Talk:Hamas/Archive 9

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

"Terrorist" and "Vandal"

Inserting the word "terrorist" into this article is not an act of vandalism. It may violate other policies, or it may simply not be a good word to use here. But it is not vandalism, and I would appreciate it if editors here could refrain from mischaracterizing those edits as vandalism. WP:VAND is available for those needing a refresher course. IronDuke 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The only refresher course needed here is for you to pay a visit to WP:WTA. I will label every attempt along this line as vandalism, revert it, and warn the user as such. Tarc (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You've not even bothered to click on the link I provided, have you? You can "label" edits any way you like, you just can't do it without someone pointing out that you don't understand the policy you are quoting. IronDuke 23:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand it just fine, but none of what you linked to is applicable here. Your concern is noted, and summarily dismissed. Tarc (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, please assume good faith, and please do not label insertions of "terrorism" as vandalism. The person doing such insertions generally believes that it is an improvement to the article. Sure, it may be wrong, and it may be against WP:WTA, and it may even be obtuse at times, but it is not vandalism. Accusations of vandalism are never helpful in content disputes.

That said, I completely agree with you that, per WTA, Hamas should not be described as "terrorist". —Ashley Y 03:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, though it was stunningly obvious to me that you were wrong, I went ahead and asked for neutral input. Unsurprisingly, everyone disagreed with your analysis. [1]. I'll go ahead and assume this is resolved in terms of your understanding of what vandalism is and is not. I'd add, however, that the poisonous vituperation of some of your posts does little to aid the discussion. Indeed, as I find myself disagreeing with you a fair amount, I'm generally eager to consider your views. Your relentless negativity makes this process more difficult than it should be (and discourages fresh editors from articles such as these). IronDuke 20:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's not appropriate to describe a violation of a contentious and fairly obscure policy (WP:WTA) as "vandalism." And it certainly wouldn't be appropriate to block anybody for such edits. Nobody thinks that Hamas isn't a terrorist organization. The problem is that the term "terrorist" is more or less meaningless if it's applied in a consistent manner; then you end up tagging just about everybody as terrorists, not least being the IDF. I must note that when it comes to pre-State Zionist terrorists, who it's equally impossible to defend as not being terrorists, Wikipedia seems to show a somewhat different attitude. <eleland/talkedits> 01:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Eleland. I can't agree that "just about everybody" could be labeled terrorists, at least not with any consistency or sense. Defining the term for WP purposes is obviously tricky, but we on this page, who care about these issues, can be part of that solution, I think. IronDuke 04:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...rather bad faith to bring something like this to ANI without actually informing one of such an action, but I can hardly say that I am surprised anymore at such actions around here. I would have welcomed the opportunity to defend my point of view. In fact, yes, IP vandals who repeatedly edit war terms like "terrorist" into articles can and do get banned. You may search through the recent history of either this or the Hezbollah article to see at least one such recent example, I have neither the time nor the inclination to find it at the moment. And finally, whether a guideline is "obscure" or not...and to suggest that WP:WTA is obscure is a bit absurd...is quite besides the point; ignorance is no excuse here. Tarc (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bringing this to ANI without "informing one" is, as I think you know. not any sort of bad faith. Perhaps you could spend less time looking for bad faith in others, and more time trying not to engage in it yourself. If you'd like to go back to AN/I and present your arguments, I'm all for it. IP's may well get banned for inserting the word terrorist into an article, but it certainly shouldn't be for vandalism -- if that was done, it was clearly a mistake. WTA is obscure, and is also a guideline (not policy) that permits exceptions. So someone "violating" it (to the extent that such a thing has any meaning) would not be guilty of vandalism. IronDuke 23:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It was the epitome of bad faith and you know it. The few times I have brought a matter to ANI, I have shown the concerned party the courtesy of a notification. Is it really too much to ask the same of you? But anyways, I am not the only one who shares the opinion that is sort of thing is simple vandalism and nothing more. Are you going to doggedly pursue this and every other user as well, or was I deserving of special attention? Tarc (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If I had been recommending some sort of sanction against you, without doubt I would have let you know. I wasn't, so I didn't, nor did I see the need to. Yes, there is one other editor who appears to share your view. Everyone else so far disagrees, thus: consensus. Vandalism is what Wikipedia says it is, and this clearly falls outside the scope of what is meant by vandalism. Calling Hamas a terrorist organization is not an absurd proposition by any conceivable stretch of the imagination. But we can have a good faith debate over whether it's appropriate, with reasonable arguments on both sides. Name-calling does not help. IronDuke 00:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You did not achieve anything remotely approaching consensus, made obvious by the fact that I am not alone in this labelling. And to use "terrorism" in the way that this IP vandal did is simply inappropriate. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What is your definition of consensus? IronDuke 01:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the re-insertion of the word "terror" in the lead, because it is totally inappropriate. There is no agreed definition of "terrorist" or "terror" and this is a political label used to tar one's enemies. Many Palestinians, for example, consider the Israeli army to be a "terrorist" organization, but I am not sure that would fly in the lead of the article on the Israeli army. I think it is much better in such cases to avoid such POV language and stick to accurately decriptive language. So I have no problem at all with the assertion that Hamas is "known for numerous suicide bombings and other attacks[2] directed against Israeli civilians and Israeli security forces" because that is precise and descriptive, not emotive, POV and political. I am not particularly interested in whether inserting the word is "vandalism" or not, so I am happy to withdraw that assertion. But it is inappropriate and POV. --Tirpse77 (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Section on "Covenant" has no sourcing

The secion on the "Covenant" (which is not an appropriate translation from Arabic) has no sourcing and reads like Israeli government propaganda. This section needs to be sourced. I will bring some sourcing in soon. --Tirpse77 (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no section on the covenant. Which section are you referring to? Telaviv1 (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the name of the section to "Hamas documents" because I added some material from a different Hamas document and I will be adding some more. I kept the material about the "Covenant" below what I added, but it is totally unsatisfactory. I will be working on that in the next few days. --Tirpse77 (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Any documents you refer to should say who wrote them and why they are important. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I will do so where possible, but as scholars who have studied Hamas know (and there is a growing body of scholarly work, including Mishal&Sela, Hroub, Tamimi and Lybarger), the precise author of even authenticated documents is not always known, because as a clandestine organization whose members have been routinely kidnapped or assassinated by the Israelis, they cannot exactly operate in the open the same way other movements can -- in that sense they operate similar to the IRA's "Army Council." The document I already cited is included in Tamimi's book and it is noted that it was issued by the Political Bureau in response to a request for clarification of the organization's position from Western diplomats. Over the next few weeks and months, I will add more information from scholarly sources because there is all too much propaganda in this article which tends to portay Hamas as static and unchanging and represented only by its most extreme or militant statements. --Tirpse77 (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful, when you cite a document/memorandum, to upload the whole text into wikisource so that the readers will have direct access to the document - just as with the Hamas covenent. Of course assuming there is no problem with copyright. If I understand correctly, Azzam Tamimi's book has the memorandum you were talking about at the end of his book already translated to English. It would also be helpful know the year at which this memeorandum was issued. Good luck. Tkalisky (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to re-type a several page memorandum from a hard copy book, and as far as I know the documents are not online.--Tirpse77 (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it maybe possible to scan and use an OCR or something? (assuming that we do not violate some copyright issue) Tkalisky (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I also inserted Azzam Tamimi's name into the paragraph because it includes political analysis which may depend on the authors personal political agenda and POV. I am sure you would agree with me on this point. Tkalisky (talk) 06:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not that pleased with the changes, but I am not going to touch them for now. The whole "covenant" section needs reworking. As for your POV comments on Azzam Tamimi, the text I inserted did not contain any political analysis from him. It simply quoted a document from the appendix. Also, I will need to add information on the political slant of authors like Matthew Levitt, a Zionist propagandist who works professionally as an "expert witness" in anti-Hamas cases, and who has written a book on Hamas although he does not speak a word of Arabic. Also MEMRI. So there is a lot that can be brought out and will be in the next few months as I pay attention to this article. --Tirpse77 (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh I did not blame Azzam Tamimi for propaganda. I just think that it is important to stick to precise facts and state explicitly who is saying what (especially in this case where the reader cannot find any other sources for the memorandum or analysis in the mainstream newspapers). From what I know, in modern political science it is even accepted to state ones personal agenda before addressing a controversial subject so to avoid misleading the audience. Thanks for understanding. Tkalisky (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a reference from a book published by a well-known press and the book has been reviewed in several peer-reviewed journals. That more than meets the RS standard, so really I do not know why you are questioning it. If Wikipedia was restricted to using online sources or newspapers it would not be much of an encyclopedia. I am trying to insert more scholarly sources and will be adding more as time goes on. I do understand however that that when it comes to Palestine issues that for some people no level of proof is sufficient if the information contradicts official Zionist propaganda. I am not accusing you of that, but there are a lot of sources cited in this article that are nothing more than official Israeli propaganda -- the equivalent of using the British government or the Democratic Unionst Party as reliable sources on the IRA and Sinn Fein. --Tirpse77 (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Good. Then lets agree to stick to precise facts and state explicitly who is saying what so as not to mislead the readers. Tkalisky (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow's Pioneers

You make a good point, Pedrito, we need to use summary style. However, that does not mean that the information is removed completely. Rather, we place a brief summary (I have used text from the lede of the Tomorrow's Pioneers article) and links to the article. I also changed the section title to reflect more than just a website. I believe this is the appropriate balance of keeping the information accessible from the parent article, yet keeping the article manageable using summary style and hatnotes. -- Avi (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi, yes, you are right, that section had to be expanded. I took the liberty of changing the title and formulation a bit in the spirit of WP:NPOV. I am also going to remove the gory comment on the decapitated head, which does not really fit-in with the summary.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 03.07.2008 07:11

"Best known", again

Ten sources using the phrase "best known" in passing do not amount to a reliable source explicitly making that claim. Can anyone present at last one source actually founding that claim on anything? Exceptional claims require exceptional sources...

