Talk:Hamas/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Hamas and suicide bombing

User:TheTimesAreAChanging, Nishidani being a useful idiot again. Hamas only disavowed suicide bombings for TWO MONTHS, from April to June 2006, before resuming them:

What you removed was a clause qualifying the statement about Hamas suicide bombings. Your edit summary referred to an exchange between you and User:KingsIndian in which you cited some stuff saying Hamas still practices it, linking to a Yahoo article in which it is reported that a Hamas soldier blew himself up with a bomb, killing Israeli soldiers.

That made no impression on me for obvious reasons. It is a rare but much praised practice in wartime. If you read Yitzhak Arad, In the Shadow of the Red Banner: Soviet Jews in the War Against Nazi Germany, Gefen Publishing House 2010 pp.48-49 you will see that the book, rightly in my view, describes in detail the death of Eliezer Papernik (Lazar Haimoovich Papernik) on 22 January 1942. The last man standing in a raid on Nazi lines, this Jewish soldier waited for the Germans to close in, and then took some of them out while blowing himself up with his last hand grenade. We read that with deep commotion. We are supposed to feel absolute horror in reading the IDF report that a Hamas soldier, defending his homeland against an invader, blew himself up when close to Israeli soldiers. 'We'. Well, I don't think that the same tactic is valorous or an atrocity depending on the ethnic typecasting of the soldiers killed.

In any case what you removed was not something Nishidani, putatively playing a Leninist 'useful idiot' for Hamas, put over as a fact. I wrote:'- a strategy it stated it had abandoned in 2006-' . It is a fact that Hamas went public saying it would no longer use that tactic against civilians, and as Kingsindian told you at the time:'As to your other points, one can perhaps rewrite the sentence to say that "Hamas largely gave up suicide bombings on Israeli civilians", which is true enough, since the suicide bombing has all but disappeared compared to earlier times.'

According to the documentation at List of Palestinian suicide attacks Hamas claimed responsibility for 2 such acts between 2006 and 2016. One on April 19, 2008 and the other, the 2016 Jerusalem bus bombing in January this year. On examining the evidence given, the later was carried out by an acknowledged Hamas member, of the West Bank. The Gaza branch praised it, but stopped short of saying it was responsible, which it has had no problem in stating in the past. That means Hamas conducted one certified suicide attack in ten years, against a military post on the Gaza border, in 2008. The Yahoo example occurred in wartime combat, and does not fit in. Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you kindly cut out the SOAP? It's getting real old. I collapsed an irrelevant paragraph, per TPO. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

EC: The above is mostly pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook (complete with Nishidani's trademark comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany, which is obviously necessary). Hamas was behind the 2008 suicide bombing of a shopping mall in Dimona and clearly hasn't given up the tactic, even if all of your caveats about "Hamas members" and military targets are accepted at face value. Now, if you have an actual source saying "Hamas largely abandoned the use of suicide bombings against civilian targets after 2006," despite the actions of its members, then obviously you are more than welcome to add it. However, it's lazy and doesn't make sense to cite an April 2006 Hamas statement announcing an end to suicide bombings (with no explicit distinction between targets) when Hamas began threatening to resume suicide bombings as early as June 2006 (and has repeated that threat many times since). Suicide bombings have largely disappeared since the end of the Second Intifada for a variety of reasons (possibly including the West Bank barrier)—but one of the reasons is not that Hamas developed moral qualms about the practice.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The appropriate phrasing is "largely abandoned suicide bombing". Many sources agree that there was a quantitative and qualitative shift after the 2005 elections in Hamas' strategy. Here are a few sources:

• Source 1 - 2010 Most notably, Hamas abandons its use of suicide bombing shortly after the January 2005 Presidential election
• Source 2 - 2014 Why have Islamic Hezobollah and Hamas and the Marxist-Leninist PKK mostly abandoned suicide bombings? The comment is by Scott Atran.

This fact is clear from the timeline as well. Even attributing full responsibility of both the 2008 and 2016 events to Hamas, one can easily check the massive change in quality and quantity of the suicide bombings. Indeed, TTAAC even added the same fact quoting ICT, so everyone agrees that there was a massive decline. I have replaced the ICT source with the two sources above, which note the decline, as well as the change in Hamas policy. What is achieved by calling Nishidani a useful idiot for adding something accurate? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani could be considered a useful idiot because, in lieu of a RS, he cited Hamas's official propaganda statement to the effect that "Hamas only embarked on suicide bombing campaigns as a response to extreme provocations by Israel." That said, sometimes my edits contain more bark than bite.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, note that this silly kerfuffle began when I edited in a single fact:

'a strategy it stated it had abandoned in 2006,'

I was quite familiar with the scholarly literature that (I can give you a dozen quotes) marks 2005/6 as a caesura in Hamas practice, but I am keeping that for the occasion when I get time to comprehensively rewrite the suicide section.

I didn't say it had abandoned suicide bombing in that edit (b) stating what a political group claims (here Musa) is all over these articles, and no hackles are ever raised if editors do that, because it forms part of the record. Exception was uniquely taken to Nishidani noting this, and the assumption was that I was a mouthpiece for Hamas.(c) Musa's statement is not correct, of course. Almost no politician, of any persuasion, is reliable for facts. Hamas adopted suicide bombings on several grounds in several periods, in the belief it could either extract political concessions from Israel, or to undermine the Oslo Accords, or to gather consensus in competing with the PLO at one extreme, or Islamic Jihad to the other, or to retaliate for some Israeli massacre etc.etc. The study of terrorism looks for rationales, it doesn't, like newspapers, expostulate on incidents and leave it at that. Facts like 'X did this' shorn of the rationales behind those decisions, whatever they are, are meaningless. Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Anything 'could be said'. Some glancing familiarity with Hamas statements and comprehensive unfamiliarity with scholarship on Hamas will often translate as confusing the former and the latter. I could (and will when I get time to edit the rest of the article) cite a dozen sophisticated analyses of time frames, who did what, when and in response to what, that state Hamas at times adopts these strategies in retaliation (Robert Pape is just one of several). Of course the wiki POV 3R rule would be raised against this: 'retaliation', 'response', and 'reaction' are only applicable to Israeli military actions, never to the adversary, thus solving the chicken-egg crux, if only in the IP discursive area. If I am a 'useful idiot' because what I do can be construed as toeing a party platform, well, I'm in excellent company here.Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Likud comparison - sources

I'm looking at the sources currently used for the comparison between the Likud platform which our article says the Hamas charter is "likened" to.

• In Emmett, there does not appear to be such a comparison. She says religious politics are sometimes supported by secular politicians, but I can't see where she is comparing the charter/platform and saying they are alike. Someone please quote.
• In Frankel, we have a story of one politician telling another politician their party is just like Hamas in terms of political goals. That is not a likening of platforms and even if it was, it's not neutral voice material.
• In Smith and Burr (Smith seems to be a theologian, can't find any information on Burr), with the academic title of "a Roadmap for justice and peace", please quote the text that "liken[s] to that in the Likud party platform and in movements like Gush determinative". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

No. This has been discussed exhaustively above. Two compromises were made with your original objection re 3 mentions of Likud, one by Nableezy, a further one by myself. It was pared down to one. You can't keep trying to whittle down a reasonable compromise, changing your original policy objection (WP:Undue) to what looks like a hazard at throwing a WP:SYNTH gambit, till it's all your way. I've also answered here. One can change 'likened' to 'mirrored' if you like. Louise Fawcett is an impeccable source for that. That's it.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you made a compromise with yourself.

And apropos proving the opposite of what you intended, all those sources you added just prove that this issue is being put in too prominent a place in our article. Chomsky says this is a Hamas talking point. Who'd a thunk.

