Talk:Hamas/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Competing lead sections

Emphasis added where latest 'new lead' significantly differs from just prior 'old lead'. The changes fully justify the edit explanation that the 'new lead' is the NPOV lead section while the 'old lead' was the Israeli perspective. To expand just a little, on the lead paragraph: it's remarkable that the 'old lead' paragraph does not state that Hamas governs the Gaza Strip, and the OR implicit in the phrase "most analysts," and the falsehood that is "EU classifies Hamas as terrorist." Simply unacceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. In paragraph three, it's remarkable that no information is provided on 2010's continuing blockade or on the flotilla incident. In the final paragraph, it's clear distortion not to include Hamas's latest position on what 'state' it will accept.Haberstr (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

new lead

Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement") is the Palestinian socio-political organization that governs the Gaza Strip. Maintaining an affiliated military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades,[5][6][7] and described by many Western analysts as Islamist,[8] the group was established in 1987 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic fundamentalist group.[9] Hamas was formed during the First Intifada, an uprising opposing Israel's occupation of the Palestinian Territories. Since the 1990s the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades has conducted numerous attacks upon Israeli civilian and military targets. Between 1993 and 2005 the attacks included suicide bombings;[10] after 2005 rocket attacks continued against Israeli targets. Canada,[11] Israel,[12] and the United States[13] classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, and the European Union subjects it to restrictive measures applied “with a view to combating terrorism.”[14]

In the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections Hamas won a decisive majority in the Palestinian Parliament,[15] defeating the PLO-affiliated Fatah party. Following the elections, the United States and the EU halted financial assistance to the Hamas-led administration.[16][17] In March of 2007 a national unity government, headed by Hamas’s Ismail Haniya, was briefly formed, but this failed to restart international financial assistance.[18] Tensions over control of Palestinian security forces soon erupted into the 2007 Battle of Gaza,[19] after which Hamas retained control of Gaza while its officials were ousted from government positions in the West Bank.[20][19] Israel and Egypt then imposed an economic blockade on Gaza, on the grounds that Fatah forces were no longer providing security there.[21]

In June 2008, Hamas ceased rocket attacks on Israel following an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire, but attacks by other organizations continued despite Hamas efforts to prevent them.[22] Two months before the end of the ceasefire the conflict escalated, after a November 4 Israeli incursion into Gaza killed seven Hamas militants, which led to a renewal of Hamas rocket attacks.[22][23] In late December 2008, Israel attacked Gaza, withdrawing its forces from the territory in mid-January 2009.[24] The economic blockade, which has imposed severe hardship on most Gazans, has continued, but its severity was eased in June, 2010, following the Gaza flotilla raid, in which Israel prevented a flotilla of supply ships from reaching Gaza.[25]

Hamas's 1988 charter calls for replacing the State of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[26] However, in July 2009, Khaled Meshal, Hamas's Damascus-based political bureau chief, stated Hamas's willingness to cooperate with "a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders," provided that Palestinian refugees be given the right to return to Israel and that East Jerusalem be recognized as the new state's capital.[27][28] Some experts and advocacy groups believe that the Hamas Charter and statements by some Hamas leaders display the influence of antisemitic conspiracy theories,[29] but Hamas officials describe its conflict with Israel as political and not religious.[30][31][32][30]

Haberstr (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

old lead

Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement") is the Palestinian Islamist socio-political organization, with an affiliated military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades,[5][6][7] and described by most analysts as fundamentalist or Islamist.[8] Canada,[9] Israel, European Union,[10] and the United States[11][12][13] classify Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Based largely upon the principles of Islamic fundamentalism that were gaining momentum throughout the Arab world in the 1980s, Hamas was founded as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1987, during the First Intifada.[14][15] The Hamas affiliated military wing was responsible for the majority of violence and killings attributed to Hamas and conducted numerous attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers. Tactics have included rocket attacks and from April 1993, until they ceased in January 2005, suicide bombings. Hamas violence has been directed at Israel, Egypt, and rivaling Palestinian movements in the West Bank and Gaza. [16]

In the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections Hamas won a decisive majority in the Palestinian Parliament,[17] defeating the PLO-affiliated Fatah party. Following the elections, the United States and the EU halted financial assistance to the Hamas-led administration.[18][19] In March 2007 a national unity government, headed by Hamas’s Ismail Haniya, was briefly formed, but this failed to restart international financial assistance.[20] Tensions over control of Palestinian security forces soon erupted into the 2007 Battle of Gaza,[21] after which Hamas retained control of Gaza while its officials were ousted from government positions in the West Bank.[22][21] Israel and Egypt then imposed an economic blockade on Gaza, on the grounds that Fatah forces were no longer providing security there.[23]

In June 2008, as part of an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire, Hamas ceased rocket attacks on Israel and attempted, in a limited fashion, to prevent attacks by other organizations.[24] After a four months calm, the conflict escalated when Israel carried out a military action with the stated aim to prevent an abduction planned by Hamas, using a tunnel that had been dug under the border security fence,[24] killing seven Hamas operatives. In retaliation, Hamas attacked Israel with a massive barrage of rockets.[24][25] In late December 2008, Israel attacked Gaza,[26] withdrawing its forces from the territory in mid-January 2009.[27]

Hamas's 1988 charter calls for replacing the State of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[28] Although the charter identifies the conflict as a "struggle against the Jews"[29], Hamas leaders claim it as political and not religious.[30][31][32][33][34] Some journalists, scholars and advocacy groups believe that the Hamas Charter and statements by Hamas leaders use antisemitic rhetoric.[35][36]

Haberstr (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are behaving as if you own the article, persistently pushing your own private version using massive unexplained reverts with complete disrespect to the opinions of other editors.