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.07.2008 06:18

What do you mean by "in passing"? They all state it outright. And it's 15 sources, not 10. Your original research regarding the sources is contrary to policy. Please don't misrepresent what sources say, it's a violation of WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayjg's consensus for this edit. Where is it? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.07.2008 07:22

User: Pedrito's consensus for misrepresenting what 15 sources explicitly say with this edit. Where is it? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out in a previous debate, not only do these sources use it in a fairly casual descriptive way (in the same way that UK Cabinet Ministers are often described in the press as "beleaguered" when under pressure, and we'd never stick that in their respective leads), it is misrepresentation to claim that the sources quoted "use it outright". They do not. Several say "best known in Israel and/or the West", at least one source (the Guardian article if I remember) says "was best known for .. [until its electoral success]" and several don't even use the words but refer to Hamas being "infamous". Plus of course they're all or mostly Western sources from before the election that Hamas won, and 100s of Western sources do not even make this "best know for .." claim. You're taking more out of the sources than they give, in order to put a controversial description in the lead, as if it were a definitive statement of fact. And in respect of comments in the section below, there was not consensus - there were long disputes about this, with several editors on each "side" of the argument. For example here, and here. Neither appear to show "consensus". --Nickhh (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

An "argument from silence" is typically considered to be a logical fallacy. Do you have any sources that say it is "best known" for anything else besides suicide attacks? As for "infamous", as pointed out before, it's a distinction without a difference ("infamous" is even stronger than "best known") and there are sources that state it is both. What obviously isn't acceptable is to take these 15 sources, and then put some other text in front of them that they don't say. For example, almost none of them talk about Hamas's "military wing"; yet somehow that phrase was attributed to all of them. That's an outright violation of WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did you ignore my main points, and just focus on one of my slightly throwaway observations? Could you at least try to refute or contest the point that the sources quoted don't actually make the definitive statement that you are relying on them to make for you? Or the point that we shouldn't be using sources for casual description as opposed to the observation and recording of events or quotes, unless they are more or less unanimous in using that description very precisely? And no, "infamous for" and "best known for" are not pretty much the same thing. I take the point about the military wing (although strictly accurate, and I'm sure sources could be found for it, it doesn't appear to be covered in the sources quoted at the moment). --Nickhh (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hamas used to be best known for it's suicide bombings but since those stopped in 2004 many sources now say "best known for it's military wing". The "western" sources still using the term are largely American media so hardly representative of world opinion. The article should reflect changes due to the passing of time rather than keep descriptives solely because they were true when they were added. Wayne (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt that sources are using the term "best known" for Hamas suicide bombings in a casual manner. IronDuke 16:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to request that, if people can't find sources that contradict the plethora of cites we have regarding Hamas being best known for suicide bombings, that they not revert until they find them and present them here? IronDuke 18:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is contradicting the sources that say they used to be best known for suicide bombings? The problem is with the sources used and if they are still applicable when many countries media and the more nuetral western sources such as this one say best known for it's military wing. A search for the "best known for" term shows that it has as often been coupled in the past with "violence", "rocket attacks", "methods" and even "Al Aqsa Television". I would argue that even rocket attacks is better known these days than suicide bombings from a decade ago so why are we picking the worst descriptive we can find? This is especially the case since the elections as the Al Qassam brigades are responsible for the violence with Hamas only condoning it rather than participating. Wayne (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(<---outdent) Wayne, the source you’re bringing undercuts your own argument. First, it’s from 2001. Second, the paragraph with the phrase in question reads:

"The organization is best known for the exploits of its military wing, the Izzedine Al Qassam brigades. These operate entirely on a clandestine basis, and are currently believed to include up to 500 young volunteers for suicide missions." (Bold added)

So… Hamas is best known for its military wing. Hamas’ military wing is best known for suicide bombings. YOu really think Hamas is best known for "Al Aqsa television?" Also, it wouldn’t matter if Hamas decided to change tactics overnight and began dropping lollipops and ice cream cones over Israel: until a good number of reliable sources start saying Hamas is best known for anything other than suicide bombings, I don’t see how we can move away from what our current sources say. IronDuke 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that too many sources say "best known". Any other wording would be less accurate given the number of sources. Amoruso (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with the wording, as before. I do think it's primarily the wording, though; you could source that they have been described as best known for this in ways that would be better, and could potentially say the group "has mostly been recognized" in one form or another. The current placement and wording is the major problem in my view. Mackan79 (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems there isn't any consensus for the specific and definitive "best known" phrasing, to judge by the editing of the article itself and the talk page debate over the past few days. And those supporting the phrasing are still going round in circles saying "we have a plethora of cites" that back the wording. No we do not - we have, as has been repeatedly pointed out, a large number of (Western) sources that all say fairly different things, and qualify the "best known" description in varying ways. This is obvious if you actually take the time to examine them properly, rather than simply being impressed by the sheer number of sources that editors have stacked up here over time. --Nickhh (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And now I've actually gone through all the 16 sources listed. Only 7 - less than half - say "best known for .." without any qualification, while 9 either don't use it at all or use it with a significant qualification (4 don't use the phrase at all; 2 say "best known abroad"; 2 say "perhaps best known"; 1 says "was best known"). Can we end this debate now? Please? And none of this should have been necessary anyway, as it's such an obviously loaded and unverifiable claim that it should never have been in the lead in the first place. --Nickhh (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As you well know, 4 use the phrase "infamous", which is even strong than "best known", and considering that "abroad" in this case consists of 99.9% of humanity, the 2 saying "abroad" mean the same thing. That leaves three which equivocate in some way. More importantly, James L. Gelvin's The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War (Cambridge University Press) alone is strong enough to support the claim, given the stature of the author, the specificity of the topic, and the imprimateur of the press. Regardless, I'll add yet another reliable source that says what is obviously and trivially known to be true; that Hamas is best known for its suicide attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also add that the whole "Oh, but it's a Western source" is getting a bit thin. A) It is English Wikipedia -- there are going to be a lot of Western sources. We don't have to wait for other sources to write articles. B) If there are any non-Western reliable sources that say Hamas is best known for something else, please bring them to the table. You'll need a bunch to effectively contradict what Jay's brought, but it's in principle doable. I'd ask everyone not to snipe from the sidelines -- help build the article, don't erect artificial barriers to nullify excellent research. If you don't like it, fight sources with sources. IronDuke 03:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, the fact that they are Western sources, although relevant, was never my key point as you well know. Jayjg this is getting out of hand - you are just ignoring the maths that is staring you and everyone else in the face, even with the increasingly tedious and untidy source-stacking. i) "infamous for" is not stronger than or equivalent to "best known for", it means something totally different. Go and look the words up if that isn't clear; ii) the "abroad" qualifier is significant beyond mere numbers since Hamas is a Palestinian group; iii) no way would one person's description ever pass as having sufficient weight to put this sort of phrasing in a lead, whoever they were and wherever they were published.

And finally, there's no need to get into a source competition over this, even if I had the language skills and the time to contribute. However I do accept that it would be helpful in finally getting the point across. Nor, I repeat, is there the consensus for this wording that you have fraudulently claimed there is. --Nickhh (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one ignoring things, you're ignoring what the sources say. Re: your points, i) If infamous means something entirely different from best known, then why does PBS says "Hamas is best-known — infamous — for its reliance on suicide bombers."? ii) I find it hard to believe you think the article should be written from the Palestinian POV, rather than from a world POV. iii) Apparently no amount of people using that description would "ever pass as having sufficient weight to put this sort of phrasing in a lead, whoever they were and wherever they were published." Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What? I keep telling you the sources don't say what you want them to say - I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just reading the things I'm being pointed to. And to keep to the numbered points .. i) Since when was PBS a dictionary service? And since when did using two adjectives to describe something mean that each has the same meaning? Please go and look up what both the words mean. It seems a little odd that you appear not to know the difference. ii) When did I say that the article should be written from an [exclusively] Palestinian point of view? iii) Yes, that's what I said. And your point is? --Nickhh (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest another wording that might work, Nick? The problem at least in my view isn't just whether they're "best known" for this, but how to treat the suicide bombing issue. I made a suggestion above, but with other changes something new would be needed. To do it correctly, I would probably mention it slightly later, while making clear that it's traditionally been a militant extremist organization, but I'm not sure I have anything perfect. Mackan79 (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I just think we need to keep to facts and source them when necessary, so in my view it just needs a pretty factual wording along the lines of "its military wing is responsible for ..". I've been willing to compromise on saying something like "widely known for .." or "known for ..". But having said that, I'm not sure even that it is necessary or appropriate to have that level of interpretation or subjective description, especially in the lead, however many sources other editors can shovel in which appear to say something roughly like it. --Nickhh (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, what is meant is "most widely known," something that is in all likelihood only true in the West, unless we accept that Palestinians voted in a political party most widely known to them for its violence. Tinguat (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Small points first: I'm glad we established that a source's being "Western" is not something worth commenting on as a way to disparage it. I hope that sticks.

Yes, "infamous" is a stronger term than "best-known." This is not a controversial point.

I have no difficulty accepting the idea that people could vote for the most violent political party running, specifically because it was most violent. Can't say whether that happened with Hamas.