Meanwhile could you be so kind as to remove the sources that don't support the sentence, or should I? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

No. You are wikilawyering, and making assertions without proving them. The next step is to suck in someone to actually treat these opinions ('I can't see it. So prove I'm wrong') seriously. Grammatically, syntactically, and logically, all those sources compare the Hamas charter to the Likud charter regarding land. If you challenge the obvious, then take each source, quote it in full, and parse it, and draw your inference. I.e. do some work. I've done enough per conscience and policy to meet your objections here on this for the moment. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

“Bibi Netanyahu is a Hamas collaborator, [Rabin] told one interviewer. Hamas and the Likud have the same political goal.” @Nishidani: Please elucidate where in that quote, from one politician about a political rival to an unnamed interviewer, this particular source “Grammatically, syntactically, and logically [compares] the Hamas charter to the Likud charter regarding land”? If I’ve mistakenly parsed the wrong Glenn Frankel quote, please supply the correct one. Thank you. KamelTebaast 18:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll take that as you admitting the sources do not support the text. I will be removing them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

We are expected to have elementary abilities to correctly construe the meaning of English sentences. My replies above do not allow you to 'take' them in the way you do to justify your standard approach to editing the I/P, revert and split hairs when challenged.Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

If I hadn't already caught you multiple times falsifying sources, cutting quotes in a tendentious manner, and various other dishonesties regarding sources, maybe you could complain about splitting hairs. My ability to construe the meaning of English sentences is fine. Could you construct one that answers the three simple questions I posted above? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Block A; Compare that to this; Block B, and then we are asked to prove that this source compares Block A to Block B. It explicitly says, compare that from Hamas to this from Likud. nableezy - 22:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You're not asked to prove this source (I'm assuming you mean Smith and Burr) is comparing the two. There are multiple possible conclusions from comparing two things. You're asked to show that it "liken[s] to that in the Likud party platform and in movements like Gush Emunim". Anything to say about the other two sources? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Well then, here you go, another source:

Likud’s 1977 founding document reveals its position that:

… between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

Of course, this was written in 1977 – but critics of Hamas don’t afford it this concession vis-a-vis its 1988 charter. While this Likud statement doesn’t possess the racist sentiments of the Hamas charter, the practical implications denying the possibility of two states co-existing are more or less the same.

Hows that work for you? Tristan Dunning is an honorary fellow in history at the University of Queensland, has written Tristan Dunning (29 January 2016). Hamas, Jihad and Popular Legitimacy: Reinterpreting Resistance in Palestine. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-38495-3.. A reliable source? Check. Explicitly liken[s] to that in the Likud party platform? Check. Anything else? nableezy - 02:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

That looks ok. What about the three I asked about above? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I quoted from Smith and Burr in the section above, and I think it obvious what the comparison they are drawing is. Both passages discuss the refusal to accept any other state between the sea and the Jordan, Palestine for Hamas and Israel for Likud. Both passages have been contradicted, forcefully or otherwise, by the statements made by politicians from both groups. The author is clearly showing that both the Hamas charter and the Likud platform has the same position on this matter, but that isnt determinitive of the actions of each groups head or potentially their actions while in government. I havent really looked at the other two to be honest. nableezy - 00:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

"I think it is obvious" + "haven't really looked" = non answer Drsmoo (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not even a little bit, but Ill be more blunt for you. Anybody who claims that Smith and Burr does not show the two positions to be the same is doing so in bad faith. The two passages say nearly exactly the same thing, to such an extent that all one needs to do is put them side by side and say compare this to that. No matter though, the Dunning source and the Beinart sources are so clear that even the most bad faith distortion of their contents cannot escape the fact that they say the two positions are the same. Toodles. nableezy - 14:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I've looked and relooked, and I am not going to waste time re-engaging in a major reexamination of what is there for any sensible person to see. All of the sources make the same point. Fine-combing with millipedal teeth to tease out some potential equivocation in this or that to collapse the evidence is just wikilawyering. Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No, they don't. What you're describing is the definition of synth and will be removed. Just as Nishidani's new POV edit will be reverted. Drsmoo (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Ha! The source I provided yesterday says While this Likud statement doesn’t possess the racist sentiments of the Hamas charter, the practical implications denying the possibility of two states co-existing are more or less the same. You want to try to bluster a way to pretend that this source does not equate the two positions? But thanks for demonstrating you do havent read WP:SYNTH, because what you think is the definition of synth very much is not. nableezy - 15:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

So the source you added yesterday is Smith and Burr? Drsmoo (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would read the section you are responding in. Ill copy and paste just for you:

source:

Likud’s 1977 founding document reveals its position that:

… between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

Of course, this was written in 1977 – but critics of Hamas don’t afford it this concession vis-a-vis its 1988 charter. While this Likud statement doesn’t possess the racist sentiments of the Hamas charter, the practical implications denying the possibility of two states co-existing are more or less the same.

Hows that work for you? Tristan Dunning is an honorary fellow in history at the University of Queensland, has written Tristan Dunning (29 January 2016). Hamas, Jihad and Popular Legitimacy: Reinterpreting Resistance in Palestine. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-38495-3.. A reliable source? Check. Explicitly liken[s] to that in the Likud party platform? Check. Anything else?

nableezy - 15:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you're not quite getting it. You can't use one source to justify the misuse of other sources which don't say what you claim they do. Drsmoo (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think youre not quite getting it. I disagree with your contention that Smith and Burr do not support the material, but it doesnt even matter as I have provided other sources that do. I see you are no longer challenging the rather elementary level understanding that the two positions are the same. nableezy - 15:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Your source directly says it's not the same, only that that the "implications" are the same. In fact your source directly says they're different. Meanwhile, Smith and Burr don't describe them as similar. Drsmoo (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with that one lol. Even NMMNG agreed that source is fine. You want to pretend a source that says they are are more or less the same actually directly says they are different you can try that bad faith argument. But nobody who understands English is going to buy it. nableezy - 16:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It's fine with saying the implications are the same. It's also fine with saying the Likud charter doesn't include the racism of Hamas's charter. This has no bearing on Smith and Burr, which don't describe them as similar, despite your use of a different source to justify their inclusion. Drsmoo (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Smith and Burr 'compare'. You know the meaning of 'compare' as in 'liken to' don't you? I mean, everyone should know by heart Shakespeare's Sonnet 18:'Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?'. I retract that 'everyone'. Nableezy hates Shakespeare, if I recall a post going back 5 years.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, Im not using any source to justify any other source. Im using sources (pl) to justify content. nableezy - 16:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No. Beinart, Emmett, Frankel, Smith, and O'Malley don't describe the two as similar. Dunning points out similarities, but says Likud doesn't include the racism of Hamas, which should be included. Drsmoo (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

NMMNG also accepted the Beinert source for the statement. Beinart explicitly says that by the standard that Hamas is held to re their charter and their current statements on accepting a two state solution conflicting that Netanyahu's speech on accepting a two "state" solution should also be rejected on the basis of the Likud platform rejecting a two state solution. Sorry, but that also says the platform and the charter have the same position on the matter. He also writes this:

By participating in a coalition government that was negotating a two-state solution even though its party charter rejected a two-state solution, Hamas would have been in a position oddly analogous to today's Likud, whose own platform explicitly rejects a Palestinian state, but which leads a coalition that has pledged to put any deal creating one to a popular vote.