Some points why I am (partially) reverting your change, per WP:BRD:

1. The EU does consider Hamas a terrorist organization, as was demonstrated earlier, both the primary and secondary sources make this totally clear. Your insistence on choosing some a primary source which you don't interpret correctly and sticking to it in defiance to all contrary evidence from reliable sources, and with no other editor backing your opinion is simply infuriating. You are simply mixing up irrelevant EU council documents. It's a complicated international law matter and better left to the interpretation of secondary sources. But for example see Council Common Position 2006/380/CFSP of 29 May 2006 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Common Position 2006/231/CFSP .
2. For some unexplained reason you decided to omit the balancing information, "tunnel that had been dug under the border security fence" , the Hamas charter defining the conflict as "struggle against the Jews", and left only the contrary claims. Represending only the narrative of one side and neglecting the other narrative is a violation of WP:NPOV. Can you explain why only Hamas POV should be mentioned in the lead, and other viewpoints (or facts not comfortable to some viewpoints) should be omitted?
3. The flotilla incident is not mentioned in this article and while it was an important event, did not directly involve Hamas. So it doesn't belong in the lead of the Hamas article. This is not the article about the blockade. The lead is already long and mentioning this detail is simply undue weight. We can't have a full history of the conflict in the lead which should be 4 paragraphs or less.
4. The cited source specifically used the reservation "in a limited fashion" in regard to Hamas efforts to stop the rockets, why did this disappear from your version of the lead?

You have done little to explain why the "Old" lead is "POV" while the new lead is "NPOV", and did not discuss many of your changes. I'm expect you to discuss the above points per WP:BRD and reach agreement with OTHER editors. Marokwitz (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You have done little to explain why the "Old" lead is not "POV" while the new lead is "POV", and did not discuss many of your changes. I expect you to discuss the above points per WP:BRD and reach agreement with OTHER editors.Haberstr (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My two cents.

1. Reliable secondary sources may be right or wrong semantically but we have to accept their interpretation.
2. Mention of the tunnel in the lead is irrelevant as it is only one of hundreds "dug under the border security fence" and of no particular significance. Mentioning it in the lead may carry the implication it was the only one and that Israel was therefore justified.
   Specific details from the Hamas charter in the lead is irrelevant as the Charter is no longer enforced and explained in more detail in the body of the article.
   Having said that, I'm not particularly worried about these two points and cutting them both to reduce the size of the article probably carries more weight and justifies their removal.
3. The flotilla incident has nothing to do with Hamas.
4. "in a limited fashion" is not encyclopaedic language and is based on opinion rather than evidence and to imply the failures were deliberate is OR. "attempted to prevent attacks by other organizations" lets us know they were not always successful.Wayne (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wayne for your serious and to the point responses.

1. Agreed. And in any case I have shown the primary sources agree too. Marokwitz (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
2. It is not irrelevant. Both Israel and Hamas accuse each other of breaking the truce. The context of the clash was that Hamas were found to be digging a tunnel under the security fence from Gaza to Israel in attempt to kidnap additional soldiers. By mentioning that seven Hamas members were killed, without context, this implies that Hamas is right. Which NPOV says we shouldn't. So either the context should be mentioned, or we should drop also the words "seven Hamas members killed" .
3. Agreed.
4. They stated that they attempted to prevent attacks, but the fact that they truly attempted to prevent attacks is debated. The cited source says that their efforts were insincere and very limited in nature. Can you suggest how to fix this wording to make it encyclopedic and neutral?

Marokwitz (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. After rereading your note about the tunnels, I think you may be confusing this with the separate topic of smuggling tunnels to Egypt aimed to circumvent the blockade, altogether a different topic.... Marokwitz (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

2. The lead says "with the stated aim to prevent an abduction planned by Hamas" which does not imply Hamas was right or wrong. Israel had a reason for the incursion and Hamas had their reason for the retaliation. 4. The source that says "limited in nature" is Israeli. It is known Hamas prosecuted several people for firing rockets and stopped several other attacks from occuring so saying how sincere they were is difficult when only 20 rockets were fired (by Fatah and Islamic Jihad not Hamas) in the six months before November 2008 compared to almost 300 per month prior to the ceasefire. Wayne (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

2. I don't object to shortening the tunnel passage, as long as the stated aim of the operation is kept clear (it was missing from Haberstr's version).

4. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no general rule saying that Israeli sources are non reliable. On at least two occasions, Hamas security personnel arrested people accused of firing rockets. All were later released however, and no charges were brought against them. (see [1]). The sincereness and strength of Hamas efforts in general is disputed by Israeli and other sources. Since there is a dispute we can't just state that as a fact. The NY Times, for example, uses the wording "some efforts". [2] Marokwitz (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the original text with the modifications I've mentioned rather Haberstr's version in it's entirety. I'm not saying Israeli sources are not reliable but rather that almost all sources tend to be negative in general because of Hamas prior history despite a lack of evidence to support such a position. If sources say their sincereness is debated this is fine in the article body but not in the lead unless there is solid evidence that they encourage attacks to continue. For example reducing rocket attacks from 300 to 3 a month for any other organisation would normally be considered an excellent result. A reluctance to prosecute should not count as a lack of intent to stop the attacks. Wayne (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wayne, I still think that it is non neutral to say without reservation that Hamas attempted to stop the attacks, when the reliable sources describe a much less clear-cut reality. Still, since I respect your opinion, I am offering a compromise, which is to use the wording "some efforts" (based on the wording used by NY times). What do you say? Marokwitz (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds ok. I added a Palestinian source that lists who considers Hamas a terrorist organisation (the same four as in our lead). Being a pro-Hamas source it should put that arguement to bed.Wayne (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, changed to "made some efforts"  Done. Marokwitz (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