Main point: Jay has a bunch of fantastic sources. We can argue about how many of them are really and truly incredibly fantastic, but he has a bunch. The arguments against them seem to be, "Yes, Jay, you have these great sources. But what if, theoretically, sources existed which contradicted your sources? Shouldn't we hold off on using your sources, in case these imaginary sources should somehow bear fruit?" I sympathize with the lack of time we all have to dig up good sources, but that does not mean we can ignore the -- excellent -- ones we have. If you can't rebut the sources Jay brings with sources of your own, you can't rebut the argument. I don't know how it could be more simple. IronDuke 03:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the bottom line problem is that "best known" is a subjective description. If we could give polling data, showing that 75% of (some group) identified Hamas with suicide bombings as opposed to any of several other choices provided, we could directly provide that data. But, absent such data, wherever it is reported, it is ultimately only someone's subjective opinion that Hamas is "best known" for its violence, regardless of whether that person publishes his opinion in the New York Times or on his blog. If the New York Times reported, without poll figures or awards ceremony results, that Michael Jackson is the best American musician, that would be included in his article as "the New York Times has called ..." rather than as "Michael Jackson is the best American musician." And probably it would be "Reporter X of the New York Times has called ..."

Further, "best" in this use is a word with multiple meanings. Israeli planners contemplating how to deal with European support of Hamas might say that Hamas would be best known for its suicide bombings, for the purpose of Israel's interests in the matter. If we have another word that effectively conveys the sense of "best" that is meant, then we should use that word. And I think we do have such a word: "widely," or "most widely," if you like.

Finally, I think Wikipedia is intended to document things with a global perspective, anyone's noting that this is the English Wikipedia after all notwithstanding. While it is true, I think, in my part of the world that Hamas is best known for its suicide bomings, I doubt that that is true everywhere. Hamas, if we can believe the article, was sponsoring schools and hospitals long before it even had a military wing; Israel even funded it early on. And I strongly suspect that in most of the Arab world, it is most widely known for resisting occupation and for its humanitarian assistance in the Occupied Territories. I expect that every one of the sources offered was only referring to Hamas' reputation in the West, and likely only the English-speaking world. To note this, as with "most widely known in the West" is not disparaging; it is making more accurate. In any case, the whole notion of describing Hamas as being "known" for anything is passive voice (known by whom?) and tends in that regard to violate a whole section of WP:Words to avoid.

Tinguat (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If the New York Times reported, without poll figures or awards ceremony results, that Michael Jackson is the best American musician, that would be included in his article as "the New York Times has called ..." rather than as "Michael Jackson is the best American musician."'

This analogy is not a commanding one. Say instead, if the New York Times, and 16 or so other highly reliable sources, referred to Michael Jackson as "the best known American musician," then I'd feel quite comfortable putting that in his article.

Israeli planners contemplating how to deal with European support of Hamas might say that Hamas would be best known for its suicide bombings, for the purpose of Israel 's interests in the matter.

Okay. But so what? Just because a thing is in Israel 's interest does not automatically make it untrue.

If we have another word that effectively conveys the sense of "best" that is meant, then we should use that word. And I think we do have such a word: "widely," or "most widely," if you like.

Well, unfortunately, what I like isn't at issue here. If it were, many articles on Wikipedia differ considerably from their present form after I'd gotten through editing them purely according to my likes and dislikes. All that matters is what the sources say.

I think Wikipedia is intended to document things with a global perspective, anyone's noting that this is the English Wikipedia after all notwithstanding. While it is true, I think, in my part of the world that Hamas is best known for its suicide bomings, I doubt that that is true everywhere.

Respectfully, it does not matter at all if you doubt that it is true everywhere. Only sources matter. Right now, the sources are overwhelmingly in favor of "best known."

I strongly suspect that in most of the Arab world, [Hamas] is most widely known for resisting occupation and for its humanitarian assistance in the Occupied Territories . I expect that every one of the sources offered was only referring to Hamas' reputation in the West, and likely only the English-speaking world.

Again, an article like this cannot be written according to what you "strongly suspect" or "expect." Sources only.

In any case, the whole notion of describing Hamas as being "known" for anything is passive voice (known by whom?) and tends in that regard to violate a whole section of WP:Words to avoid.

You are essentially asking our secondary sources to adhere to Wikipedia policy; that's not going to work very well.

You know, I think I might see part of the problem here. A lot of entirely reasonable editors are bringing their reason to bear on this issue, but their thoughtfulness is misleading them. I think a lot of editors have an idea about what a "fair" way to characterize Hamas might be, and want to resist anything that they themselves wouldn't write. But that's not at all how WP works. We are neutral; our sources are not. When reliable sources converge to use a specific phrase, it's no good saying they're not being fair, or are biased, or why didn't they use some other phrase. We're stuck with what they give is, unless and until scholarship gives us something else. IronDuke 00:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you're still missing the point. The sources are using a descriptive term, not attesting to or documenting facts or events. In addition they do not even support the "specific" wording being put in the lead - see my maths above. So it's not about having to wait for opposing sources. It is a little dispiriting to see people writing things here based on Google searches which they seem to have done in order to confirm their own POV, but little serious thought beyond that. For example, can I now put in the lead that George Bush is a "lame duck" President? Of course not, but that's the logic being applied here. --Nickhh (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "a descriptive term"? The sources that use them believe they are attesting to facts. As for the numbers, I've already shown that your claims regarding the sources aren't correct; infamous is even stronger than "best known", and the vast majority of them indicate that in 99.9% of the world, Hamas is "best known" (or worse) for suicide attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

While the term can be used in the article, to have it in the lead is definately "descriptive". To use your own arguement allied with Nickhh's example.... in 92.2% of the world, President Bush is best known as the worst President in US history but while mention could possibly be made in his article, neither I nor any other editor should expect the lead to say so. Wayne (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, I meant a term (or phrase) used to describe something. That is, it's a matter of interpretation or judgement, not a matter of verifiable fact. And you haven't "shown" that my claims are incorrect, you've just disputed them, which is different. And again, please go and look up what infamous means - to help you, it most certainly does not mean "more than best known" or "bestest [sic] known" as you seem to be implying. Someone can be best known for one thing, but infamous for something else. For example Ozzy Osbourne is best known either as a rock singer or reality TV star (note how subjective these judgements are), but is infamous for urinating on the Alamo. --Nickhh (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hamas documents

Tkalisky, I have no objection at all to your adding more material about the Charter -- as I have done. But I thought your blockquotes were too long. The goal here should be to accurately represent the Charter. It is concerned both about Zionist/Israeli oppression of Palestinians, and justifying resistance in nationalistic/religious terms. The summary should reflect this.--Tirpse77 (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - you are invited to represent the charter precisely and not choose which parts to quote and which parts to censor. Good luck.Tkalisky (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What you did borders on vandalism. You cannot simply delete sourced material because you disagree with it. I made a good faith attempt to incorporate your earlier concerns but it seems you will only accept a propagandistic version that represents Hamas as purely monsters. This is not the place for that. If you have specific suggestions make them here. Otherwise stop the vandalism. --Tirpse77 (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

remove POV tag?

Has this article reached compliance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view yet? Any objections to removing the {{POV}} template?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody's register any objections, I removed the POV tag.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"in the Western media"

Since when did books by James L. Gelvin, Matthew Levitt, Peter Brookes, and Mark Andersen become "the Western media"?[2] Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Another disruptive parachute revert. And how can anyone's "beliefs [...] make use of antisemitic ideology and [rhetoric?]" That doesn't make a bit of sense. Beliefs don't "make use of" anything. And the given sources don't support that claim; rather, there's a bunch of sources describing various alleged connections between antisemitism and Hamas ideology. (Many of the sources are rather unserious, like the Anti-Defamation League and David Matas.) Your edit summary claimed that "We must follow what the sources say," but actually, none of the sources say what they're cited to support. And anyway, you certainly haven't achieved anything like consensus here for your edits. <eleland/talkedits> 02:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're unhappy with "disruptive parachute reverts", then why do you continue to make them? As for wording, how can Hamas's desire to destroy Israel be described by a trivial word like a "quarrel"? You make it sound like they disagree on who gets to sit in what seats on a family outing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I've also trimmed some of the ridiculous long lists of sources; we don't need a whole bunch of newspaper editorials and activist organizations cited for something that can be sourced to books published by university presses. It's also notable that many of the sources date from the mid-nineties, or are talking about the time of Hamas' founding, which is practically a different era in the Hamas organization. It would be best to find sources talking about 2006-present, when they significantly moderated at least their public image, to run for the elections. <eleland/talkedits> 02:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And I've restored most of the sources, which are never "ridiculously long" enough for those seeking to avoid stating simple and significant facts about Hamas. The vast majority are not sourced to "newspaper editorials and activist organizations", but instead to scholarly works, and actual, reliable, news sources, in news stories. The only "activist source" I can see there is the ADL, and the day you insist that the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee is an "activist organization" not qualified to speak on anti-Arabism is the day I'll take seriously your concern about the ADL speaking about antisemitism. And finally, what's additionally notable is that you deleted most of the sources from the mid to late 2000s, then complained that the sources were from the 90s. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with most of that, although I would rather use another word for the lead over "notorious", which just comes over as a bit, well, strong. One other problem with the lead is that there's a lot of information and detail, probably too much, on the 2007 fighting which would be better moved down into the main body. I'm not sure I'm going to get stuck into doing that, if anyone else agrees and wants to have a go. I will take out the "warlord" phrase that was applied to Dahlan though, which also seems a bit loaded.--Nickhh (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with references