Analogous, for those of us who wish to lawyer away at a text, means corresponding or similar. Oh, and the "similarity" that Dunning "points out" is the rejection of a two state solution. Which is what is under discussion here. nableezy - 16:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Analagous in your opinion, not stated in the text. It will be removed, and the info regarding racism will be added. Drsmoo (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Lol, no Sherlock, analogous is Beinart's word. I frickin quoted from the book. What does my opinion have to do with the words right in front of you? The reliable source says they are analogous. Not me. I dont know what racism has to do with it, the antisemitism in the Charter is discussed in a different part of that section. You remove it and it will be returned. You seem to be under the impression that you get to decide these things. You dont. nableezy - 16:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right in this regard, I misread your post. I'm ok with including "oddly analagous" while not including the racist elements of Hamas's charter. Drsmoo (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to say unlike Likud when it discusses racism in the charter go ahead. But these are two separate topics. Dunning writes that the Likud constitution does not have the same racism that the Hamas charter has, but on this point they have the same view. One state between the river and the sea. nableezy - 16:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

comparison to Likud

Im sorry, but is there an actual policy that supports deleting material that is properly and reliably cited and is relevant? Or is not liking something a reason to revert now? nableezy - 15:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually there are a few. In this case one of them is UNDUE, which I mentioned prominently in my edit summary and I'm fairly certain you saw. Unless you're going to argue that the prominence this issue gets in reliable sources is such that it needs to be mentioned three times in the first few paragraphs discussing the charter? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

UNDUE says that? Is there some way of showing that this comparison is about a "minority viewpoint", which is what UNDUE is actually about? It does not, repeat not, say we need to have three mentions of something if and only if all reliable sources likewise mention it three times. And, oh by the way, even if UNDUE did say that, and it doesnt, you went from 3 to 0. How does UNDUE support completely suppressing that material? Or was that some other unnamed policy, the WP:LIKUDISALWAYSRIGHT link that Im pretty sure is still red? nableezy - 15:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I assumed you have read UNDUE so didn't feel I needed to specify that it doesn't say that only if something is mentioned three times in the sources it needs to be mentioned three times in an article. Now that we've put that little bit of rhetorical bullshit to rest, perhaps you could confirm that you think that when most sources discuss the Hamas charter, one of the first things they talk about, and which they repeat often, is that it does not support a two state solution "like Likud". I'm fairly certain you know that's not the case, so kindly stop the POV pushing and restore the article to a reasonable state. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Im fairly certain that your supposed test does not in any way reflect WP:UNDUE or any of the other policies of this website. You also neglected to respond to the issue of you not only paring down the material if you felt that it was too prominent or mentioned to often, but that you instead completely and totally removed a comparison that multiple reliable sources have made. So if you are done with the rhetorical bullshit, please respond to that, and if you could also point me to what policy supports your idiosyncratic belief on how many times something may be mentioned in an article Id very much like to read that. nableezy - 16:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is there an actual policy that precludes removing material that is "properly and reliably cited"? Cut out the bullshit already. Your ridiculous bullying might impress a new editor, but I just find it tiring.

The current wording gives this issue obvious and egregious UNDUE weight. We both know that. How much weight it should get can be discussed. You know where the ONUS lies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

One more time, WP:UNDUE is about minority viewpoint. Is it a minority viewpoint that the portions of the charter that deal with the division of Palestine mirror Likud's platform? Because if it isnt you need to find a new acrony to use. I get that UNDUE is your go to, but it does not mean what you appear to think it means. You are free to continue calling what I write "bullshit", but all that means to me is that you dont have an argument and instead need to rely on bluster. So bluster away. And oddly enough, the policy that demands the inclusion of this material is the one you linked to (UNDUE being a part of NPOV). You completely removed the comparison, and now say how much can be included can be discussed. So, discuss. What exactly do you want to remove? Because the idea that it should be completely expunged, like you did, is, to quote your words back to you, "bullshit" and "bullying". And quite unimpressive at that. nableezy - 16:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you're trying to play this stupid game, but let me word this explicitly so when this goes to one of the admin boards you won't have any excuses: the idea that the Hamas chater mirrors the Likud's platform is indeed a minority view that does not seem to appear in most sources that discuss the charter, and even when it is, it is not given much prominence in those sources. Putting it three times in the first couple of paragraphs in a long section dedicated to the charter gives this issue UNDUE weight. The relevant section of UNDUE, in case you missed it is: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

This issue can be mentioned lower down in the section, and there's no reason to mention it more than once. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

rv. ridiculously UNDUE. three times in the first couple of paragraphs

This is flawed for several big reasons. Removing on topic quality sources frivolously is close to abusive editing,

• (a) you didn’t challenge the fact that the context states Hamas rejected the two state solution twice (is that too much?) By the samne token if that is your criterion, then the 10 odd references to anti-semitism, some in the same section, must be removed as overegging the pud.
• (b) you said 3 mentions of the analogy with Likud were undue, which is an argument, but then undercut the thrust of that argument by removing all 4 high quality references. In other words, you cancelled all mention whatsoever of the fact that the analogy between the Likud and Hamas platforms, both refusing a two-state solution, has been frequently noted.
• (c) you left an analogy between Gush Emunim in place, meaning you will consider an analogy allowable only if it doesn’t mention Israeli political parties.
• (d) There should be no excuse for the blanket blind removal of linked quality sources which deal with Hamas. You may contest what they are cited for, but just taking out 4 sources impoverishes editors abilityy to examine and perhaps remodulate the section.
• For example. By cancelling Peter Beinart’s book, whose relevance no one would deny, it is unlikely that an editor will be able to check it, and then suggest a different way of citing it than the way it is cited now. E.g.

Peter Beinart has argued that dismissals of Hamas’s recent acceptance of the two state solution can be ignored because it contradicts their charter. Stating:’By that standard. American Jewish groups should reject Prime Minister Netanyahu’s talk about a two-state solution as well, since it ncontradicts the explicit opposition to as Palestinian state in the Likud platform. Most recently affirmed in 2006.’ Peter Beinart, The Crisis of Zionism, Melbourne University Press 2012 p.219 n.55.

The same goes for removing

• • Ayala H. Emmett, Our Sisters' Promised Land: Women, Politics, and Israeli-Palestinian Coexistence, University of Michigan Press, 2003 pp.100-102.
  • Glenn Frankel, Beyond the Promised Land: Jews and Arabs on the Hard Road to a New Israel, Simon and Schuster, 1996 p.389-391, cites Binjamin Netanyahu as declaring:'You say the Bible is not a property deed. But I say the opposite-the Bible is our mandate, the Bible is our deed'. Yitzhak Rabin at the time charged that "Bibi Netyanyahu is a Hamas collaborator . . Hamas and Likud have the same political goal.'
  • David Whitten Smith, Elizabeth Geraldine Burr,Understanding World Religions: A Road Map for Justice and Peace, Rowman & Littlefield, 2014 2nd.ed. pp.250-1 for a comparison of similarities regarding ownership of the land in the Likud and Hamas platforms.

All these sources should stay in. I see you now say:'This issue can be mentioned lower down in the section, and there's no reason to mention it more than once.' However, your revert just wiped the whole issue off the page. I'd be quite happy to reformulate this section, but it will mean, given the coverage, that the analogy will be given a few consecutive lines, rather than being made in 3 separate places.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes yes there are other things that need to be corrected in the article, but that's neither here nor there. Your attempts to read my mind fail as they always do. That covers your points a-d.

Do you have an argument as to why this should be mentioned 3 times in such a prominent place? Because "there are sources that mention it" is not enough, as I'm sure you know. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You're failing to hew to a specific policy obligation by ignoring my points. 'Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia.' Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you deliberately stop quoting exactly where it said "e.g., undue emphasis"[1], which is exactly the reason I removed it, as can be seen by both my edit summary and the discussion here? That's not nice and not very honest. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

'It' in 'I removed it' has nothing to do with WP:Undue. You removed all 3 passages, cancelling the fact that several sources make the comparison. Undue weighjt does not translate into 'no weight at all'.Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"It" was you adding 3 mentions of something that's hardly mentioned in sources, in a too prominent place in the section, thus violating UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

What prominent place? Half way down the article in the section that covers it? Do you dispute that comparisons between Hamas' charter and the Likud platform are made by reliable sources? Is that a significant viewpoint? If so, does not NPOV demand that it be included? Then why did you erase it entirely from the article? If your problem was that it says it three times, in a subsection with 8 paragraphs, is too much, then why did you remove all mention of that comparison? Pick an argument and make edits that reflect. Dont in the article completely censor any mention of the comparison between Likud and Hamas and then here argue well we can discuss how much should be included, but 3 is too much. nableezy - 18:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A prominent place in the section describing the charter. Even the few sources provided here that make the comparison don't give it such prominence, and most sources that I've seen don't mention it at all. It's a minor point given UNDUE weight.