PS in accordance to the new Palestinian citation added I added Japan which was previously absent from the list. Also the UK designation is for some reason unlisted, strange?Marokwitz (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The UK case is unique. Although they designated Hamas as a terrorist organisation in 2003, since 2007 it has basically only been applied to the brigades as the UK accepts Hamas as the democratically elected Palestinian government.Wayne (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a change of designation after 2003. On 22 September 2003, Hamas as a whole was designated by the UK Government, and it's still designated so. I think there is an error in your interpretation of the BBC article. The author of the BBC piece says, referring to potential prosecution of Interpal (not Hamas), as his own opinion, not attributed to an official UK officer "Any decision to prosecute would also need to be weighed against possible bridge building activity by the Foreign Office to Hamas". I can't see how you came from this sentence to the conclusion that "since 2007 it has basically only been applied to the brigades the UK accepts Hamas as the democratically elected Palestinian government." Do you have any sources that explicitly back your assertion? Marokwitz (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No response for several days, does this mean we are in agreement ? Marokwitz (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've found several sources who say Britain proscribes only the brigades including the Australian Government terrorism website that was updated this year but finding British sources is the problem. Although the article is about Interpal they are reporting what officials of the Home Office have told them. So we have secondary sources but no primary source. Wayne (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Images

A new editor Gilabrand has shifted an image and added another. The image of a Hamas rally [3] that he placed in the section on children was more than twice the size of the section making it POV. Also implying the child in the image was a combatant is not supported by the section. I reduced the size to match the size of the section, which he reverted, but then I noticed he had moved it from a more appropriate section. I moved it back to the public opinion section. The other image was a political cartoon [4] that was not only inappropriate but carried racist overtones as it's theme is not supported anywhere in the article. If Gilabrand wants to add such controversial images he can ask for consensus here.Wayne (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

National Liberation movement?

Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement") is a self-described Palestinian national liberation movement, with a socio-political wing and a military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades,[5] and is described as fundamentalist or Islamist.[6] Canada,[7] Israel, the European Union,[8][9] Japan[10][11], and the United States[12] classify Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Is this a joke? Please tell me this is a joke. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying it is "Islamic Resistance Movement" and one word later, "self-described Palestinian national liberation movement" is quite a strange choice of words.... It is primarily self described as an Islamic Resistance Movement. Marokwitz (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Every Islamist movement is a national liberation movement. Hezbollah, Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc. I can't understand how users continue to insert such problematic edits unchallenged and without sanctions. This is becoming a serious in the article. We need more policing here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: Looking through the sources it is clear the consensus is Hamas is an Islamist/fundamentalist organization. Hamas does not explicitly describe itself as a "national liberation movement", editors have managed to obfuscate the content of RS and failed to represent them accurately. Hamas is an Islamic national liberation movement, just like every other Islamist movement. I have a feeling editors are trying to pimp Hamas as a national liberation movement in the literal sense (i.e, nation of Palestinians) but this is not the case. Honestly editors get banned for less than this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello my broseph. My revert was based on the the referenced article (although it should be resistance movement according to the source, I did miss that)which was trying to balance the groups/supporters' views with those of the rest of the world. Every Islamist organization isn't a national liberation/resistance group; Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, all have Islamist parties with a vested interest in the status quo and zero interest in overthrowing much of anything. You changed it to reflect your definition of Islamism, assuming the resistance was implied, while removing additional information. What about "self-described Palestinian resistance organization" or something along those lines? I don't really care if Hamas get's described as a pack of vampires but the edit dumbed down the source. Sol (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The article already begins with the words "Islamic resistance movement". Why add "self-described Palestinian resistance organization" when it is already clearly written in the same sentence ? Marokwitz (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason you'd add "Islamist" to a political party with "Islamic" in the name. Both are semi-redundant but provide a modicum of clarification (i.e., this is not a party devoted to resisting Islam or increasing Muslim opposition to electrical current). Meh, call them deconstructionist-animists if you like, I'm not even sure why I had this article watch-listed. Sol (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Hamas describes itself as. Mainstream sources confirm Hamas is an Islamist organization inspired by the philosophies of the Muslim brotherhood and the general Islamist movement that took off in the 1980s. An editor managed to twist the research of an author without anyone noticing. The original source did not describe Hamas as a national liberation movement in the sense of liberating a nationality (palestinians), but rather the nation of Muslims. Hezbollah is the sister of Hamas and yet it not classified as a national liberation movement. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The goals of Hamas are not only "liberation". The lead already explains clearly what are the stated goals of Hamas. Marokwitz (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Let call a group what ist is Hamas is a terrorist group at the very least instread of military wing replac with terrorist wing. Abbas is the executive head and Hamas does not follow his order. Thus it is a not military.Basil rock (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Wikifan12345 has added and restored Between 2000-2003, Saudi Arabia transferred $55.7 million to the families of eight suicide bombers through a committee run by the Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz. despite the source saying The family of each listed terrorist received $5,340, according to the Saudi Committee documents...including [to] eight that lost their lives while perpetrating homicide bombings. The edit is POV, undue, false and irrelevant anyway as the article has already stated that Saudi Arabia provided the majority of funding. Another edit he has made is this one to the lead Sheik Ahmed Yassin declared in 1987 that Hamas was founded for the purpose of Jihad, to liberate Palestine and to establish an Islamic state "from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River." which I reverted as innapropriate for the lead and I suggested he include it in the history section. These are only the most recent of many problematic edits which have been taking up a lot of time to correct. Trying to work with Wikifan12345 is frustrating as he insists his edits are word perfect and he refuses to compromise of offer reasons to support his edits over any compromise suggested. Can we get some help here to fix this problem? Wayne (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh.