Oi Vaavoi !! It seems like there is a problem with the references since all of them are clumped together from ref. 37 and onwards. According to the history this problem has been going on for the last few days. Does anyone know how to fix this? Thanks Tkalisky (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"SD1" :
- [http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65463.pdf "Country reports on terrorism 2005"], [[United States Department of State]]. Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism. US Dept. of State Publication 11324. Released April 2006
- {{cite web| title=Country reports on terrorism| url=http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/45394.htm| date=[[2005-05-27]]| archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20050511025028/http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/45394.htm| archivedate=2005-05-11| publisher=U.S. State Dept.| accessdate=2008-01.26}}
"EUTerrorList" :
- [http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_340/l_34020051223en00640066.pdf "Council Decision"] [[Council of the European Union]], December 21, 2005
- {{cite web| title=COUNCIL DECISION of 21 December 2005| url=http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_340/l_34020051223en00640066.pdf| publisher=[[Council of the European Union]]|date=[[2005-12-21]]| quote=implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/848/EC ... Hamas (including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem)|format=PDF}}
"UKTerrorList" :
- [http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/legislation/current-legislation/terrorism-act-2000/proscribed-terrorist-groups?version=1" United Kingdom Home Security Office. Terrorism Act 2000. Proscribed terrorist groups]
- [http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/legislation/current-legislation/terrorism-act-2000/proscribed-terrorist-groups?version=1"]

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Matthias Küntzel

I just began the bear of a task to weed out the biased references that justify the term antisemetic in this article. Suspect number one is the reference written by Matthias Kuntzel. I encourage everyone to consider that this man has written soley anti-islamic literature from his research position at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Does anyone else agree that the is not the best scholar to give an unbiased defination of Hamas on Wikipedia? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're talking about Matthias Küntzel. To quote from that article:

From 1984 to 1988, Küntzel was a senior advisor of the Federal Parliamentary Fraction of Germany’s Green Party. In 1991, he received his doctorate, summa cum laude, in Political Science at the University of Hamburg. His thesis Bonn & the Bomb. German Politics and the Nuclear Option, London: Pluto Press was in English in 1995. In 2004, he has been named a research associate at the Vidal Sassoon International Centre for the Study of Antisemitism (SICSA) at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Since 2001, his main field of research and writing have been anti-Semitism in current Islamic thinking, Islamism, Islamism and National Socialism, Iran, German and European policies towards the Middle East and Iran. Among others, he wrote for The New Republic, the Wall Street Journal and Internationale Politik. In 2006 he became a member of the Board of Directors of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.

He seems eminently qualified to discuss antisemitism and Hamas. By the way, Hamas's charter cites the notorious antisemitic fraud The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as if it were fact, so you're not going to get much traction here with arguments that antisemitism has nothing to do with Hamas. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is my opinion that his reference should be removed from this article because all of his books focus on convincing people why they should hate Islamic groups. He is a one issue author, and that issue is as far right and anti-Islamic as it gets. His books would be a good source to identify and define those factions of Israel that attack Hamas, but for this article he is definitely too biased against Hamas and not anywhere near being objective. In order to avoid the appearance of Wikipedia bashing Hamas here, Kuntzel's article in the Der Spiegel should be removed. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

However, as has been pointed out, he's a reliable source who is an expert in this area, and your opinion of him seems factually incorrect, at best. So, there are actually no reasons to remove his view, and extremely good ones to keep it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

vandalism can't be undone

Obviously, this "Breaking news" shit (in german language, describing how cruel the christian military and especially chancellor Merkel, is) can't be removed. In the history function I don't find this edit... And when I look in the Article source, there's nothing, too... But it is still there. How can that be? Foerdi (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

lost ref

In this edit, an anon has removed a sentence because the reference "Worlddomination" was lost some time earlier. Can we please find that reference in the history in order to evaluate this latest removal? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The anon that recently remove the sentence described why at #Neutrail_Point_of_View. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I went back forever in WikiBlame to find it and it doesn't seem to be there. However footnote 8 (9) from that revision has this reference [3]:

"From the beginning, Hamas espoused the antisemitism of the Muslim Brotherhood's leading thinkers, Hasah al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb. This fact is clear from its own ideological credo formulated as the Islamic covenant in 1988, which not only calls for Islam to eliminate Israel but also states "our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave." It cites the Hadith... in noting that at the end of time, Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them. The covenant and other Hamas publications draw on the libels of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, accusing Jews of a universal conspiracy for world domination... Some of the antisemitic canards are backed in the covenant by koranic proof texts." Levy, Richard S. Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, ABL_CLIO, 2005, p. 289.ISBN 1851094393

It strikes me that it would be acceptable to include the edit with this reference. However, I do have a problem with the word "primarily" as written in the article. I am not sure I can defend it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the ref itself was right there; it was the name for the ref that included all the material that followed. Thus, material which was once in a footnote became exposed text in the body of the article. I've fixed that. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

monthly allowance

In this edit, we have lost "The party is known to support families of suicide bombers after their deaths. Some believe the financial support includes a monthly allowance.". The {{fact}} tag was only added in October, but this removal didnt also remove the fact tag, so it is now looks like the previous sentence was tagged in October (it also needs a source). I have often heard that the organisation provides a monthly allowance .. how much truth is in this? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

found a RS for that and added it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama smear

Removed it (and mangled my own edit summary). If Al-Qaeda's endorsement of John McCain won't make it on Al-Qaeda's page, then Hamas' endorsement of Barack Obama doesn't belong here either. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 23.10.2008 07:29

What is this? application of precendents? for logical it sure isn't. wikipedia is about spreading information. I'd rather question the delition of the other reference than delete this one as a consequence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.208.118.236 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

I think some part of the article should change. These are my proposal on the basis of Hezbollah article:

1 Name
2 History

   * 2.1 7.2 Attacks on Hezbollah leaders(should be added)

3 Politics

   * 3.1 Hamas documents→(Ideology)
   * 3.2 The possibility of a ceasefire with Israel→(It should be merged in another section)

4 End of 2008 Ceasefire→(It should be merged in Militancy and political activities)
5 Social Activities

   * 5.1 Provision of social welfare and education
   * 5.2 Funding →(separate section)
   * 5.3 Other→(Media operations)

6 Controversies

   * 6.1 Antisemitism→(Attitudes and actions concerning Jews and Judaism)
         o 6.1.1 Hamas founding charter
         o 6.1.2 Expressions by Hamas prominent figures and scholars
         o 6.1.3 Holocaust denial
         o 6.1.4 Academic analysis
   * 6.2 Children's web site and television program→(Media operations)
   * 6.3 Crackdown on dissent and on the Press→(Media operations)

7 Militancy and political violence→(Militancy and political activities)

   * 7.1 Attacks on civilians→(Attacks on Israeli targets)
   * 7.2 Guerrilla warfare
   * 7.3 Hamas and the United States
   * 7.4 Other targets and activities

8 International perception of Hamas→(Designation as a terrorist organization or resistance movement)
9 Legal action against Hamas

I wait for your idea.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"allegations of antisemitism" section title

I think saying that Hamas antisemitism is "alleged" is a bit rich. The evidence is overwhelming (except perhaps to antisemites). Suggest the section title be amended accordingly. Telaviv1 (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We've already been there... Since Hamas itself rejects this charge, it's kind of hard to push it as fact.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 28.10.2008 07:36

Maybe we should go there again. It is noble for us to continue to make the effort until we are more accurate. This sounds like an edit that is lost in translation. I would have to side with the many members of Hamas that deny they are antisemitic. Since Hamas is not a person, how can we define the entire group as antisemitic? I don't think we as Wikipedia editors should be concerned with how a group leader defines its members. That is a recipe for error! I got a better idea. Let's call them what they are. Maybe Wikipedia should just identify Hamas without the racially charged terms. I don't think we should make a section for Semetic or Hamitic rants, but one thing is for certain. This page only shows the Semetic rant. The Hamitic peoples and ideals are under-represented here in this argument and I suspect they were under-represented in the 'consensus' that was reached to call Hamas antisemitic. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

We are indeed quite accurate. The article doesn't define "the entire group as antisemitic". Please review WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What would it take to prove this? Isn't citing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in your organization's charter, and refusing the remove the reference, enough? I mean, come on. How much smoke does the smoking gun have to have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.124.21 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hamas charter contains the lines: Article 28: The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.

How can you not define this as antisemitism? This has nothing to do with Israel or with Palestine: the Freemasons were founded centuries ago! This says that Jews are behing drug trade and alcoholism ! If they wanted to refer to "some Jews" they should have done this clearly .

this sentence could be misleading

(Note that in Hebrew, the word חמס (ḥamas or χamas) is a literary term meaning "to oppress" or "evil-doing". + It originates in the Old testament)

inserting this sentence may insinuate that Hamas is called so, to show that they want to oppress the israelis or are intending to be evil-doers. Hamas by the way is neither ḥamas or χamas it is a completely different sound. I suggest either delete the sentence or you tell the reader that you don't mean by it, that Hamas are evil-doers or have called them selves so because they intend to oppress the Israelis. Hamas is actually interested in liberating what they believe is their country, whether it is from Israeli, british, american or any other occupation. If the british didn't leave the country and did what the Israelis are now doing, Hamas would be fighting them in the exact same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhizabr (talk • contribs) 21:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Your last sentence makes no sense. What does the word's meaning have to do with a different country? It's 'universal'. It could mean evil-doing for the British and that sentence's meaning wont change. Who they oppress doesn't change anything.