I saw an editor adding material in a way that gave it undue weight, so I reverted him. "we can discuss how much should be included, but 3 is too much" is exactly the next step. What's the problem here? In terms of policy or even common practice, if you don't mind. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You reverted more than what was just added. You completely removed the material, material you apparently agree is well sourced and on topic. nableezy - 21:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted what was added. Using the undo button. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed the first Like Likud, satisfied? You really going to dispute it is relevant and reliably cited in the remaining two instances? nableezy - 18:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

So sometimes it's ok to remove sourced material, and maybe I did have a policy based argument? Awesome. I'll have a look a little later and let you know what I think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Im fairly certain I never said it is never ok to remove sourced material. And no, I dont think you had a policy based objection, I just find your "ridiculous bullshit" to be "tiring", so Id rather avoid dealing with it more than necessary. nableezy - 21:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I find that unlikely, but never mind. Having reviewed the section I find it violates NPOV in a big way. Specifically it spends one paragraph describing the charter in fairly general terms, and 7 more explaining (often in the neutral vioce) that Hamas is really not as bad as the charter might make one think, and one short paragraph at the end with three attributed opinions that weakly counter some of the paean above. The Likud thing (in the encyclopedia's neutral voice, of course) is just one symptom of this problem, and it still is a problem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You got problems with other parts of the section by all means bring those up separately. Why wouldnt it be in the encyclopedia's voice? Is it not a statement of fact that both the Hamas charter and Likud's platform preclude any two state solution, instead claiming all of Palestine? Why would that need to be attributed as an opinion? You said it still is a problem. How? nableezy - 22:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It’s a problem because it is an off topic comparison between Hamas and Likud designed to switch the readers focus from Hamas to Likud.

It has a strong political message that is more about attacking Likud by comparing it to Hamas than anything else. Its written like an anti-Likud polemic.Jonney2000 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's on topic because the article deals with Hamas's attitude to Palestine, the charter assertion to all of the land, which many authorities note is parallel to the position of the Likud party, which govcerns Israel. Everything in the article, the terrorism, suicide bombs, etc.etc., the stuff most editors like to register on Palestinian articles, 'has a strong political message'. Not for that do I object to these things being entered. They are intrinsic to the discourse. Thirdly, many sources on this page, even book sources, come from anti-Hamas polemicists. I've not removed them, indeed I've added some. To show sensitivity to Likud's image, and ignore this scruple with Hamas is not what we are supposed to do here, or anywhere on wiki.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Its explicitly on topic, discussing a rejection of a two state solution, and brought up as a comparison by a reliable source. Polemic? It says Like Likud. nableezy - 20:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Comparisons were undue and blatant whataboutism. Drsmoo (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what whataboutism is supposed to mean, but it isn't a criteria for content in an article. How is it undue? In a several paragraph section there are two mentions of Likud. nableezy - 14:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Whatabboutism is a cold war era propaganda technique where the propagandist attempts to apologize for the subject by claiming someone else does the same thing. The undue whatabboutism in the article was inserted in an edit by nishidani which in addition to introducing grammar mistakes, was basically a long POV apology for Hamas. You said there are two mentions of Likud, there shouldn't be any, this article is about Hamas. There are other examples of undue whatabboutism that also need to be removed Drsmoo (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing you wrote above is correct. The usual suspect IP drifted in violated ARBPIA4/500#30 here and in a further edit. There were three refs to Likud-Hamas. Restored by Sean.hoyland, the IP's erasure was endorsed by a rerevert undertaken by with a completely policy void opinion; since it was asserted by the IP this was merely an op ed view I stepped in with sources here and here; and the whole lot, without any token of serious discussion was obliterated by NMMGG.

So an abusive edit by an IP warrior removing stable text was endorsed by MM, and NMMGG, and my attempt to document it by reliable sources removed to boot. NMMGG's complaint that three mentions was excessive was met by Nableezy, who made a compromise here.

You drifted in and joined what was an edit war to rid the page of any mention of the Likud-Hamas analogy regarding land, which is well-noted in reliable sources. You gave no policy based rationale on the talk page, but made an WP:AGF violation, dismissing Nableezy's and my own attempt to reason on this as blatant Whatabboutism, i.e. as you now clarify, in your view the retention of stable text, consolidated by reliable sources, by two of us shows that we are adopting a 'cold war era propaganda technique.'

The status of texts is not to be established by IP drift, editors wandering in just to revert, or get the numbers up. It's done by source analysis, talk page discussion in terms of source reliability and policy (WP:Undue). NMMGG is the only one who, in terms of policy, raised a legitimate question, and a compromise was reached. Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The link you posted isn't to an IP, but to an account. And your claim that I "drifted in" is laughable (and incorrect). As is your claim that the edits were "abusive". It comes across as an attempt to delegitimize the contributions of editors who disagree with you, which is poor form. WP:Undue is a policy. I think perhaps you edited very quickly before reading what was actually written. I don't see No more Mr. Nice Guy agreeing to any compromise either. And yes editors are allowed to join discussions. It has nothing to do with "getting the numbers up" or any other meaningless allegation. Everyone contributing to this article is entitled to contribute to it. Drsmoo (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thats nonsense, that there should not be any mention of Likud because it is an article on Hamas. That flies in the face of WP:NPOV, which requires all significant POVs be included. Yall dont like that sources point out the equivalent positions between Hamas and Likud? Sorry, that doesnt change that reliable sources do that and as such that material should be included. nableezy - 16:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Just because something is published in a source does not merit its inclusion in an article. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." Nishidani certainly knows that reliable sources don't justify inclusion in the article, as he removed several while gutting it and pushing POV. Drsmoo (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I dont believe I ever said that just because a source includes something it should be included. Please try to argue against what I actually said and not the strawman you wished I had said. It isnt a tiny POV that Likud and the Hamas charter have the same rejection of the two state solution. That is a fact backed up by multiple reliable sources. The idea that this article cannot contain any comparison to Likud is laughable and not based on any Wikipedia policy. nableezy - 16:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That's literally what you wrote 30 minutes ago "Sorry, that doesnt change that reliable sources do that and as such that material should be included." As you now know, that doesn't justify inclusion in an article. It is in fact a tiny POV, it doesn't add anything to the article except deflection by way of whatabouttism, and it's undue. If you can find a source that says comparisons between Hamas' policies and Likud's policies are frequently considered similar, that would be different. In fact, none of the sources describe the two as similar or equivalent. Drsmoo (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you even read the sources?

A rare exception is a November 15, 2010, op-ed by the American Jewish Committee's director of communications, which mentions in passing Meshal's recent statement of support for a two-state solution, but dismisses it because it contradicts the Hamas charter. By that standard, American Jewish groups should reject Prime Minister's Netanyahu's talk about a two-state solution as well, since it contradicts the explicit opposition to a Palestinian state in the Likud platform, most recently reaffirmed in 2006.