The source is very explicit: Overall, this Committee reported the transfer of $55.7 million mostly to the families of suicide bombers and to the families of imprisoned or injured Palestinian militants. pg 37

I even included this in the rationale just for emphasis in case editors don't have the time. Man, reading is so hard! Maybe you should try it sometime.

Ambiguous claims of "POV1111!!" is the modus operandi of User:Haberstr. Along with many editors, I am not exactly stunned when cries of "POV" are made. Sheik Ahmed Yassin declared that Hamas was founded for the purpose of Jihad, to "liberate Palestine and to establish and Islamic state." This is not undue, false, or POV. It is a true statement and does not belong in history because it is not history - it is current. It is extracted directly from article fifteen of the Hamas charter, titled "The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty." 1, 2, and 3.

You constantly revert edits without sufficient reasoning which begs the question if you actually read them before gutting the content. Clearly you haven't read them or else we wouldn't be having this talk discussion. Removing statements from notable figures (like the freaking POTUS) as "inflammatory rhetoric" demonstrates a complete lacking understanding of basic policy. the rhetoric made be inflammatory, it probably is - but it doesn't negate the value of who is making the statements.

I spend a lot of time reading sources before citing content from them, maybe you should as well. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to respond Wayne? If not I'll go ahead and restore the edits soon. Please include a more thorough and convincing rationale for deleting cited material. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to respond when you have not made a case for your edit. The source is clear...It states that Saudi Arabia gave Hamas $55.7 million over three years. It also states that "most" of this money went to the families of Palestinians imprisoned or killed including the families of eight suicide bombers. Then it states the families "of each listed terrorist received $5,340". There are several errors. 1: Saudi Arabia gave nothing to the families as the money is given to, and then distributed by, HAMAS which is stated in the article. 2: it says "listed terrorists" when this is patently false as not all those jailed, or even a significant number for that matter, are terrorists. 3: it neglects to mention that the money also goes to families who have had housing destroyed by the IDF. The section already states most funding comes from Saudi Arabia so your edit is redundant. It is also irrelevant as it describes a sum of money covering three years almost a decade ago so adds no information not already in the section. Wayne (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought I responded to this - hm, probably didn't submit. Wayne, the source clearly states Saudi Arabia donated 55.7 million to Hamas. It doesn't matter where the money went, the funds exchanged hands from Saudi Arabia to Hamas. That is what we care about. The fact that this occured almost a decade ago is totally irrelevant. Gutting sourced material under obnoxious claims such as "POV" as you do frequently is becoming a serious problem in this article. Dare I suggest ownership issues? Deleting statements from world leaders cause you say they are inflammatory and undue? My edits should be restored until you can find a decent reasoning to remove them, thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345's edits are clearly getting out of hand. He restores his edits without even replying to the reasons they were reverted other than stating little more than that he is right. He added this edit:

George W. Bush, former president of the United States, declared in December of 2001: "Hamas has obtained much of the money that it pays for murder abroad right here in the United States…it raised $30 million from people in America last year."

which I reverted on November 8 with the comment Deleted POV quote. Quote was made in 2001, lacks context, is not authoritative and is inflammatory rhetoric. He reverted on November 13 with the comment restoring notable statement from world leader until sufficient rationale to remove it is provided so I accepted I needed to be more clear and again reverted with what I believe is sufficient rational to require a reply: Irrelevant, it's 9 years old. Redundant, article already states that the money comes from charities. POV, it implies the money is used to murder people. He restored his version with the comment: are you done wayne? ive made my case in talk, stop following me around. The justification for the edit in talk he is refering to was stating that while "the rhetoric may be inflammatory" the notability of the person "who is making the statement" is sufficient.
This is an ongoing pattern of behaviour on this and other related articles, Wikifan12345 refuses to adequately adddress reasons given for reverting his edits and restores claiming he has made his case without actually doing so. His failure to cooperate for a solution is too time consuming and I'm dissapointed that other editors are not only not assisting to work out a compromise but are leaving his bad edits in the article ie:"Saudi Arabia transferred $55.7 million to the families of eight suicide bombers". Do I need to open a RFC?Wayne (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to open an RFC. Any uninvolved commentator will tell you ambiguous claims like "out of context" and "POV" are not serious rationales to remove cited content. Hamas is not a charity organization. Saudi Arabia donated money to Hamas. So what if some of the funds might have gone into the hands of families of suicide bombers or whatever? That isn't our concern. Just because a source takes a POV doesn't mean the content itself is POV. Hamas isn't exactly a neutral organization to begin with. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A clearly stated RfC might be a good idea.

Wikifan12345 is a committed I/P warrior who has a long history of getting into disputes on this page. I think some WP:NPOV, WP:OWN issues could be raised here. NickCT (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused, doesn't it say first: “reported the transfer of $55.7 million mostly to the families of suicide bombers and to the families of imprisoned or injured Palestinian militants” and then later "They listed each “martyr” and the manner in which each one died, including eight that lost their lives while perpetrating homicide bombings"? So, therefore shouldn't the sentence read something like "55.7 mil to the families of Palestinian militants, including 8 suicide bombers"? Other than that I don't see what's wrong with the info, and don't understand what grounds Wayne has for removing it. HarunAlRashid (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The source being from 2001 doesn't make it irrelevant, Wikipedia articles should not cover their topics only from a recent perspective. However, having said that, "Saudi Arabia transferred $55.7 million to the families of eight suicide bombers" is clearly not what the source says. The source seems to say that the $55 million were distributed by a committee for assisting the second intifada ("Al-Quds uprising") and not to Hamas specifically. It is not clear how much of the $55 million went to Hamas, and how much went to other groups. The source says that 120 Hamas affiliated martyrs were given $5340 each, which gives a total sum of $640,000. Where the rest of the $55 million went is not specified. I think this source is not being used correctly . I'll fix this, and try to locate better sources saying where the $55 million went exactly. Marokwitz (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I found the original source and reworded the paragraph to what that said.

