as "the embodiment of the Zionist plan to usurp Palestine".

• Hamas categorizes the Freemasons, Lions Club, and the Rotarians as organizations promoting "the interest of Zionism." It accuses those organizations, and the "Zionist invasion" in general, of being "behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds."

--Pokipsy76 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be bold. This inclusion is doubtlessly because some are keen on identifying anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Please do make an appropriate "Anti-zionism section". Tazmaniacs 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So we could split the section in two: anti-zionism and anti-semitism, does anybody object to this change?--Pokipsy76 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The protocols are classic anti-semite propaganda being writen over 40 years before the existance of the state of Isreal, that this lie is about the creation of Zion does not make it anti-Zionist, it was used to persecute all jews(and by hamas still is). While i understand and except there is a clear difference in criticising the actions of the nation state of Isreal and the view all jews are evil, hamas clearly does not. As for the second piece of evidence, it would be more appropriate to put it in a section on the delusions of Hamas's founders.Hypnosadist 20:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an and Destruction of Israel

The article contains the claim that Hamas believes that the Qur'an directly demands the destruction of Israel. I would love to see the source. It would be a miracle, because at the time the Qur'an was revealed, Israel did not exist. CuriousOliver 02:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi oliver from article seven of the hamas charter

"The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)."

heres a link to the charter http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm Hypnosadist 02:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

But that is not from the Qur'an. CuriousOliver 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oliver its a Hadith.Hypnosadist 09:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, it's not from Qur'an so should not be claimed to be from the Qur'an but from Hadith. --Yas121

Hi i can't find the exacat quote in the article you are complaining about, could you please point it out for me, as hamas do base all thier philosophy on Islam ie The slogan of Hamas is "God is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Qur'an its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of God is the loftiest of its wishes." Hypnosadist 11:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Someone should design a political infobox. Hamas are a political organisation. Shanequinlan01

Could someone source this please

In the intro there is the statement that Hamas is not on the UN's list of terorist organizations. I was unable to find said list. Does it exist? And please, don't point me to the "UN list of individuals and entities associated with al-Qaida or the Taliban" because that is not a comprehensive list of terrorist organizations, and never claimed or attempted to be. If that list is the source of the statement, then the statement needs to be revised to be accurate.70.115.211.122 11:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Nunya

Russia, UN, "independence movement"

I've removed the following text from the header:

However, Hamas is not listed as a terrorist organization by either Russia or the United Nations, and some consider it to be an independence movement.

"However" is a word to avoid, and there are well over 100 countries that do not list Hamas as a terrorist organization, so there's no particular point in singling out Russia - why not Brazil or China or Mexico or Argentina or Ghana or New Zealand or Nigeria or...? The list tells who does designate it as a terrorist organization, not the dozens and dozens who don't. Second, the claim about the UN is both unsourced and bizarre; does the UN designate any organizations as "terrorist"? Third, the "some consider" claim is unsourced and weasel worded, and equally bizarre. What significant body has designated Hamas as an "independence movement"? And if Hamas is an "independence" movement, then what is it fighting for independence from; Lebanon? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree I'll reword it for your sweety —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yas121 (talk • contribs)

Could you please respond to the issue, and avoid violations of WP:CIVIL? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to reach a consensus on the intro were made earlier here. Only the countries members of the Quartet on the Middle East (including, of course, Israel) should be listed in the intro, as they are the only relevant parties involved. Funny that Jayjg's reversed my previous argument, mainly that we shouldn't list Australia & Canada here, as well as Britain (which is part of the UE, so we're listing it twice now), because in that case we might as well list all of the countries which list Hamas as terrorist org. There should be no need to be oversensitive on such a point, but stress is high on this page. Cheers everybody! Tazmaniacs 22:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't list everyone who doesn't regard it as a terrorist group; list the ones that do and you're by implication saying who doesn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Not true at all, the reader could just assume you are only mentioning the important countries who regard Hamas as terrorist. It needs to be explicitly stated in the article which countries do and which countries do not regard Hamas as terrorist, even if you don't list them individually. It's also POV to go into detail which countries list Hamas as terrorist but not doing the same for the countrties that don't. Deuterium 00:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Over 100 countries do not list Hamas as terrorist and we couldn't possibly list them all; a small number do. We list the ones that do, not the dozens and dozens that don't. And it's POV to include just one of the over 100 countries which do not list Hamas as terrorist. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, we have listed everyone who designates it a terrorist organization; is there any country which has been left out? Any country not listed here does not list Hamas as a terrorist organization. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