And then explicitly compares the charter and the Likud platform. How are you going to claim here that none of the sources say they are similar or equivalent? Thats exactly what they do. nableezy - 19:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I also said the NPOV demands the inclusion of all significant POVs, and multiple sources remarking on the similarity between the Hamas charter and the likud platform reaches that. It is not anything in a source should be included. As far as your new argument, nobody wrote that Hamas policies and Likud policies are frequently considered similar. What was written was that this specific policy is not just similar, it is the same. And multiple sources call that out. nableezy - 17:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears WP policies are overwhelmingly in favor of inclusion of the content. The content easily passes the WP:DUE bar. Also, the ad-hominem attacks on Nishidani and Nableezy send a strong signal that those opposed to the inclusion don't really have any strong policy-based arguments and thus are resorting to personal attacks and casting aspersions. Ijon Tichy (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"Overwhelmingly" "easily" Nope. There isn't a single source which describes comparisons between the two parties as being common, and the sources included don't describe the two as similar. Why anyone would think adding deflections to Likud, Fatah, and Settlers would contribute towards understanding Hamas is puzzling. I don't see any personal attacks either, though I do see repeated attempts to deligitamize editors viewpoints. Drsmoo (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

See WP:Wikilawyering. If one has five sources (multiple sourcing) that is ipso facto evidence that this is a common observation. To then demand that one provide a metatext that states one this parallel is a common observation is patently hair-splitting. Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

None of the sources describe the two as similar. Gathering sources which put the two parties in the same paragraph but don't describe them as similar, and using that to try to synth together a claim that Hamas is like Likud doesn't follow policy. Drsmoo (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You are making up requirements for material that are not anywhere in Wikipedias policies. nableezy - 17:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The policies were already linked to. I'll link to them again Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight Drsmoo (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

And a number of editors here dispute your assertion that this is undue weight. WP:NPOV/N can be used if you like. nableezy - 19:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Drmoos. On one page you are attributing to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad words never spoken by him, and known to be a mistranslation, to the effect Israel will be wiped off the map. In order to do so, you removed the scholarly evidence showing how this meme went into circulation. Here you are trying to erase sources that simply state that Hamas's charter regarding Palestine is similar to the Likud charter regarding the Land of Israel. We have the original texts of each, RS making the connection. I'd advise you to be more careful about approaching articles in this way. In neither case is there any sign of an argument based on policy. Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the official Iranian translation of Ahmadinejad's speech is at all relevant to the fact that the sources you added don't say what you claim they do. Unless this is just canvassing. Drsmoo (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't canvass or email to get support, or track editors' contributions. I've stated more than once on A/I and perhaps A/E pages when I'm dragged there that, for editors who think I'm doing something useful here to kindly resist the temptation to comment on my behalf. It's embarrassing. I'm arrogant enough to think I can handle those disputes alone, but I don't rally the troops. Of course, talk pages are easily stacked, which makes this principle more difficult. The source I quoted on that page I just transcribed at length and it said precisely what my edit said it stated. My point is, there is an upsurge in editors crowding pages with opinions, and not focusing on policy, content, and sourcing. This just means more fatigue, and the deterioration of article quality as research time is devoured by endless talk page chat. People should cite policy cogently, and remember we are supposed to add material to build articles, not sit on them, and delete, and delete only when there are political interests perceived to be at stake.Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If that's true, Id suggest removing that comment, as it comes across as a combination of canvassing and personal attacks. Drsmoo (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The idea, repeated several times, that none of the sources explicitly compare the two is so blatantly dishonest Im not sure how to respond. I quoted up above where one does and linked to the other that in detail compares them. nableezy - 20:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's that none of the sources describe them as similar, and they don't. Meanwhile the article describes them as mirrors. Drsmoo (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That is a blatant falsehood. One that a click of any of the links above or even reading the quotes from those links in this section shows to be false. nableezy - 22:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, neither Beinart, nor Emmett, nor Smith/Burr, nor the Rabin quote, which the source describes as rhetoric. The only actual description of similarities in any of the sources is between Hamas and Gush Emmunim. Feel free to post a quote from one of the books which describes Hamas and Likud policies as being similar (as in from an analysis, not a political insult). An interesting point btw, is that when Likud and Fatah were last in peace talks. Hamas escalated their terror campaigns, with the stated aim of disrupting them. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/islamist-groups-attempt-to-derail-middle-east-talks-1.646680

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090705977.html This is why reliable sources don't compare Hamas and Likud, and why it's taken blatant synth and misrepresenting the sources to try to present them as comparable. Drsmoo (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Uhhh, this source puts quotes from the Hamas charter immediately before quotes from the Likud platform and says Compare those statements with this excerpt from the recent Likud constitution. How exactly are you going to pretend that this source does not compare the Hamas charter and the Likud platform? nableezy - 05:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

And after putting the two together, what conclusion does the source present? As I said, none of the sources describe Hamas and Likud as similar. Meanwhile the article describes them as mirrors. The only actual description of similarities in any of the sources is between Hamas and Gush Emmunim. The statement in the article that Hamas and Likud are mirrors, let alone similar, is pure synth, as it's not written in any of the sources. Again, feel free to post a quote from one of the books which describes Hamas and Likud policies as being similar (as in from an analysis, not an insult between rival politicians) Drsmoo (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Its in a section on "Hard Line Religious Positions" and explicitly compares the two, and the two say the exact same thing. Namely that all of historic Palestine is mine. The next page gives another quote from the Likud platform:

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river ... The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.

The entirety of the section of the book is about how charters and or platforms are often pointed to but often ignored. It is saying that for both Hamas and Israel, where Mashaal has said he would accept a two state solution and the charter says no, or when Netanyahu says he would accept a two "state" solution when his party's platform likewise says no. He writes this before comparing the two:

Platforms and charters are frequently referred to, but just as frequently ignored.

It explicitly says compare the charter with Likud's platform, but you insist it does not compare them. That seems odd to me. nableezy - 19:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

As you know, and as I've said, the current statements in the article are synth. In none of the sources are Hamas and Likud described as similar, or any synonym of similar. You were asked to provide an example from an analysis in the sources where Hamas and Likud are described as similar, and you haven't. Drsmoo (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No, youve said but I have made my disagreement with that view fairly clear, so I dont know that. I brought the issue to the OR noticeboard since you have now shifted from NPOV to OR. See here. nableezy - 19:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool thanks, I was preparing to do the same. A note that it's still non-neutral, but it became ridiculous once realizing that the sources don't even reflect the text. Drsmoo (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I just realized “Understanding World Religions: A Road Map for Justice and Peace” Cites Wikipedia in many places, what kind of joke source is this? 130. “Wikipedia Gaza freedom flotilla” and 134. Wikipedia “list of political parties Israel” come on is obvious that this was written as a polemic.

The other source is Peter Beinart an opinion columnist and should not be used in Wiki's neutral voice.Jonney2000 (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate that putting this at the top of the section (twice) is UNDUE. It can be mentioned, once, lower down. The only source that seems to be explicitly making the connection is Beinart. There is obviously no consensus to have it where it is so kindly keep it out until such consensus is formed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

And how far does the top of the section go? You also removed long-standing text on the similarity with Gush Emunim. As a matter of fact, this material on Likud has been there for months as well. BRD used to be your word of the day, what happened to that? nableezy - 00:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

What happened is that Nishidani does not respect BRD (he dismisses it as an essay), so when he is involved I assume it does not apply. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

There is likewise no consensus to remove what has been in this article for months. WP:CON says In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it. Im restoring the material. nableezy - 00:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe there's consensus to remove it. Not counting editors who just reverted without participating in the discussion, three editors support removal while only two support retaining this UNDUE material. Do I need to quote you and Nishidani saying 3:2 is a consensus? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes you do. nableezy - 00:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This do the trick? 3-1 is a consensus, ONUS, UNDUE, etc, etc. Here is Nishidani saying BRD does not apply and implying 2:1 is a consensus. Enough?