Also, the pronunciation in Hebrew is for from being "completely different".

And you sir are quite the hell biased. --212.235.85.149 (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is an arabic word. You have explained in your article, what the initial stands for and what the word in arabic stands for. It is fine. I just don't see the relevance of the sentence in question. You must always think that there are uninitiated readers. They could be misled to perceive that the name Hamas stand for "to oppress" or "evil-doing" and that the founding fathers of Hamas has deliberately chosen the name Hamas to spread those meanings.

And even If I was biased it should be irrelevant to you Sir, as long as what I suggest is not biased. And if you find my suggestions to be biased, I'll be glad to know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhizabr (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Intro

The introduction to this article needs to be substantially pared down and reorganized. As is, it includes, in order:

Paragraphs describing the nature of the organization and its founding. This is good but there should probably be a sentence giving a broad overview of what the organization has done since 1987.
A detailed chronology of recent elections and battles with Fatah, complete with weasel-word-based analysis about what "many" voters and experts think of Hamas and the legality of Fatah's actions. A seemingly irrelevant quote from the charter is stuck in the middle without explanation. Some of this information should be included since it is relevant to Hamas's current status, but the level of detail here is far too extensive for an introduction. If the charter statement should be kept, there needs to be some explanation of why it is important.
A paragraph listing the organizations that consider Hamas a terrorist organization and noting restrictive measures taken against the group by international organizations. This is probably appropriate for the introduction and should be kept.
A paragraph regarding Hamas's funding. This is probably too much detail for the introduction, since someone who doesn't know much about Hamas is probably not looking for information about its funding sources.
A paragraph about Hamas's claims regarding a ceasefire with Israel, which is perplexing because to this point nothing has been said about Hamas engaging in conflict with Israel.

I understand that this is a delicate subject, but that is not an excuse for allowing the introduction to become an unorganized hodgepodge of trivia like charter quotes, with very important information (most notably Hamas's role in the ongoing conflict with Israel) left out. I would try doing a rewrite myself, but I don't know that much about the group (which is why I was reading the introduction to this article). Elliotreed (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The lede has been massively POVd in the past day. I've fixed it up again. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I added POV check due to the bias in the lead. There are some nations who recognize Hamas as a resistant movement while nothing has mentioned about it. We should add it beside the name of the countries who recognize Hamas as a terrorist movement.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Which nations are those? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all of the Arab (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Qatar, Sudan[4][5] and Islamic-majority nation for one. Also, possibly several South American (Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia[6]) Asian, and African nations, Russia[7], some countries in Europe. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any official statements from their respective governments to that effect? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not yet, and I think it would be hard to find, and is it really necessary? It would be more preferred if we had those sources, but the above sources are legitimate too. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

using of "suicide attacks" that is used in this reference is better than using a new word .suicide attacks of hamas is nat many that can be said "numerous" (a few in year). --Rh-credit (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

HAMAS & ANC SIMILARITY

First of all I have checked the article and it seems fairly neutral. Well Done!! Next, I think that an article on the similarity of ANC and HAMAS should be researched.

mo.sayan@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayanvala (talk • contribs) 11:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In my point of view, this article doesn't seem fairly neutral and should be consider more.Erik.catalan (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Defect of refrences

In Section 2 (history) and 3 (politics) of this article, the lack of refrences became these parts unclear and unreliable for example the ideology in Section 3 not refered to sufficient article or document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madly14 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Charter should be printed out in full

The Hamas Charter should have its own wikipedia page just like every other consitution in the world. The repetitive downplaying of the obvious anti-semitism in the charter, and Hamas' clear intention to destroy Israel, whether it be before or after Palestinian statehood should not be omitted from this article. Whether you agree or disagree with Hamas and its methods, it's stated goals should not be omitted from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.152.40 (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It was on Wikisource, but got deleted: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant . You can see pretty much the stable version before it got deleted at http://web.archive.org/web/20070214054548/http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant . -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be intersting to have a full article on the Hamas Charter. If correct, it seems unusual that the Charter was deleted from Wikisource, there is no copyright on it and Hamas seems to be 'applying' that Charter on a daily basis. Politis (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use "Le Canard enchaîné" as a source since it is a satirical newspaper

Remove it from this sentence:

"Various sources, among them United Press International,[104] Le Canard enchaîné,[citation needed] Gérard Chaliand[105] and L'Humanité[106]"

81.240.25.37 (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition to ‘End of 2008 Ceasefire’ section

I have a suggested quote addition, to be placed directly after “...Israeli aggression before its implementation.” in the 'End of 2008 Ceasefire' section:

...Israeli aggression before its implementation".^[1] When asked if he could envision a 50-year hudna (cease-fire) with Israel, Hamas leader Nizar Rayyan responded,

The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel. Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God.^[2]^[3]

Appreciate some feedback. Tell me what you all think. Martin0001 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Politis (Talk | contribs) (→End of 2008 Ceasefire: Dlt: interesting quote but irrelevant to this chapter on 2008 ceasefire)

RE: End of 2008 Ceasefire: Dlt: interesting quote but irrelevant to this chapter on 2008 ceasefire

I thought it was interesting too. If not here, where do you think this quote is relevant? since you also think it’s interesting.

In any case, I’d like to hear your reasoning if I may. Why it is irrelevant? It is a direct quote, and it relates directly to ‘End of (the) 2008 Ceasefire’. I think it provides readers with a valuable piece of information regarding Hamas policy, a policy which they were open about from the beginning of the ceasefire. It provides a sound theoretical reasoning behind the collapse of the ceasefire, in addition to noting their perspectives on it. Wikipedia needs to present all the evidence, and this is a reasonable alternate theory to what is mentioned in that section, which focuses on operation Cast Lead and Israeli forces killing Hamas gunmen. Hamas perspectives on the ceasefire need inclusion for balance.

Thanks buddy, get back to me on the Hamas talk page. Off to bed now but I’ll be back in 20 hours.Martin0001 (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there have been many 'hard hitting' quotes generated at the time when the ceasefire ended, as well as many quotes at every phase of this conflict. To include them all at every stage of the article might simply drown the article. That is just my opinion and I feel quite neutral one way or the other to re-intervene. I assume there are many other editors out there who are far more knowledgable than myself.

By the way, since Hamas is an elected administration responsible for a specific territory, it probably has economic policies, a budget plan, infrastructure priorities...? Just wondering. Politis (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As you are “quite neutral one way or the other to re-intervene”, then I would ask that you do, and reintroduce my work. The issue of drowning the article in quotes is separate from the issue of this quote being irrelevant. Moreover, I think the high usage of quotes in this article is a product of the issue being so controversial. Editors are concerned of misleading their readers, so they use a direct quote rather than paraphrasing. How many editors would disagree if I were to include “Hamas officials don’t consider the ceasefire as a true ceasefire. Instead, they have released statements confirming they will use the time to restock weapons in preparation for a final battle with Israel.” I’m not even going to try to rephrase the stuff about God. It’s far too easy to push a POV when rephrasing such things. So even if the article seems over quoted, I’d like to think that both sides of the discussion would prefer to read whole quotes.

As for your concerns regarding selective information in the article, such is a reality in Wikipedia. It seems strange to focus on removing notable and verifiable information from an article, simply because nobody is interested in more holistic researching. You may also find that by including those areas (economic plan, budget, infrastructure), that the article becomes just overwhelmingly negative (e.g. On the 5th of February, 2007, the Hamas government announced its plans for the 2007 budget. The declared intention is to raise the level of personnel on the public payroll. Specifically, 25,000 extras are to be added to the burgeoning "security personnel" payroll. = adapted from [8] website). See what I mean? Martin0001 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Recapturing" in the summary paragraph is misleading

"Hamas' charter calls for the recapturing of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now named Israel". I think even if their charter says "recapturing", it would be more encyclopedic to say "calls for capturing", because they never held control of the State of Israel. --85.250.205.175 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please change dead link to Hamas Charter

Could anyone please remove the dead link to the Hamas Charter? Or change the url to: [9] --Ballenjongen (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Understates Role of Hamas' Anti-Israel views in their Election Victory

The plan to destroy Israel was central campaign material and a large factor in their victory. See here:

http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/01/hamas-and-the-palestinians.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacking civilians

The article focuses on Hamas's view of asymmetric warfare in regard to attacking civilians targets. We have many sources [10] [11] that say that Hamas offered to stop attacking Israeli civilians if Israel does that in return. We already have a quote from "Abdel Aziz Rantisi" about this, but I think this should be given more weight in the article. Imad marie (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have put (Suicide attacks) and (Shelling and rocket attacks on civilians) under (Attacking civilian targets), if I get no objections, I will merge the 3 section in one bigger section called (Attacking civilian targets). Imad marie (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Better grammatical flow to name the section "Attacks on civilians"? Wayne (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The asymmetry is easy to understand. Hamas tries to maximize civilian casualties because they think that all civilian casualties, anywhere, will be blamed on Israel. That's why they take the Palestinians hostage, use human shields, shoot at civilians, wire Palestinian schools to blow up when Israelis shoot, etc. On the other hand Israel goes to great lengths to avoid killing civilians but it is hard because of the trap that Hamas sets up. The asymmetry is in the intentions of the two sides. This is all documented photographically.