In 2002, a Saudi Arabian charity donated money to the Saudi Council to Support the Palestinian Intefada run by the Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz who said the council will give the families of up to 200 Palestinians killed, including eight suicide bombers who were killed in "martyr" operations, $5,333 each.[171][172]

The Saudi Council to Support the Palestinian Intefada is a charity set up to support families who have had their homes destroyed and the families of Palestinians injured, disabled or killed. They make no differentiation between militants and civilians and the article didn't even mention Hamas militants. The money is paid directly to families by the Council and none of the $55.7 million went to Hamas.Wayne (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Having reread the article a few times it seems it was translated from Arabic so has some bad grammar. A charity is not donating the $55.7 million. That amount is what the Saudi Council to Support the Palestinian Intefada itself has available to support it's activities. The only donation being refered to is the money to the families.Wayne (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 has restored the edit using the Israeli think tank website. I've restored and deleted the reference as it is clearly not a reliable source. What I believe is the primary source not only predates the problematic reference but is a business journal so has no obvious involvement in the conflict. This source says "200 Palestinians" not "102 Hamas militants" and "$5,333 each" not "$5,340 each". I found another Israeli website here that backs up the business journal as far as numbers go.Wayne (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What business journal? The original source is merely a chapter from Ehrenfeld's book. It includes foot cites and secondary sources within the paragraphs. That's the best we have for now. I doubt unitedjerusalem is an RS. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether it is 5333 or 5340. Not worth fighting about it, people. Come on. Just remove the exact numbers or if you found them terribly important, indicate range of estimates. Marokwitz (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont see that the edit is notable enough to be in the article at all but Wikifan12345 will edit war to keep it in so I wont bother deleting it. However, if it is to be kept in it must be accurate and not reworded to push a POV. Is Wikifan12345 being deliberately tendentious? Ehrenfeld is not the original source and is far from reliable as it's basically OR to push a POV. The United Jerusalem site is probably not a RS either but it does reproduce word for word what the business journal, the primary source which is not online, reported.Wayne (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What POV Wayne? Continuing to accuse other editors of pushing a "POV" without a shred of evidence is becoming a serious problem here. So stop the buzzwords. If you think an editor is violating NPOV say it plainly and file a complaint at mediation or enforcement boards. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Section removed from 2008-2009 Israeli-Gaza conflict

I've put this here, as it was inappropriate to a discussion of International law on the other page.

Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued. The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters. A Hamas representative in the PA legislative council this year expressed pride on Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas) in the fact that women and children are used as human shields in fighting Israel. He described it as part of a "death industry" at which Palestinians excel, and explained that the Palestinians "desire death" with the same intensity that Israelis "desire life."

Hamas is a terrorist organization that attacks civilians. This article has been locked and I cannot take the word "alleged" of of one of the sub titles. Please look up "terrorism" in a dictionary and remove the "alleged" from the heading.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 January 2009

I just want to note that when I look up the word "terrorism" in the dictionary, the definition is so broad that it could easily be applied to countries like the United States and Britain. Take this definition, for example: "terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." My point here is that terrorism is no more than a buzzword, lacking in content or meaning, but portraying deep emotions. It really has no place in a neutral encyclopedia, except to say that a certain group or person considers the group a terrorist organization. Crushti (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to something specific in the article that doesn't comply with the policies of the project you need to say what it is. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Charter quotation

In the introduction to this article, we find this sentence: 'Although the charter identifies the conflict as a "struggle against the Jews",[27][28] Hamas leaders said it is political and not religious.' I find the inclusion -- or at least the wording -- misleading to the audience.

First, I would argue a bias in that this sentence indicates hypocrisy, as though the charter is a constitution or law of some sort that Hamas must follow. It is important to note, though, that few Palestinian organizations treat their charter as such, and this sentence leads the reader to believe otherwise.

Second, I'm not sure how I feel about quoting the words "struggle against the Jews" in this sentence. Certainly it is in the charter, but as an Arabic speaker I must say -- this is much harsher in English than in Arabic. Why? Because in Arabic, "Jews" is actually politically correct, and not because of widespread anti-Semitism, but because Arabs know that about a fifth of Israelis are Muslim Arabs. And, indeed, the different meaning of this phrase in English and Arabic is important -- in English it seems contradictory to say that the conflict is a "struggle against the Jews," yet political and not religious. In Arabic, it is not. It creates a very prevalent bias in this article. Crushti (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the word "Although" should not be used to create the impression of contradiction without citing a reliable source saying that. But, politically correct? I wouldn't say so; The charter contains statement such as "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." Marokwitz (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be mistaken as having said the charter itself was politically correct. However, the use of "Jew" in the phrase "struggle against the Jews" is politically correct in Arabic. But with that said, I am satisfied with the correction you made. Crushti (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, as an outdated document of little relevance to the current conflict I cant understand why it is even mentioned in the lead. The charter section details it as if it is still current policy and devotes only two small paragraphs to how it is currently viewed. As the charter has it's own article, ideally this one should briefly summarise it's history rather than it's detail while keeping the two paragraphs of current views. Whatever the problems with it I doubt any changes to restore NPOV will be accepted as a significant number of editors (and media organisations) still believe the charter is an official document reflecting current Muslim views.Wayne (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's still relevant enough to be mentioned in news reports. "Haniyeh had raised speculation last month about a change in Hamas's charter, which calls for Israel's destruction..." [5] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of date, unsourced section