Can you explain why you don't think this is UNDUE? Also, could you be so kind as to explain how each of the sources in the article supports the sentence it's ostensibly a ref for? Because other than Beinart, I can't see where those sources are making the claim you insist should be in the beginning of a section about the Hamas charter, and not once but twice. Could you kindly explain how the sources justify the quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it does not do the trick. That was 3-1 opposed to the addition of new material, meaning the user reverting to include the material was making the change. I dont speak for Nishidani so Ill let him do so himself. I thought you said you had a quote of me saying 3-2 is a consensus? Is your vault of diffs failing you? What is the beginning of the section to you? The first mention of Likud is after a couple of paragraph breaks. I think Ive already explained how the sources support the material. The Understanding ... source, in a section on irredentist religious positions and political platforms vs political actions gives an example of the Hamas charter on claiming all of Palestine (river to the sea), and says compare that to a section of the Likud constitution claiming all of Palestine (river to the sea) and discusses how politicians in both camps have given conflicting views. How is it not undue? Well, if we're going to specifically call out one line from the charter on the claim of all of Palestine then a source that specifically discusses that claim and compares it to other claims is appropriate. If it is too early in the section then the part about the charter claiming all of Palestine is too early in the section. The mentions are where they are because they are about what is in that area. You want to remove the claims all of Palestine and add it elsewhere feel free to take this bit with it. Oh, and since we're busting out diffs, [2]. nableezy - 01:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

3:1 is close enough. You called it a consensus. And in case I wasn't clear - I think BRD is good practice. Nishidani doesn't. He doesn't accept it when he wants to revert so I don't use it when I'm dealing with him. No need to dig up a 7 year old diff of mine. I hope it didn't take you too long to find.

That unequivocally is not true, I did not call it a consensus. I said Debresser did not have consensus for his change, and additionally as a BLP he had a further obligation to obtain consensus for reinserting that material. Please do not distort what Ive said, youre much too smart to need to do that. nableezy - 04:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This is an article about Hamas. There's a section about the Hamas charter. The section about the Hamas charter should proportionally summarize the points that get the most attention from RS. Those include but are not limited to Hamas' religious positions (hardly appears in our article), their political positions (we have one paragraph discussing the actual political position and then 3-4 paragraphs of apologetics for that), and often the issue of antisemitism, which we don't have at all. The comparison of this charter to Israeli politicial parties' platforms, as far as I can tell (and you have not proven otherwise) is very rare. Right now it gets more space and more prominence than almost every other aspect of the charter. You can't even bring yourself to say it's not UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

'issue of antisemitism, which we don't have at all.'

Please read the page. We have a huge section with 5 subdivisions on Hamas and anti-Semitism.

The other issue has been met, by two compromises. You now have one mention of the parallel multi-sourced. It stays.Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Compromises. Right. It was only a little like pulling teeth. What we have done so far is solved the issue of too many mentions, we have yet to solve the problem of prominence and the faulty sourcing. I will open a new section for that since this one is getting way too long.

The antisemitism in the charter should be noted in the section about the charter, not at the bottom of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Read wall of text. Add my name to ridiculously WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. Regarding “compromise”, I’m with Drsmoo. There has been no reliable source to justify comparing Likud policy with Hamas, let alone in its present placement. Most importantly, the statement equating the Hamas platform with that of “Likud” and “Gush Emunim” follows and is in the same sentence as Islamic Jihad. I’m not exactly sure what policy this violates (maybe someone can help), but this seems to be extreme POV-pushing. Now I'll read wall of text below. KamelTebaast 17:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, Drsmoo has now agreed that two of the sources do compare these things. Perhaps you should have read before writing. Your feelings on what "seems to be" arent really relevant on anything other than a personal blog. nableezy - 17:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Oy, see this is why it's hard to take these talks seriously. Comparing things is not the same as describing them as similar. You're also conflating two uses of the word comparing. What Kamel is talking about is comparing as a synonym for similar, as in the word comparable. Drsmoo (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, the two sources you agreed described the stances as either similar or analogous, which is what Im talking about. That a conflation? nableezy - 17:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, they're described as "oddly analagous" ie, not analagous, with the difference being the racism in Hamas's charter. That racism, btw, is why people view equating the two as incorrect and undue. Drsmoo (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The oddly is in reference to these polar opposites having the same position. Oddly does not negate analogous lol, so ie not analogous is clearly false. And if you are paying attention, youll see that the source actually does equate the position. So its odd for you to argue that a source that equates the position backs up the view that equating the position is incorrect. And oddly enough, you are now conflating two sources. The one that says the Likud constitution does not contain the racism of the Hamas charter says that on this point they are "more or less the same". The other source that uses "analogous" does not bring up racism. Yall can keep trying to spin this however you want, but the sources explicitly support the material that Hamas' position on no two state solution is mirrored by Likud's position on no two state solution. The end. nableezy - 18:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The positions don't mirror each other. Likud has relinquished land while Hamas' platform professes Jihad. Do you need sources? KamelTebaast 18:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you even a little bit aware of what is under discussion? The position under discussion is a rejection of two states between the Jordan and the sea. That position is in fact contained explicitly in both the Hamas charter and in the Likud constitution and in the Likud party platform. You arent even coming close to having a response to what you appear to be responding to, and in any event dont remark in any way about what the sources say. nableezy - 18:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I get it. You're easy to follow. It is you who is having difficulty understanding. Yes, both platforms have that. That's where it ends. You're trying to equate John and Jim as similar because they both have blue eyes, and even that is being generous to you. Hamas' platform of the Jordan to the sea is intrinsically meshed with Jihad, terrorism, and many other factors. It is not a standalone concept that can be compared with another platform. To borrow the most overused idiom, it's apples to oranges. Likewise, although Likud does have that in its platform, its history has shown that it is willing to give back land. KamelTebaast 19:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you dont. This is about a comparison on one view. Not a comparison on the entire organization. And the reliable sources cited explicitly say this view is the same for both. One state between the river and the sea. Your personal analysis is not something I intend to spend much time reflecting on. The sources support the material in the article. nableezy - 19:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No, "oddly analagous" is a phrase which means roughly analagous, ie not analagous. In the same way "more or less the same" is different from "the same" and different from "mirrored". Drsmoo (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow. No, it really is not. Oddly is an adjective that means strangely or surprisingly. It does not mean roughly. You are really stretching the bounds of AGF here. Likewise, the phrase the practical implications denying the possibility of two states co-existing are more or less the same, in a paper specifically dedicated to comparing the Israeli political parties views on statehood with Hamas', also says that both the charter and this statement from Likud deny the possibility of a two-state solution. That author then goes on to quote more recent examples from the Likud platform doing the same thing. These sources are crystal clear, and if you want to pretend otherwise thats your choice. The article is not however required to suffer from the same misconstrual that you are performing here. nableezy - 18:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani and Nableezy, I'm sure you'll both be fine with this edit here. KamelTebaast 19:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalizing Wikipedia is not an acceptable tactic. And no, you dont have any sources connecting the two things there. I need to step away for a bit to prepare an AE filing now, excuse me. nableezy - 19:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