D, please stop this nonsense. We list the countries who say it is a terrorist organization. It would be absurd and impossible to list those who don't regard it as such. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV to include Russia as it's part of the quartet and thus it's views are relevant to the I-P conflict. And even if you object to mentioning russia, the article still needs to explicitly state that the countries listed are the only ones who mention it as terrorist because otherwise the implication is that there are more countries who list it as a terrorist organization that are not mentioned. Deuterium 00:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium is obviously right, if he includes Russia. ONLY MEMBERS OF THE QUARTET ON THE MIDDLE EAST SHOULD BE NAMED IN THE INTRODUCTION (including of course Israel) BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY relevant PARTIES. There is no need, as Jayz himself as pointed out, to name Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Nepal and Erythrea. Stop with this non-sense, and stop portraiting people who don't fit your POV as fanatics. This is really sickening, and I don't know how you do it, but you do manage to disgust anyone with some encyclopedical intention to act here. If we're not here to put the next stupid (or murderous) thing done by Hamas, than we are Hamas supporter. Is it with this kind of spirit that you support Middle-East peace efforts? If you can't even argue reasonably with people you don't know on Wikipedia??? Come on... Tazmaniacs 14:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would only the members of the Quartet be relevant here? It appears that they have been conveniently chosen as a criteria solely for the purpose of noting that Russia hasn't done something. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok i think that it is notable that Russia have not banned Hamas and for Three reasons, the membership of three groups of note ie The Quartet, the G8 and the UN security council. Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Nepal and Erythrea are not part of these groups.Hypnosadist 22:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, there are 272 nations, dependent areas, and other entities, most of which won't do us the favour of giving declarations on their stance on Hamas. It was claimed here that "some consider[ing] it to be an independence movement" should be mentioned. Would we mention the 200+ who don't? The article mentions Russia four times, it's position related in proper context. Asking for it's inclusion in the lead because of it's quartett membership is a random criterion that comes handy to some - will we mention that it's the Arabs World's favourite arms dealer as well? Guess not. --tickle me 23:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, 2 quick points. I agree completely it would be absurd to start listing all the countries that don't list Hamas as a terrorist organization HOWEVER as we are so adamant to quickly point out the countries that do we must also mention (as this is supposed to be a fair and unbiased Encyclopedia) A)that many countries don't list them and B)That Russia and China don't who are extremely important in international conflicts being members of the Security council with powers of Veto --Yas16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We list all the groups that describe it as terrorist; all others do not. It is original research to claim that the fact that they do not is significant. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, it really doesn't seem logical to include this. We needn't spell everything out. Tewfik^Talk 19:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why be so adament to list EVERY country that does include them in their list of terroirst organisations? Like Australia! I think we in the west don't have a monoply on wikipedia and we must try to show a balanced approach to articles if we ever expect the rest of the world to respect this as a PROPER Encyclopedia. --Yas121 20:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that balance is essential, but this seems to be more of a presentation issue than one of content. It is notable that certain states choose to list it as a terrorist group, because the norm for the others is not to take that step. By virtue of including the exceptions, we don't have to list everyone else. What do you think? Tewfik^Talk 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I basically agree (see my comments above) would be silly to start saying Algeria, Azabaijan...don't list them BUT Russia and China are such important and big players in the Middle-East that it's a key fact that they differ from the other key players namely US EU etc Second point, the UN is very important to mention here! United Nations is more imortant than mentioning individual countries. --Yas121 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So I propose that we mention Russia, China and the United Nations, does anyone agree? Yas121 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The UN doesn't list any groups as far as I know. I've watched this being discussed ad naseum, such a statement would set a precedent that would allow any article to be manipulated in a POV fashion. With no disresepect intended, I'm reverting unless you can somehow add something to this discussion that hasn't been said numerous times. I think your concerns have already been addressed amply above. Tewfik^Talk 20:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The article lists only countries that designate Hamas as terrorist; all 200 other countries do not list it as terrorist. As for the U.N., the link you yourself provided points out "The only terrorist list the UN maintains was brought about by UN resolution 1267, and is devoted solely to individuals and organisations believed by the UN to be connected to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. If Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are not listed by the UN, it isn't because they aren't terrorist groups; it's because the UN doesn't see sufficient linkage between them and terrorism's Big Two." [11] So, no, we list the countries that call it terrorist organization, not the ones that don't. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but don't you see without taking a balanced approach the entire article does read just like a POV? OK I won't revert back to the UN,Russia,China bit seeing as though I'm alone in thinking they are important. But can you kindly tell me what is wrong with saying a) ..."it is seen by its supporters as a legitimate fighting force defending Palestinians from military occupation"? and b) "Hamas was formed in 1987 at the beginning of the first intifada, against Israel's occupation in the West Bank and Gaza"? a. is just highlighting that there are other opinions/views out there and b. is just saying why they were formed. Thanks in advance for your explanation --Yas121