"Hamas devotes up to 90% of its estimated $70 million annual budget to an extensive social services network, running many relief and education programs, and funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. Such services aren't generally provided by The Palestinian Authority.[48]"

This is out of date, as the current 2010 budget is estimated at $560 million. It's also tainted by some creative editing: The quoted source - the "council of foreign relations" says it "devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget" and that "Approximately 90 percent of its work" is in these endeavours. Wikipedia editors have apparently combined the 2 statements into "90% of the budget", this turned two imprecise statements into a single verifiable fact, which is probably incorrect.Cederal (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I corrected this while trying to change as little as possible.Cederal (talk)

You made a mistake as it is talking about two separate budgets. The $70 million is the HAMAS organisations own budget while the $560 million is the HAMAS Gaza government budget.Wayne (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

European Union is not, and doesn't not have, a government

Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization by a number of governments, including those of Israel, the European Union,[7][8] the United States,[9] Canada[10] and Japan.[11][12]

The EU has a parliament, and a lot of power over many countries, but it is not, nor does it have, a government. Perhaps something like "is classified as a terrorist organisation by the European Union and a number of governments, ..." or something similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.206.129.134 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nazism

What is the difference between Hamas and a Nazi party considering the fact that Hamas is a Nationalist Socialist Antisemitic party? Why not insert Nazism as their ideology?Alphasinus (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? Do you really think that is a neutral position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.227.118 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted a comment here that I felt was inflammatory and had very little value. I doubt anyone will want to restore it.--66.49.227.118 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Govern / Controls "?

An editor seems to be trying to change the word "governs" to "controls" in the lead paragraph (see [6], [7], [8]). Per WP:BRD I've reverted. Let's discuss before trying to make the change again. NickCT (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Some say "rule", others say "govern." I think "control" is more neutral.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Well, this is going to be a semantics debate.

We all agree that Hamas provides governance in the West bank right? As say, the Kadima party provides governance to Israel? Would it be neutral to say the Kadima "controls Israel"? NickCT (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Date of Israeli blockade"

Wouldn't it be better to change the "As of 2010 Hamas is governing the Gaza strip and the economic blockade is still in effect." to 2011 instead? (March 25-03-11) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnusmarkussen (talk • contribs) 22:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of Hamas

I find it interesting that the word Hamas (Chamas) in Hebrew and Aramaic means violence, wrong, cruelty, injustice or to wrong, do violence to, treat violently, do wrongly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.111.97 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nygwinsb, 5 April 2011

Please change "After a four months calm, the conflict escalated when Israel carried out a military action with the stated aim to prevent an abduction planned by Hamas, using a tunnel that had been dug under the border security fence,[35] killing seven Hamas operatives" by saying that the "Hamas operatives were successful in kidnapping an Israeli Soldier named Gilad Shalit. Hamas has subsequently violated the Red Cross and Geneva convention as a result of this kidnapping."

Nygwinsb (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC) The source is http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Gilad_Shalit

The 2 events are not connected. Shalit was captured/kidnapped on 25 June 2006 whereas the content you want changed is referring to the events just prior to Operation Cast Lead in December 2008. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

edit request - no link to Israel

the link to Israel is only in the second paragraph and not in the first, where it appears for the first time. please change --Ttul007 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Done--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Balancing entities that classify Hamas as terrorist vs. those who don't

My addition in bold: "Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization by Israel, the European Union,[7][8] the United States,[9] Canada[10] and Japan,[11][12] while nations such as China,[13] Russia,[14], ppSyria]][15] and Turkey[16] do not classify it as such." The argument for the addition is that it balances things, which otherwise would have an anti-Hamas POV.Haberstr (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Norway has never taken a stance on wether hamas is a terror organisation or not. Norway do not have their own terror list, but use lists made by the US and EU. Also, the attached refernce does not suffice in saying that hamas is not classified by norway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.146.226 (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The UN consider Hamas a terrorist organization, and as the represetters of the world, if the UN says Hamas is a terror organization, it is one!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.202.21 (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

it is clear that there is appreciable disagreement in the international community as to its status. Therefore, both opinions belong in the lede. To single out either one is giving undue weight.204.65.34.189 (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

non-recognition in the lead

Does the lead need to mention who says Hamas is not a terrorist organization? I find it kind of irrelevant in the lead, while it does make sense in the international designation section.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say both statements, those who do recognize them, and those who say they are not, are equally out of place in the lede. But to single out only one doesn't make sense. The same principle applies to both. To leave only one gives undue weight to that opinion.204.65.34.189 (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why was article flagged as outdated in early May, 2011?

Whoever did that should explain the flagging.Haberstr (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Based largely on the principles of ...