[12]

One, that's sounding kinda like a conspiracy theory, and two, photographic evidence is worth exactly nothing as far as proving something goes. Ask Adobe all about that. Keep in mind that many people believe we never landed on the moon because of "photographic evidence". Kingoomieiii (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I merged the sections. I may be accused of WP:CENSOR, but I removed some details that I don't think belong to this article, we don't need to list the suicide attacks here. Imad marie (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Politically, I am pro-Palestinian in perspective. Even so, I see the value in a listing of attcks attributed to or claimed by any militant organisation. Related to this, I do have a quote from an AFP article on the most recent Israeli assault (27 Dec 2008) on Gaza: "Hamas has not carried out a suicide attack in Israel since January 2005." This was not quoted from any person or group but stated in a matter-of-fact way by the article itself. Below is the information for the article. It did not name any author. "At least 228 die as Israel hammers Hamas-run Gaza" http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hGdOVX8wKfbGm3FAUNLxtM9TEPZw

How would one go about citing something that didn't happen? Link to every news report since 2005 and point out that none of them are about Hamas suicide bombs going off in Israel? Kingoomieiii (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

Are you planning to list the 70 rockets fired into Israel that preceded this response, including the one that killed two girls in Gaza, one aged five and the other 12? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

While the title of the article that I used to reference the statement about suicide attacks was about an Israeli military operation that followed the launching of several rockets from Gaza, the statement itself was about suicide attacks. That would be something akin to a person strapping on a bomb vest, entering Israel, and exploding that vest to kill himself and whatever Israelis his crude weapon can reach. These kinds of attacks are different enough from rocket attacks to be categorised differently and counted separately when the occasion calls for it. Of course, you already know this. I know that one second I was talking about rockets and the next about suicide attacks, but I thought that the difference would have been more obvious. By the way - on the topic of **rocket attacks**, I have found other sources that relate numbers of rockets launched since the expiration of the 19 June 2008 truce on 19 December 2008. This particular time frame interests me because it falls between the termination of a truce and the commencement of a military action. The BBC counted "more than 50." The Christian Science Monitor reported that "hundreds of rockets" followed the expiration of the truce. Doing some math at the Globalsecurity.org site gave me 240 rockets fired since 19 December (300 total, 40 on Sunday 28 December). I learned during the Mumbai attacks that the BBC tends to be conservative in its descriptions of unfolding events due to the preference to have multiple sources for its reports. This might explain their small numer. Below is information about these articles.

Most notable informator is Beceanu Gabriela which is a teacher. She is pretending to be, in fact she's still in activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.8.139 (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli strike kills Hamas member http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7798685.stm 25 December 2008

Gaza: Why Israel and Hamas are trading rocket fire http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1229/p01s03-wome.html By Joshua Mitnick December 29, 2008

HAMAS Rockets http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-qassam.htm PinkWorld (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Pink

Jaakobou, shouldn't the link you added be listed under "External links"? Why are you adding the link inside the article body? Imad marie (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What policy is it that you are citing from exactly? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the author of the comment above ... launching of several rockets from Gaza ... is aware of the former german "Vengance Weapons"? They were weapons of Terror .... see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/V-weapons . To say that no suicide bombers entered the area is disengenious, as Hamas used rockets as a weapon of terror - instead of suicide bombers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.65.100 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Name: Cognitive Meaning?

The wording of the article as it now stands is "In Hebrew, the cognate term, hamas, literally means 'To pillage, to corrupt' (Old Testament, Job, Verse 15:33), indicating a coincidental linguistic symmetry to the views of Palestinians and Israelis on the organization."

To me, it sounds as if the meaning of the Hebrew word "hamas" is more in line with the Arabic word "fasad," even though the word "hamas" is a linguistic cognitive between Arabic and Hebrew. In Arabic, "hamas" does not seem to include a meaning for corruption; whereas the word "fasad" could refer to both pillaging and corruption. PinkWorld (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Pink

Are you saying that the Philistines and the Hebrews shared the same language? I think not. They are not even a little bit similar. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the Philistines? The Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Hebrews had very similar languages. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So, your point is the Philistines and Palestinians are not the same people? A simple study of the Roman Empire will show that they are in fact the same people. To argue the difference between Ancient Hebrew and Philistine being "similar languages" and "very similar languages" would be an exercise in semantics and logic. They are no more similar than any other language 3000 years ago. I believe you might be making the mistake of comparing the modern Hebrew with its modern counterpoints. I agree that the languages, like the peoples, of that area have merged. I don't want to disrespect you in any way, but it seems like you might consider Hamas in a negative light. Should Wikipedia be the platform for the continuing the hate in the Middle East? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop claiming utter nonsense. The Philistines have nothing to do with the modern-day Palestinians, and no "simple study of the Roman Empire will show that they are in fact the same people". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil in this discussion. We are merely in disagreement, and nothing more. I am not asking that a change in anything here be made. I am just trying to help you understand this article better. It is well known that the Palestinians and Philistines are in fact the same people. Any google search on the matter will give you 50k pages of evidence. This information is also on Wikipedia at Palestine. The name in many languages are as follows: Greek: Παλαιστίνη; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינה‎ Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn. But, my favorite site for this is the Jewish Encyclopedia at http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=31&letter=P&search=palestine If that is not enough, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire discusses the how the Latin name Palestine to the area by Roman emperor Hadrian after he crushed Judah in 137 AD. Don't take it personal. I learn new things on this site every day. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"It is well known that the Palestinians and Philistines are in fact the same people." Quote a reliable source that says so. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The name of the region may have originated in the name of these biblical people, the Philistines. The Romans called it that and so did the British Empire not too many years ago when they ruled the area. It seems that modern day Palestinians adopted this name as inhabitants of this area when they started to form their nationality (around 1900). Selalerer (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it seams quite clear from the Wikipedia article Palestinian People, especially the History section, that even Palestinians themselves do not claim to be the same nation as the Philistines. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas second section

Wikipedia stated: Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha of the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada. Notorious for its numerous suicide bombings and other attacks[2] on Israeli civilians and security forces, Hamas also runs extensive social programs[3] and has gained popularity in Palestinian society by establishing hospitals, education systems, libraries and other services[4] throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[3] Hamas describes its conflict with Israel as political and not religious[5] or antisemitic.[6]

However, its founding charter, writings, and many of its public statements[7] reflect the influence of antisemitic conspiracy theories.[8].

It is this last sentence, I would like to discuss. I suggest to alter it with the following sentence:

However, its founding charter, writings, and many of its public statements[7] reflect an incontrovertible evidence of Anti-zionism.

Since wikipedia has extensively defined Anti-Zionism. The reader can follow the link.

Hamas or any other arab can't be involved in any anti-semitic activity, because arabs are semitic. The jews are actually their cousins. As you noted right: "Hamas describes its conflict with Israel as political and not religious[5] or antisemitic." To be more accurate you can replace the term anti-semitic by anti-zionist. Officials from Hamas, Hizbollah or all other anti-zionist organizations use the term zionists when they refer to Israelis. They never use the term jews. In most moslem countries including Iran there is jews minorities. I can safely say no politically aware arab uses the term jew in reference to the israeli. They always use the term Zionist, because in deed not all Jews are Zionists. By the way there are even anti-zionist Jews, would you call them anti-semitic too. You can also safely say that Hamas or any other arabs are anti-zionists. You can also safely say that Hamas or any other arab consider zionism to be a form of racism. Hamas, main stream arabs, main stream moslems have no problem with the Jews acquiring their own country as long as it is not on Arabic soil. They consider Palestine to be an arabic soil and so it is, unless you deny palestinians existence. I am aware of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights positions about anti-zionism. Hamas doesn't believe that Jews should not have their own countries or they shouldn't have the right of self determination. Hamas, like any political party of any other country, merely believe that Jews like everybody else, should have no special claims on the party's country, because of their religious background. Where is the discrimination against Jews here? Where is the anti-semitic position. By the way I believe it is misleading and biased to call any arab an anti-semitic. It is also denying them their semitic origin, which is clearly anti-arab and consequently, anti-semitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhizabr (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"They consider Palestine to be an arabic soil and so it is, unless you deny palestinians existence." I don't deny the Palestinians existence and I don't consider it an Arabic soil. Most Arabs don't consider it their soil, but probably do consider it Palestinian soil. The Jewish right to the soil is well founded both in the bible and by historians, much unlike the Palestinian right to the soil. In fact, the Palestinian existence as a nation before the end of the 19th century is disputed and before the formation of a nation, there can't be no national rights. At best, the Palestinian right to the soil starts at about 1900 and even at those time they did not rule it as a nation, only owned it as individuals (some of them owned it as individuals before that but did not consider themselves Palestinians since the term did not exist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selalerer (talk • contribs) 00:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Alhizabr! you mention a important fact, I agree and think the other articles related to this topic and antisemitic in the meaning of anti-zionist, must be changed.Morosoph00 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I 'm agree too. I think these facts must be add to section 6 of this article and describes exact Hamas idea about jews and Zionism.Erik.catalan (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing 'anti-Semitic' into 'anti-Zionist' is misleading and biased. The argument that the word 'anti-Zionist' thus can be linked to the Wikipedia article on anti-Zionism is false, as the word Antisemitism' is also covered in Wikipedia. Both in that article and in this article, the usage of the word 'Antisemitism' is in line with the definitions given in English dictionaries. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, defines the word as 'Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews'. Although Hamas from time to time claims they are not against Jews, but only against Zionists, their propaganda is clearly anti-Jewish. Their denial of the Holocaust and the references to the forged 'Protocols' (one of the favourite anti-Semitic texts used in nazi-propaganda) clearly confirms the anti-Semitic policy of Hamas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.1.236 (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The infamous Protocols are an example of anti-semitism, not anti-zionism. Therefore any work influenced by them should logically be called influenced by anti-semitism. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The infamous protocols' translated to arabic is "the protocols of Zion's elders". So in Arab minds Zionists are blamed for the infamous protocols not the Jews. Most people in the arab world distinguish between the zionists and jews. Can you produce a reference where Hamas denied the holocaust. By the way there is neither arabic nor moslem anti-semitic tradition. Historically, persecuted Jews from Europe used to find refuge in arabic/moslem states, whether it is in Bagdad, Damascus, Cordoba or Istanbul. However there is a clear Arabic Anti-Zionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhizabr (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear user "157.193.1.236", I suggest you and other users to study this subject to realize that jews aren't zionist and zionism isn't a religion. http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/differencejudzion.html Erik.catalan (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas Leaders

Reuters gave a couple of sentence of biography on Sa`id Siyam, who was killed today.