Russia is part of the Quartet on the Middle East & should certainly be mentionned, more so than Australia & Canada. Tazmaniacs 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs, you have made an assertion, not an argument. The reason Australia and Canada are mentioned is because every country that has listed Hamas as a terrorist organization is listed. Admittedly, it is not a long list, but that is exactly why they are all listed. As well, Australia and Canada are not trivial countries; in fact, they are two of the largest trading countries in the world. Canada is part of the G8 nations, and Australia is one of the top 20 countries in the world in terms of GDP. However, the Quartet on the Middle East appears to be completely irrelevant - exactly what have they done, aside from calling themselves as "Quartet"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, that is not a very good argument at all. You seem to think Russia and China are not worth mentioning yet Australia is for it's high GDP. Well let me just say that Russia and China are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council meaning they can effectively veto any resolution under International law. Meaning all major international resolutions concerning the Middle-East. Compared to this influence and power Australia and Canada are less than small-potatos!!--Yas121 23:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not wander too far afield here, comparing GDP or Security Council Votes. None of these things matter. Take a simple (I hope) example: Does Egypt label Hamas a terrorist org? Syria? Lebanon? Are these countries less important to the issue at hand than China? I think not. But we're not listing any country's lack of opinion on the matter, nor should we. IronDuke 23:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not my argument, though. Australia and Canada are significant countries, and are some of small number of countries that have listed Hamas as a terrorist organization. Since every country that lists Hamas as a terrorist origanization is listed here, Australia and Canada are included. On the other hand, there are 200 countries that have not listed Hamas as a terrorist organization, and there's no particular reason to single out China or Russia - Security Council membership is another of those new excuses that seems to have conveniently popped up solely to try to include some names on the "doesn't call Hamas terrorist" list. Furthermore, China's "terrorist" list seems completely self-serving; 4 alleged groups in Xinxiang province, 2 of which apparently don't even exist, and two others which are simply informational NGOs, which human rights groups say are not terrorist at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Paz quote