Why start with the assumption that Hamas was an organic creation while deleting clearly referenced information that shows Israel's role in its creation? Is that not pushing a one-sided point of view? Hcobb (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The addition was removed since it inaccurately summarizes the referenced article, which is, by the way, not making such bold assertions. Unless you can find much better, academic reliable sources saying so, it should not be added to the lead, which is too long as it is. Marokwitz (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So let's edit down the lead by removing the one-sided claims it does make then. Hcobb (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any one-sided claims. Nobody denies that Hamas is an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, it is even written so in the Hamas covenant. The Congressional Research Service as well as other highly reliable academic sources state this as a fact. Marokwitz (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hamas Charter

I shuffled the Charter part of this article around a bit and added a bit to it as well to break up the purely Israeli viewpoint that pervades much of the article.This was my version here [9].Another editor has come in and basically changed it back to what it was, as here.[10] So what we have now is the first 11 lines of the piece are just ripping into Hamas and pointing out the negative side of the charter, this is not very NPOV as far as I am concerned.We then have 5.5 lines at the bottom of the piece with other viewpoints.I thought that my version was better as it broke the rant at the beginning and intermingled the views.I do not agree with the change back as now it is just mostly a rant against Hamas.I do not think that the editors reason for changing it back are very good either. Thoughts? Owain the 1st (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Linking to the current section to show a difference doesn't work once another editor makes an edit. The difference in question is here. The section as it was had three statements regarding the current standing of the Charter that were interspersed with details from the charter. This made it very difficult to read so I moved all the Charter details to a single paragraph that left the three statements together in two paragraphs. I made some grammar corrections but did not change any of the text. However, as the Charter has it's own article, only a summary is required here so that first paragraph is far too detailed. For example it should have no quotes and details of the content should be reduced. That should provide the balance you are looking for. Wayne (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OK.So basically the piece needs to just be a small summary of the charter rather than what we have there now as it has its own page anyway.So just a short description of what it is.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it should include the major controversies related to the charter. You can't remove stuff from here which doesn't appear in the article about the charter while claiming it's a summary of that article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Being as it has its own page the major controversies as you put it can be put on that page, they are already there anyway.All that is needed on the main page is a summary of the charter.I really do not see your point at all.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, Owain. Given that the document isn't even in use it would be coatracking to have more than a brief summary here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have written this for the section to replace what is there now. It is basically a summary that covers what the charter is about and its anti Jewish sentiments.Thoughts?

The Hamas charter was published in 1988 and put forth the Hamas agenda at that time, it has since become redundant and is not used by Hamas on their website or in their statements.There was a huge outcry when it came out for its anti-Jewish views and they still continue today.The charter states the definition of the movement, its objectives,strategies and methods and its views on Islamic movements, nationalist movements in the Palestinian arena.It also covers the PLO,Arab and Islamic countries,followers of other religions,the attempt to isolate the Palestinian people and history in confronting the invaders.It concludes with a statement that it will not act against any Muslims or non Muslims who are peaceful towards it.It will only serve as a support for all groupings and organizations operating against the Zionist enemy and its lackeys.Owain the 1st (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for it not being used on their website or statements?

I think what we have in the article right now is not much longer than your proposal, and is much better. It's also better than the current article about the charter, which is in pretty bad shape. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I will find you a source, it is sourced.I disagree with you that the article we have now is not much longer, fact is it is twice as long.I suggest you look again.The current article about the charter on this page is mostly just a rant about the anti Jewish bits in the charter, it is not NPOV at all.Owain the 1st (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Another version:

The Hamas charter was published in 1988 and put forth the Hamas agenda at that time,it is a piece of history and no longer relevant.There was a huge outcry when it came out for its anti-Jewish views and they still continue today.The charter states the definition of the movement, its objectives,strategies and methods and its views on Islamic movements, nationalist movements in the Palestinian arena.It also covers the PLO,Arab and Islamic countries,followers of other religions,the attempt to isolate the Palestinian people and history in confronting the invaders.It concludes with a statement that it will not act against any Muslims or non Muslims who are peaceful towards it.It will only serve as a support for all groupings and organizations operating against the Zionist enemy and its lackeys

This is virtually a complete summary of what the charter is about as taken from the actual charter.It only needs to be a summary as we already have an individual page dedicated to the charter.Owain the 1st (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have changed over the piece to the one above.I believe it to be a good short summary of the charter covering what it is about plus the anti Jewish sentiments in it, plus how it is viewed by Hamas now.Owain the 1st (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I just read the charter and found that a lot of the original paragraph was opinion rather than actual content. Opinion should be left to the dedicated article. While the HAMAS leadership no longer consider the Charter relevant, many of the rank and file still believe in it, often misinterpret it and use it to justify their own militant actions or to oppose HAMAS' current more conciliatory position. As such I feel this version better explains the Charter and gives context for other sections of this article.

Issued in 1988, the Hamas Charter (or Covenant) outlined the organization's position on many issues prominent at the time, identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be a resistance movement involved in a struggle against "Zionist invaders". The Charter received significant critism for its anti-Jewish views which still continues today. By quoting Islamic religious texts and through the use of inflammatory Anti-Semitic rhetoric to provide justification, the Charter calls for the creation, through Jihad, religious education and ideological propaganda of an Islamic state to replace Israel and the Palestinian Territories, where Islam, Christianity and Judaism can coexist in peace with each other. The Charter states that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, should be dealt with on that basis and rejects compromises as incapable of solving the Palestinian question. The charter states that Hamas is humanistic and tolerant of other religions as long as they do not interfere with Hamas goals and that the liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for very Moslem.

Wayne (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I do not like your version, I do not find it very neutral at all.I feel that my version is a more representative summary of the actual charter.Yours to me reads like this, zionist invaders,Anti Jewish, Anti semitic,Jihad.My version actually says what virtually each section is about which I took from the actual charter.Owain the 1st (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand your concerns. The Charter says "zionist invaders" and "jihad" is probably the most repeated word in the Charter and the underlying concept behind it. "Anti-Jewish" and "Anti-semitic" is how many see it. The version you added is poorly written, lacks specific context and is not even grammatical correct. Wayne (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I would think that Allah is the most used word in it.Why don't you explain why you have now reverted the piece and added more when the consensus on this page is that it needs to be a short summary?My version was fine and covered all the articles in the charter, it was concise and to the point, it was a small summary.Your version now is a long sprawling thing and that is what we were trying to get rid of being as there is already a whole page for the article.Owain the 1st (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I restored the previous version pending the conclusion of this discussion.