countries that designate Hamas as a terror org

The EU looks like it will be removing Hamas shortly, but whats the source for Jordan? nableezy - 16:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Jordan proscribed Hamas by declaring it an illegal organization way back, off-hand. They certainly did not regard it as such in the 1990s.Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Illegal is not equivalent to a designated terror organization. What's the source for that? nableezy - 16:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Changed to outlawed Drsmoo (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Drsmoo. Could you at least read the page before editing it? You added that it is 'outlawed in Jordan' when the lead last paragraph already had 'The organization is also banned in Jordan.' That is reduplication, and banned is the proper word. 'Illegal' is not 'outlawed'.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Outlawed is the term used in the source. Drsmoo (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Andwere the substantive point. Why did you redouble, in contravention of all normal practice, the mention of Jordsan's position? You made an error. Fix it.Nishidani (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Since this talk section is regarding the lead, I created a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard here Drsmoo (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the noticeboard discussion, literally no one agreed to version B, with Masem proposing a brief sentence instead of the 46% of the paragraph you advocate for, and that the details should be in the body paragraph. After Masem, the admin running the discussion, came out unequivocally against your version and called your reasoning non neutral, I waited for your response. After close to a month you still hadn't responded, to the point that the discussion was closed. I noticed that the version of the discussion you just linked to does not include my comments which you failed to respond to. In the interest of assuming good faith, I'm assuming this was accidental. I have just updated the link and will revert the article when appropriate. Drsmoo (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Several editors commented. I entered the version you approved. You now just accept Masem's early remarks, and completely misread the drift of the whole discussion. Go and reread the discussion. You have been essentially on your own, with some support from Masem, I gave instead repeated remodulations of new versions to meet your objections, and include points raised by several editors. Essentially, you are insisting on having your way within a complex and nuanced discussion, by refusing to budge an inch from your own original POV. Revert and you will be reverted. Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There was never consensus for your proposals, though you had some support from @Darouet: who also agreed that the section on the EU appeal should be shortened. After @Masem: specifically said that the bit about the EU appeal should be explained in the body, not the lede, you completely ignored his suggestion (while claiming to be following it, which was disturbing). In the discussion, you made the POV comment that Masem's thoughts were "all in Drsmoo's direction". Now you're saying I was "on my own" with "some support". I'm not sure why you would choose to edit this way. There is no consensus for the version you put out and it will be reverted. Drsmoo (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Reread the thread. In any case, there was never any consensus for your idea that what you think from the outset must remain untouched despite subsequent input by several editors. Stop wasting time. Masem is one person: he is not the consensus. Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I've read the thread several times. There is a clear consensus that the bit about the EU legal process should be either abridged or in substance moved to the body. Drsmoo (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. See here Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal B was essentially yours. Darouet commented.

If we are going to list the EU's designation in the lead, we also need to note subsequent developments. I still believe those two sentences about the EU process could be shortened, but they definitely need to be there somehow. -Darouet (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You are trying to have it all your way, and when I met you midway you still objected. Darouet was the last editor involved who commented as per above. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The quote you posted is what I'm referring to. We have two editors (one an admin) who advocate not going into detail in the lead, one editor who suggests shortening it, and one editor who suggests it should be 46% of the paragraph. Drsmoo (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I respect Masem's opinion, but several editors commented there, and only you and Masem adopted the strict reading you prefer. The others generally were willing to accept something along the lines I proposed, which, please reread, incorporated your concerns. The point is, you are refusing to accept any form of compromise going beyond your initial position, whereas I compromised. You can't have it all your way, and several sources have been dropped that could well have been retained to elaborate below in the main section. Since you only focus on this lead issue, and don't appear to be interested in actually thickening the text with more details, I'll get round to it, retrieving what your reverts excised. You keep harping on 46% in one para in the lead. Go and look at the article from top to bottom: most of it is an unencyclopedic jamming of every negative jot and iota barrel-scraped out of the net to put over the nothing-but-a-terrorist organization thesis. That fine by you? Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We're discussing the lead. If you want to make changes to other sections those will need to be discussed as well. An admin told you that your claims were POV, you ignored them, and are now claiming you respected Masem's opinion despite blatantly ignoring it. This has nothing to do with "compromise". It's about writing the paragraph correctly, the positions you advocated for were described as POV, which is why they're not in the section. Every editor other than you suggested lowering the length of that section or removing it entirely. Drsmoo (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

An admin doesnt have any special status here, so you can drop the appeal to authority. nableezy - 08:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you realize, Drsmoo, how extraordinary your attitude is? Now you tell med I can't touch any part of the article unless I get prior consensus from you alone? (If you want to make changes to other sections those will need to be discussed as well.) And don't take to me about POVs: everyone who opposes any I/P edit I make says 'Nishidani' has a POV'. No one else has, just me. Sure, yeah, right, check. Your's, here, is patent. Nishidani (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The admin said you were editing with a POV after you starting alleging that simply listing countries that labeled or didn't label Hamas as terrorists was "implying" something and that people following the guidelines of WP:Lede to be brief were doing so for an agenda. If people are consistently telling you that your editing is POV, that's something you should look into. Nowhere did I state anything related to "prior consensus from you alone". You literally just made that up. Drsmoo (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, since you're ignoring consensus and making up imaginary personal attacks against me on the talk page, this is going to have to go to another noticeboard. Drsmoo (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You are not the consensus. Consensus is negotiated. You refuse to accept a reasonable negotiated settlement of our difference. Several people commented, not just Masem. You have done no work on this article, except to try and lever out details that give a balanced picture, in order to tilt this towards the terrorist organization POV. Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Four people commented on that section. Two of them (including an admin) said it should be made brief, the other suggested shortening it as well. The only person who advocates for it being 46% of the paragraph and completely against all norms of WP:Lede is you. Your claim that you're following consensus is factually incorrect, as are the personal attacks about me you made up, even now you're refusing to edit with good faith. I have no interest in "negotiation", that is not how wikipedia works. Articles are made based on Wiki policies, not deals and negotiations. Drsmoo (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Where in that discussion is the go-ahead that led you to take out half a paragraph, and trim down 46% to the 7 words:'The EU decision is currently under appeal', and then remove, without redirecting the several RS in the text further down? You just tore the guts out of a section. You did not pare it. So you had no consensus. Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The go-ahead came from 3 out of 4 editors saying it should or could be trimmed, that is a consensus. After I pointed out that "under appeal" was the wording used by the EU court, there was no objection presented, and I waited a month to make sure that there was no objection. You can feel free to reinsert those RS into the body paragraph. Drsmoo (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Cutting half of a paragraph on your calculation down to 7 words has no consensus. That is your fantasy. It's like a barber shaving a man's hair off bar a few strands on the strength of the customer's request for a trim. You didn't wait a month. You kept repeating your belief, unbending from the outset, until everyone realized it was pointless trying to get you to accommodate various opinions. This whole thread is fatuous.Nishidani (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That was the exact issue, you made a minute detail fill up half a paragraph in language that's appropriate for a body paragraph but not the lead. Everyone but you agreed with trimming it, I proposed a new version, you said that version was wrong because you claimed the wording was inaccurate, I pointed out that it was the exact wording used in the court case, and then there was nothing for a month. I would post in the old noticeboard discussion, but since that's been archived I'll have to start a new one. Drsmoo (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

NMMNG, I understand your objection, but mine is that the text implies the descendants are not refugees. You open to saying which includes their descendants, or including their descendants? So that we arent saying it is refugees+descendants when refugees includes descendants. nableezy - 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Whatever doesn't imply that descendants are refugees per the usual meaning of the word is fine by me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian refugees are under UNWRA, 'It has its own definition of Palestinian refugees as persons whose place of residence was Palestinian between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both home and livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, or the direct descendants of therse persons; and who are registered with UNRWA.' Documents: working papers, 2003, Council of Europe: Parliamentary Assembly/Council of Europe, 2004 p.179.

Customary usage should be followed, not confusing a generic 'refugee' as defined by the later Geneva Convention with a separate protocol made earlier and dealing with the specific case of displaced Palestinians. For UNWRA, the displaced 1940s Palestinians and their descendants are refugees.Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Were you making a suggestion relating to the improvement of this article? I ask because I would greatly appreciate it if you stopped wasting my time with lectures about stuff not directly relating to improvement of articles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please note the content of the header and the exchange. Then read them carefully. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I have. Seems like you were just making some tangential point as you often do.

If you were trying to suggest a change, please be more clear as to how you'd like the text to be modified. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

He is saying it should just be refugees, without descendants in the text. I think that was obvious, but for the sake of moving past the personalities and back to the content Ill try to make it clear. nableezy - 22:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, obviously I disagree. I don't think this is the place for the UNRWA anecdote. Our purpose here should be for someone not versed in the issues to be able to get a realistic picture using normal English usage. The word "refugee" has a certain meaning in English (and international law, except for the Palestinians wrt UNRWA) and that's how we should use it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Im not sure that bit about international law is true. Here is the UNHCR Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination. See section 5.1.1 on the rights of those who are granted derivative refugee status and then 5.1.2 on Persons eligible for derivative status. nableezy - 22:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken, but I'm really not interested in wasting time having pointless discussions here.