Hamas interior minister killed in Israeli air raid Reuters 15 Jan 2009 http://uk.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUKLF77661 [Saeed Seyyam, former Hamas interior minister,] was regarded as a smart leader and an outspoken preacher. Outlining his policies, Seyyam told Reuters in an interview in March 2006: "The day will never come when any Palestinian would be arrested because of his political affiliation or because of resisting the occupation. "On the contrary, the new Hamas regime will seek to better coordinate the Palestinian assault on the Jewish state." PinkWorld (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Holocaust Denial

Mashaal continued by saying that Hamas believed the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust was "exaggerated." "We don't deny the Holocaust, but we believe the Holocaust was exaggerated by the Zionist movement to whip up people," he said. "We don't deny the fact but we don't accept two issues. We don't accept the exaggerating of numbers and we don't accept that Israel uses this to do what it wants." ["Mashaal offers to stop civilian attacks," By JPOST.COM STAFF AND AP, The Jerusalem Post, 01 Apr 2008, at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1206632372365&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull]

Is it possible, though, that claims of exaggeration fall into the category of Holocaust denial? It isn't as if Khalid Mash`al has accepted that the Holocaust ocurred in the way that is normally accepted by mainstream historians. PinkWorld (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Claims of exaggeration are regarded as Holocaust denial in countries where denial is illegal. Although denial is the correct term, it is probably POV pushing to accuse Hamas of denial without a qualifier as to what exactly they are denying as most readers would assume that it meant denial that it occured at all. Wayne (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't deny the Holocaust, but we believe the Holocaust was exaggerated by the Zionist movement to whip up people Looks pretty clear that they dont deny it? Just suspicion against "the Zionist movement". — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 06:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This article and this one imply the acceptance that their was a holocaust. In fact, the whole site is full of analogies with Israel acting like Nazis and ministers acting like Hitler, so they obviously believe there was a holocaust. Having said that, I've heard that the education system doesn't mention it and as the territory has been largely cut off from the outside world, there is a high level of ignorance there. But then, many Japanese don't think they lost WW2 because the national school curriculum doesn't make this clear. 93.97.43.69 (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and Hamas

As I scroll down the talk section, I see much conversation on this topic. I am writing hear to try and clarify some of this stuff and also to consolidate a bit. So perhaps further discussions on this apparently controversial topic can continue here instead of being spread out across 3 or 4 sections. Note: I have not made a specific edit, the point here is to clarify what is going on so that unnecessary edits are not made.

First, there is a lot of apparent confusion on the word "anti-Semitism" itself. This single web-page [13] shows definitions of the word from a wide variety of sources. Every single one of them specifically defines it as "prejudice against Jews" or something similar. One source notes the definition "hatred of Semites, not in common usage". Some people have said that by referencing this term in an article involving Jews and Arabs (both Semitic peoples), it opens the door for confusion. Wikipedia (English) is designed to be written at a certain level and in a certain style. and since the world is clearly defined in all sources only somebody who did not understand the meaning of the world could be confused. Clearly Wikipedia cannot take responsibility for something like this. Some people suggest the change "anti-Jewish". I think anti-Semitic is the more standard usage, but they do at least mean the same thing. But I must stress this: the change from anti-Semitic to anti-Zionist is simply inaccurate and (to be blunt) the people that support it are most likely POV. A Zionist is a person in favour of the creation/existence of a Jewish state. Not all Jews are Zionists (although most are) and not all Zionists are Jews (in fact, most Zionists are not Jews).So it is clear that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two completely different things. This is especially critical when pragmatically speaking, many people today see anti-Semitism as a form of racism and hence despicable, whereas anti-Zionism might be ok. I think frankly that most people suggesting this change are expressing POV by trying to give Hamas a white wash.

Second, is Hamas anti-Semitic? I'm currently staring at a PDF of Hamas' entire charter. Here's the link: [14]. I recommend you do a search on the word "Jew" and simply read through. For example, the charter specifically mentions "our struggle against the Jews". If Hamas has a struggle against "the Jews", that would indeed qualify it to be an anti-Semitic organization. There are additional references and quotes, which you can work through yourself after you download the document. I think it speaks for itself.

Here is another article, showing that at some point Hamas denied the Holocaust officially on their website: [15]. Holocaust denial is generally considered explicitly anti-Semitic.

I therefore feel that calling Hamas an "anti-Semitic" organization is entirely appropriate and verified. It does not come down whatsoever to observations of third party commentators, and in fact none are necessary because Hamas openly proclaims it by itself. This is not like looking at a lone statement of a member or a momentary vote in their parliament; this is their founding, dedicating document. This document would most appropriately be compared to the Declaration of Independence for a nation. Any nation whose declaration of independence was racist would surely be labeled a racist nation. Note that even calling an organization anti-Semitic does not mean that all its members are anti-Semitic. The United States of 1900 was an explicitly sexist nation, woman couldn't vote (in general). It does not follow that every American male was sexist.

Unless someone can post something doubting the veracity of the above translation, or else seriously goes through that document and claims that its not anti-Semitic (which I doubt is possible) then this issue should be laid to rest.

Nirf (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion. Furthermore, there is no confusion on what the term "antisemitism" relates to, within the context of Wikipedia; this is clearly laid out in the Antisemitism article. I am also confused as to why someone put ^{[citation needed]} tags on the title of the "Antisemitism" topic, since the proceeding passages clearly denote examples, with citations. Unless someone can come up with a logical rationale that tag should be removed. —Hiddekel (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Antisemantism

If nobody yet used this term i will introduce it. Lets consider what mean semantic and what mean anti, so antisemnatism is obvious. Now will be two group of people those who say antisemitism and the other more logic who say antisem'antism. Only two letters change but big logical difference. I giving you the correct word on the GPL licence. Hmm tehre is alredy 5700 results in google , anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.228.45 (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

POV: Best Known for Suicide Bombings/Attacks

I have tagged the sentence "Notorious for its suicide attacks and other attacks..." with "POV-Statement| Wikipedia articles should not claim the notoriety of individuals or groups for acts or characteristics, but rather should describe the specific acts or characteristics and cite the sources verifying those acts or characteristics."

It is an opinion, not a fact, that Hamas is known, well-known, best known, or notorious for its violent acts. The fact that many people hold that opinion and assert it in their writings does not change the opinion in into a fact.

According to the Wikipedia article on "NPOV",

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively.

While "Hamas is known/notorious for its suicide attacks" is not a value statement in the same way that "Tiger Woods is the best golf player in history" is, the most appropriate approach in Wikipedia is similar: let the facts speak for themseleves. We can cite how many attacks Hamas has done and how many casualties resulted, for example.

Another approach is to state who, specifically, holds the opinion that Hamas is best known for its suicide attacks. This means citing a specific person or referring to a survey. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia cannot have its own opinion. It can only cite the opinions of others.

The assertion that Hamas is best known for suicide bombings/attacks is not the only NPOV problem in this article. The fact that it is made as part of the introduction, and the fact that so much material in the article is devoted to Hamas's violence, also constitute an NPOV problem of undue weight. I fully support the tag that has been placed on the article as a whole and hope to see this article cleaned up. PinkWorld (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

I agree with this. People I have spoken to familiar with Palestinians think Hamas is best known for its lack of corruption. It is also know, since the election, for being the legitimate elected government of all the Palestinians. I suggest the currently included opinion about unspecified people's opinion should be replaced with something factual, such as Hamas has organised suicide attacks against civilians as part of its military strategy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There has been lengthy discussion about this in the past. We are not really concerned with what "people I have spoken to" but rather with what reliable sources say. The article currently has 15 reliable sources that say it is best known or notorious for suicide attacks, so this view appears to be the commonly held one. Is Hamas best known for something else? Are there sources which say so? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You will notice that none of the references given are Palestinian or even Arab. I'm happier with the new version - the point being that Hamas is perceived differently in the West and the Arab world, and WP should try and give a neutral (ie non western specific) view. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for that alternative view? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, as I don't follow this very closely. However a know two independent western sources who have worked there, and they say the view on the ground is very different from that portrayed in the western media. Hamas is attempting to govern 1.5m people, and is best known for running the schools and hospitals. The handful of suicide attacks in Israel don't affect these people directly. You notice that my assertion that Hamas is only best known in the West for suicide bombings is equally consistent with all the references. With all the references being from the west, the references are being over-interpreted in saying that non-western opinion supports this view. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - I've been stimulated to embark on some elementary research. This site quoted in the article is supposed to give a Hamas perspective, but I can't find any mention of "suicide" in it. If you can find one that supports suicide attacks, we should include it. Matters are further complicated because the arabic versions are often more extreme than the English language versions ie they translate the culture as well as the language, but I don't speak arabic. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would guess right now Hamas is known more for launching rockets even than for suicide attacks. But then, to describe them as notorious for that is not quite right either. In any case, the value judgments in these wordings strike me as misplaced in this context, particularly with Hamas' increased prominence recently and how quickly the political world changes. Mackan79 (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes - 'notorious' is a value judgement. Further, this article should be about Hamas, not about other people so what we want here is stuff about Hamas, not stuff about how some people may or may not view Hamas. Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I will just add though that something can be notorious in only some places and still be notorious. But if it is best known for something, this must apply overall. So notorious is preferable to best known, given the political concentration of the sources. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Un-indent. It really does not mater what we have heard on the street or even how many analysist, experts, or op-eds agree with us. The fact remains that no scientific, peer-reviewed, verifiable study has been conducted to measure the opinion of western peoples on Hamas in order to determine its notoriety for conducting suicide attacks on Israel. Even a compilation of several of those analyses, expert opinions, and op-eds constitutes original research. What can be verified by facts are the numerous suicide attacks that Hamas has conducted against Israel, the fact that they have stopped such attacks, and the fact that they now launch rockets, grenades, and other projectiles at Israeli military and civilian targets. If those facts are listed and cited, they will speak for themselves.