Why has the Paz quote been included in the lead? It's one quote, from one Israeli; what Human Rights Watch as an organization thinks is significant, but one one Israeli says is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it? The quote has been included because of a Wikipedia policy named neutral point of view. Tazmaniacs 14:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So you consider members of Shin Bet to be reliable, mainstream sources when it comes to articles about Hamas and similar organizations? Important enough that they should be included in the leads of those articles? I want to make sure about this, because it will have very serious implications for the material included in these articles going forward. Or perhaps you want to re-think your poisition? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Hamas#Finding_a_consensual_and_NPOV_decision_for_the_intro. Tazmaniacs 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How is that old discussion relevant? This is a wiki. Can you answer the question please? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, official Shin Bet declarations would have some clout. However, I don't know of any such declarations, it's the representative branches of the Israeli government mostly, that handle this business. Anyway, I can look up what individual SB members, past and present, have to say on Hamas, if I'm allowed to introduce it here as authoritatitve and reliable - presumably 99% of the material won't be "favourable" - any goers? --tickle me 00:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi dear Jayjg. Don't try to turn a discussion about how to make a NPOV intro into a general discussion about the validity, in itself, of Shin Bet declarations. If you want a discussion about the general validity or not of Shin Beth, please go adress that in Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. This is not the place to do so, as this talk page is about Hamas, not Shin Beth. Have I answered your question? Tazmaniacs 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Shin Beth generally would not be considered an authority on Hamas, and certainly not enough for the lead. Furthermore, the report in question doesn't endorse Paz's views, it merely reports them. WP:NPOV does not allow "undue weight" to be given to any views. Please stick to policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone PLEASE PLEASE source this

I asked nicely, and was ignored, and am asking nicely again, after removing the statement. If the UN has a list of terrorist organizations, it needs to be provided. Until it is, I will continue to remove all references to Hamas and their not being on said list. As an aside, the intro doesn't sound at all encyclopedic, but more like unrepentant equivocation. Frankly, it sounds pretty damned stupid to list the countries that do not list Hamas as terrorists. 70.115.211.122 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Nunya

I totally agree. -- Szvest 22:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good indication, we now need to find the exact UN list. Hope this helps [12] --Yas121 19:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That link you provided says this: "The only terrorist list the UN maintains was brought about by UN resolution 1267, and is devoted solely to individuals and organisations believed by the UN to be connected to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. If Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are not listed by the UN, it isn't because they aren't terrorist groups; it's because the UN doesn't see sufficient linkage between them and terrorism's Big Two." Yet you have inserted the exact opposite POV into the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So like I said Hamas are not in the UN list of terrorist organzations! which part is unclear? Yas121 23:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's deliberately misleading; the UN only lists groups or individuals linked to Al Qaeda or the Taliban, which Hamas and Hezbollah are not. The U.N. hasn't said Hamas is not a terrorist group. Please try not to POV articles by including misleading claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE PLEASE tell me what's so Un-wikipedian about this that Admins don't like?

what is wrong with saying a) ..."it is seen by its supporters as a legitimate fighting force defending Palestinians from military occupation"? and b) "Hamas was formed in 1987 at the beginning of the first intifada, or Palestinian uprising against Israel's occupation in the West Bank and Gaza"? a. is just highlighting that there are other opinions/views out there and b. is just saying why they were formed. Thanks in advance for your help --Yas121 00:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a better question; why do you keep removing the fact that Hamas is on the UK terrorist list? The UK is not the EU, and they keep separate terrorist lists. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

please answer the above simple Qs. Thanks Yas121 00:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You first. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. First Intifadah is in the article now, and it links to what that was; we don't need your POV description of what it was all about in the intro to a separate article, that's what links are for. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, because it's a waste of my time explaining to you what the EU is and whom are it's members. Read. All I'll say is this is the only article on Hamas I've seen that lists the countries, who have Hamas on their terrorist list, so maticulously, (everywhere else US,EU and israel seems to suffice) yet has no mention of countries that disagree nor any other views on Hamas as if US-EU-Israel represented the entire planet.... and what a fair a balanced article this really is. What do you think someone in the Middle-East or Africa or in Asia reading this would think about Wikipedia? might not the F word come to their mind? It seems Widipedia is turning into just another tool for people to further their own agenda and distort history. --Yas121 01:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is more complete than the other articles, then. I don't see why that's a bad thing. The UK is not synonymous with the EU, and it has its own list of terrorist groups. It has its own army too, which got involved in Iraq even though the EU didn't. It has its own currency too. By the way, did China say that Hamas is not a terrorist group? I thought not. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)