Are you reneging on our compromise that's currently in the article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Well that was informative. I was replying to your comment, you dont feel like backing it up then why make it. And no need to be so dramatic. I prefer just refugees, which is why I edited it that way, but Im fine with how it is where it says including. nableezy - 23:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Cats trying to screw up history replacing

Category:1987 establishments in the Palestinian territories; added Category:1987 establishments in the Israeli Civil Administration area.

Apart from the fatuousness of the 1987 ICA cat, the point seems to be to use the wrongly name Israeli Civil Administation cat (it is actually a bvranch of the Israeli Defense Forces as is civil only to settlers) to elide or erase mention of the fact that these are Palestinian territories. This mechanical substitution throughout articles should be blocked and reverted on sight. People who play with cats all history to go to the dogs. Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Terorrist Organization

The US and many other countries designate Hamas as a terrorist organization, yet here they are depicted as a simple political group? Earthshakers (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

The section "Islamization efforts" subsection "The Gaza Strip" contains the following sentence:

In 1989 to 1989, during the first intifada, a small number of Hamas followers campaigned for the wearing of the hijab, which is not a part of traditional women's attire in Palestine, also insisting women stay at home and be segregated from men, polygamy.

This does not make grammatical sense. I sugggest to change it to:

"In 1989 to 1989, during the first intifada, a small number of Hamas followers campaigned for the wearing of the hijab, which is not a part of traditional women's attire in Palestine, for polygamy, and insisted that women should stay at home and be segregated from men." Or a similar but grammatically correct sentence. 197.232.59.84 (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Done st170e 11:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Question: @197.232.59.84: I noticed in your reproduction of the phrase that you included 'in 1989 to 1989'; I'm not sure if this was a mistake in the article or if it was a typo. Anyway, I've changed it to 'In 1989' and it now makes sense. Let me know if this was a typo and I'll change it again to make it accurate. All the best, st170e 12:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Right wing to Far-right?

Where does this definition come from? - Does Hamas not endorse a collectivist rather than individualist viewpoint, and broadly socialist methods and politics? I guess I'm simply asking, how, or in what way is Hamas, or can they be considered 'right-wing'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 06:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Right wing to far right is bogus. I suspect the logic "I hate the right and I hate Hamas, therefore Hamas is right wing." CsikosLo (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Not that I have a source, but as far as I know, in this context, Hamas is right wing, because of its fundementalist islamist ideology. In contrast, the movements branded as left-wing, are movements such as Fatah, PFLP or PNI, which are secular-socialist (at least Fatah been a secular-socialist movement). In the Middle East, right-wing is religious-conservative/fundementalist (supported usually by Gulf states, supported by the US) and on the left you have secular, socialist/communist (historically supported by the Soviets). But that's my take on it, not something paraphrased in some source I quoted.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Helpful edits about international posture

Hello. In this section New Zealand is missing from those countries that consider the paramilitary branch of Hamas a terrorist organization (together with Australia and the UK). There is also repeated information:

Israel outlawed Hamas in 1989, followed by the United States in 1996 and Canada in 2002. The European Union defined Hamas's military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades as a terrorist organization in 2001, and put Hamas in its list of terrorist organizations in 2003, but such designation was successfully challenged by Hamas in the courts in 2014 on technical grounds. The judgment was appealed. In 2016 an EU legal advisor recommended that Hamas be removed from the list due to procedural errors. The final decision is not thought likely to effect individual government lists. An Egyptian court ruled Hamas was a terrorist organization in 2015. Japan froze Hamas assets according to its legislation on terrorist entities in 2006. Australia and the United Kingdom have designated the military wing of Hamas as a terrorist organization. The organization is also banned in Jordan. It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil.[THIS ENTIRE PARAGRAPH IS DUPLICATED, BELOW THERE IS AN IMPROVED VERSION] Israel outlawed Hamas in September 1989 The United States followed suit in 1995, as did Canada in November 2002. The European Union outlawed Hamas's military wing in 2001 and included Hamas in its list of terrorist organizations in 2003, which Hamas successfully challenged in the courts, and continued to do so under American and Israeli pressure. The basis of Hamas's challenge to the EU classification in 2007 was that it was drawn up on the basis of media reports, rather than grounded in any analysis of Hamas's history. The European General Court found in favour of Hamas in 2014, though the verdict was appealed by the EU countries. In September 2016 a legal advisor to the European Court of Justice, Eleanor Sharpston, provided an advisory opinion, in favour of cancelling the listing of Hamas as a terrorist organization. She argued that the determination originally adopted was flawed, and that the EU cannot "rely on facts and evidence found in press articles and information from the internet" in order to list organizations as terrorists. Egypt, Japan, Australia and the United Kingdom have designated the military wing of Hamas as a terrorist organization. The organization is banned in Jordan. It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil,

References

Could someone please make those (neutral) adjustments? Thank you very much!--Yschilov (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. El_C 23:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello. In this section New Zealand is missing from those countries that consider the paramilitary branch of Hamas a terrorist organization (together with Australia and the UK). There is also repeated information:

Israel outlawed Hamas in 1989, followed by the United States in 1996 and Canada in 2002. The European Union defined Hamas's military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades as a terrorist organization in 2001, and put Hamas in its list of terrorist organizations in 2003, but such designation was successfully challenged by Hamas in the courts in 2014 on technical grounds. The judgment was appealed. In 2016 an EU legal advisor recommended that Hamas be removed from the list due to procedural errors. The final decision is not thought likely to effect individual government lists. An Egyptian court ruled Hamas was a terrorist organization in 2015. Japan froze Hamas assets according to its legislation on terrorist entities in 2006. Australia and the United Kingdom have designated the military wing of Hamas as a terrorist organization. The organization is also banned in Jordan. It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil.[THIS ENTIRE PARAGRAPH IS DUPLICATED, BELOW THERE IS AN IMPROVED VERSION] Israel outlawed Hamas in September 1989 The United States followed suit in 1995, as did Canada in November 2002. The European Union outlawed Hamas's military wing in 2001 and included Hamas in its list of terrorist organizations in 2003, which Hamas successfully challenged in the courts, and continued to do so under American and Israeli pressure. The basis of Hamas's challenge to the EU classification in 2007 was that it was drawn up on the basis of media reports, rather than grounded in any analysis of Hamas's history. The European General Court found in favour of Hamas in 2014, though the verdict was appealed by the EU countries. In September 2016 a legal advisor to the European Court of Justice, Eleanor Sharpston, provided an advisory opinion, in favour of cancelling the listing of Hamas as a terrorist organization. She argued that the determination originally adopted was flawed, and that the EU cannot "rely on facts and evidence found in press articles and information from the internet" in order to list organizations as terrorists. Egypt, Japan, Australia and the United Kingdom have designated the military wing of Hamas as a terrorist organization. The organization is banned in Jordan. It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil,

References

Could someone please make those (neutral) adjustments? Thank you very much!--Yschilov (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Done and done. I also merged many one-sentence paragraphs, the kind that with many refs may look gigantic in the edit field, but Preview is your friend. El_C 23:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Electoral Platform for Change and Reform

I reiterate my concern about the Electoral Platform for Change and Reform list: what is it? What year was it published and by which body. If there's consensus, I'm incline to remove or hide it until these necessary clarifications are met. Let me know if you either object to it being removed or hidden, and of course, feel free to provide the edits here so that myself or another admin could add them. El_C 23:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless there are objections I will be hiding the Electoral Platform for Change and Reform list. Any objections to removing entirely? El_C 17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Now hidden. El_C 08:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Legislative policy and reforming the judiciary and Public freedoms and citizen rights

What are these? We need some explanation before the quotes. As it stand, it remains problematic. El_C 08:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)