I can claim all that I want that Palestinian people support Hamas or hate Hamas based on dozens of statements that I have collected over the past two or three weeks. It is meaningless in terms of Wiki use, however, because it is original research. No sociologist has been to Palestine to conduct a scientific, peer-reviwed, verifiable study determining the extent of the popularity or lack thereof of Hamas among Palestinians. Similarly, a long list of people claiming that Hamas is notorious for its suicide bombings is original research: no verifiable method, no peer reviews, no publication in a major scientific or social journal.

I have changed the wording to reflect the fact that Hamas has conducted many suicide bombings. I also added a fact and a POV tag to the reference that Hamas has gained popularity in Palestine. If it remains, it needs to be cited. However, it is another claim regarding the notoriety of Hamas and carries that POV baggage. I have also added the statement that Hamas has come to accept a two-state solution based on the 1967 Green Line and cited it. I added another ref to the statement that Hamas does not describe its conflict with Israel in terms of antisemitism.

The references might need to be adjusted to reflect the fact that Hamas carried out suicide attacks, to what extent, that it now carries out rocket and other attacks, and to what extent it does so. Civilian impact would also be a fact to state and reference. In addition, I think that Wikipedia has a place where one can lay out the quotes from one's references that are relevant to the fact that was cited so that the reference section itself does not get crowded with quotations. I remember seeing a reference to a Wikipedia policy on including quotations in the references section, though now I cannot remember where. PinkWorld (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Indeed. The idea that the Wikipedia must adopt the exact "best known" phraseology used in a media source, when it is not a direct quotation, has long been a ridiculous argument. So why not re-write the passage as a direct quote of a reliable source, rather than presenting it as some sort of golden mantra that must be preserved? Tarc (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of WP:OR

I have removed twice the section on Holocaust acceptance, as it is original research. Please discuss here before reinserting.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That's quite original research. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

HAMAS is a terrorist group. Not mentioning that in the article is clearly biased.

SOURCE: http://www.cdi.org/program/issue/document.cfm?DocumentID=384&IssueID=56&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=39&issueID=56 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.210.203 (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a humorous statement. You cited that Hamas is a terrorist group using the website of another terrorist group. I mean, how can you consider that the terror that Hamas commits on a group of people is comparable to the terror that the Center for Defense Information commits on another group? I think your perspective on the matter might be malnourished. I am sure we can get a statement from the 'official' leader of Hamas claiming that the CDI is a terrorist organization. Do we want Wikipedia involved with identifying terrorists? Can we have just one page for that and not make the mention on every page? I mean, every group has enemies. Should this site take a side? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hamas has been designated as a terrorist group by most Western governments. This is notable, and the article notes it, in an WP:NPOV way. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So. Most Western Governments are considered terrorists by Hamas. Why do we have to use the word terrorist? Doesn't everyone try to incite terror in their enemy? Why does Wikipedia have to get involved in calling names? I disagree that the article is written in a NPOV. It is obvious the article is politically and racially charged. It is not something Wikipedia HAS to say. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Western governments are not the "enemy" of Hamas, and no, not "everyone" tries to "incite terror in their enemy." The article doesn't "call names", it doesn't "take a side", and it doesn't say Hamas is a terrorist organization. Instead, it merely lists the governments that have designated it as such. That is both notable, and entirely in line with WP:NPOV. It is, indeed, something Wikipeida HAS to say. Feel free to add to the article the list of western governments that Hamas has designated as terrorist. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, good save Jayjg. Going from justifying the unsigned OP to "simply stating that some nations call them terrorists". Its as if we didnt see the underlying, less than subtle, implying. But hey, since you didnt actively state it, I guess you "didnt actually mean it". Luckily for us it dosnt really matter, as since the military forces of Hamas wear uniforms and recognise a higher authority that is legally in charge of the nation, this pathetic semantics game dosnt apply. Odd isnt it, Hamas soldiers wear identifying marks (they have standards and insignias marking them as members of Hamas in combat, that they wear basic civilian garb as well dosnt excuse they are registered soliders), and yet Israel dosnt treat them as POW if captured. Hmm, how odd. I guess a terrorist state like Israel cant figure out its definitions. Whats that? Its not a terrorist state? Gee, love to hear the explanation of how its not. 60.230.218.136 (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have any specific, policy-based changes you feel should be made to the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Alongside the words "a Palestinian Sunni paramilitary organization and political party" in the beginning of the article it should also be mentioned that Hamas is considered by many as a terrorist organisation. Since the same point has been made in the #Article Intro subsection on this page, I will make the change tomorrow, unless serious objections arise.Debresser (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively. The terrorist designation by some states is already covered; there's no reason to move it into the first paragraph. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I hear you. Let's hear some more opinions.Debresser (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel that if we are going to include the fact that some states/organizations list Hamas as a terrorist organization that we should include the same in the article on the U.S., Brittain, Spain, France after all all of these have been declared as terrorists organizations at one time or another. No? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.200.188 (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a point here. Therefore I would like to ask you to bring references. I understand you would like to bring references pertaining to aforementioned states? These references should be actual, of course.Debresser (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Then again, it seems that terroristic activity is somewhat higher on the agenda of the Hamas than of France e.g. So even if you should provide references as to the above, the point might be argued that mention of it should not be made right in the first paragraph apart from with the Hamas. Your opinions?Debresser (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "higher agenda"? When a US politician says something "We will hunt down Al Quaida in Afghanistan by whatever means necessary", is terrorism then high on the US agenda? --JensMueller (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Committing acts of terror is on their agenda. Talking about people who need obvious things explained to them... Debresser (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't believe that Hamas is a terrorist group, go to their website. You will see it right in their recruitment videos: they proudly launch rockets at civilians from civilian areas while dressing as civilians and using other civilians as human shields. Watch the video where they launch the rockets, and then look at where they are doing it. Don't take anyone else's word for it, get it right from Hamas themselves!

Hamas fits the definition of a terrorist group: no uniforms when they fight, targeting civilians - it is wrong not to call them exactly what they are. FlaviaR (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of Word "Antisemitic"

The term "antisemitic" does not actually mean a hatred for Jews, but a hatred for Semites, which would include Palestinians. It should be either removed, or clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.102.145 (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many words in the English language whose meanings do not directly follow from their constituent parts. Antisemitism falls under this category. It's a term invented in 19th century Germany specifically to mean the dislike of Jews. Thems the words we're dealt.

96.246.15.36 (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The term 'Antisemitic' might need to be removed for this article simply based on the fact that it takes us far away from the negatively charged argument surrounding this article. On another note, That second paragraph is a bear to read and even more of a beast to edit. We should dive into that well referenced area and cut out about 90% of the documentation so other editors are not so intimidated when trying to improve the article. We can write what we need to say there without all that mess. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The word "Antisemitic" has a specific meaning in English, hatred of Jews. Since the material is indeed "well referenced", entirely WP:NPOV, highly notable, and if anything apologetic regarding Hamas, it should not be removed. Nor should the references, of course, since they are there to ensure that simple facts are not deleted, despite persistent apologetic attempts to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The word 'anti-Semitism' is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as 'Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews'. So, even if the word etymologically might more generally mean a hatred for Semites, the actual present-day usage is respected in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.1.236 (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the dictionary definition, and standard usage issues could lead to accepting the term antisemitism, but in this article and others dealing with arab vs Israeli concerns, I think it is inappropriate and confusing. Anti-zionism might be the best alternate term, although a simple more general anti-jewish could also work. Antisemitic was used by Europeans without consideration of other semitic peoples. We can and should do better in our days of globalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.154.86 (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if it were "inappropriate and confusing," which it is not, substituting "Anti-Zionist" is disingenuous at best. It should stay anti-Semitic if only to tell the truth. FlaviaR (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

^ "Israel and Hamas reach Gaza truce deal". AFP. 2008-06-17. Retrieved 2008-06-17.
^ http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_11410945 "Death to all Juice", Denver Post, (January 9, 2009).
^ http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/nizar_rayyan_of_hamas_on_gods.php “Nizar Rayyan of Hamas on God's Hatred of Jews”, The Atlantic, (January 2, 2009).

[1] "Israel and Hamas reach Gaza truce deal". AFP. 2008-06-17. Retrieved 2008-06-17.

[2] ttp://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_11410945 "Death to all Juice", Denver Post, (January 9, 2009).

[3] ttp://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/nizar_rayyan_of_hamas_on_gods.php “Nizar Rayyan of Hamas on God's Hatred of Jews”, The Atlantic, (January 2, 2009).

[1]

[2]

[3]