Some of the problems I have with the version I reverted are:

• It is badly written, including grammar and punctuation.
• It doesn't mention that Hamas declares itself part of the Muslim Brotherhood.
• It minimizes the anti-semitism in the charter.
• It doesn't mention that the charter explicitly rejects negotiation as a means of resolving the conflict.
• All the above amounts to a pretty obvious NPOV violation and runs afoul of WP:SUMMARIZE, specifically POV forking. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the discussion but no one was agreeing with you, everyone else is against your view therefore a consensus is against you and you have no good reason to revert anything in that case.So explain yourself why you have gone against the consensus?Also I do find it funny that you are complaining about POV when all you have done is just that.It is now back to the rant that is was before but that is what you wanted anyway.Owain the 1st (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Another thing about your revert, you claim that you cannot use Hamas terminology but you have done just that by reverting it to an article full of quotes from their charter..Very funny.Owain the 1st (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the difference between quoting someone and putting what they say in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. Hamas is free to call people "the Zionist enemy" or "lackeys", but the encyclopedia should not be doing it. That's why such phrasing must be put in quotes.

In case you weren't reading closely, your version doesn't have support. I am not saying the current section can't be changed. I'm saying that if it is changed it should still comply with NPOV, and that means it should represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Since the article about the charter is so bad, summarizing it in its current state would be a pretty bad idea (and anyway, that's not what you did). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You have failed to address why you reverted it when the consensus was for a smaller summary?There are 3 to 1 against you and you have not explained yourself as asked.You keep banging on about NPOV but what you have reverted it to is a POV, so please save that argument as it does not stand up.As for the Hamas phrasing you could have put them in quotes but instead you just reverted the whole article back to a POV.Owain the 1st (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

While there might be a consensus for shortening the section, there certainly is no consensus for the badly written replacement you put in there.

I explained in detail why I reverted, but let me summarize it for you. It violated NPOV, it violated WTA, it violated POVFORK and it was written badly.

It also violated NOR, as you admit it's your summary of the charter, when it's supposed to be a summary of significant viewpoints on the charter. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You did not revert the version I put in there and as there was a consensus for shorting the piece please tell us why you went ahead and re extended against the wishes of the others here?You keep bringing up this not NPOV thing when I have already explained that what you have reinstated there is not NPOV, so you are violating the very thing that you are accusing others of.It was supposed to be a summary of the charter, that is what the article is about.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, why are you extending the article now?When in your previous post you were for getting a smaller summary?Owain the 1st (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The current status is very relevant to the article. Although it discusses the Charter it is a separate topic ie:not part of the summary. I agree with No More Mr Nice Guy's points. Size is a minor consideration, we need to work on what the final version says and make sure it is relevant to this articles content. That means that as well as being a summary it still needs to contain enough detail to give context to other parts of the article where the same issues are mentioned. I think my version ticks all the boxes and it's 20% shorter than the original. Wayne (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well you and him have now made what was supposed to be a summary into a bigger article than it was originally and now you have two pages with much of the same stuff on it.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hamas' charter is important. There are over 1300 hits for "hamas charter" on google books. You can't just minimize it into almost nothing because you don't like it.

There's a bunch of books by Jim Zanotti written for the Congressional Research Service which I think might be useful for this article. See [11] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It has its own page and all that is happening now is the repeating of stuff on the Hamas page that already exists on the actual Hamas charter page.There is no point having two pages with all the same stuff on it.That is why we were talking about a summary that that leads into the actual Hamas charter page but what we have now is an article that is bigger than when it started and you want to make it bigger yet again.Why?Owain the 1st (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all about what is relevant for this article. The current status is very important because this article is about HAMAS, which is why I put it in it's own subsection. My suggested summary of the Charter is 20% shorter than the existing is, conforms more closely to the Charters wording, is much less POV and covers all the points also covered in this article. The reaction to the Charter in regards to some of it's content is a big part of the Charters controversy so must be mentioned. The Charters own page is not very good and needs to be both rewritten and expanded so a comparison is really irrelevant until it is cleaned up. Including the current status subsection, the summary here is still only 25% of the size of the subarticle. Wayne (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is not about what is relevant to this article as the Hamas charter has a page all of its own.If you want to improve that article then go right ahead but just repeating the same stuff that is on the Hamas charter page on this page is doing nothing.You have contradicted yourself,earlier on in this discussion you are going on about having a summary with no quotes in it and now you have just put in the opposite.What we do not need are two articles that just have the same thing on it and that is what we have now.This is what you posted earlier:

'However, as the Charter has it's own article, only a summary is required here so that first paragraph is far too detailed. For example it should have no quotes and details of the content should be reduced. That should provide the balance you are looking for.' Owain the 1st (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:SUMMARIZE? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have, have you? If you have then you would see that they have a summary of a few lines for each piece and then links to follow on for larger articles with further information.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

<- I think that the line in the second paragraph, "Some experts and advocacy groups believe that the Hamas Charter and statements by some Hamas leaders display the influence of antisemitic conspiracy theories" is grossly understated. I know that people are arguing here about whether anyone really takes the charter seriously anymore but does anyone seriously deny that it's anti-Jewish and asserts a belief in anti-Jewish conspiracy theories? I think it's safe to drop the "Some experts and advocacy groups believe" line, lest we give off the impression that it's a seriously-contested question, which I don't believe it is. Can we at least amend this statement by saying that the Hamas Charter contains support for the truth-claims Protocols of the Elders of Zion (widely acknowledged by all but the most extremist fringe groups to be a known fraud) and has quotes about killing Jews in it? Gregory j (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What is needed I suppose is a high quality secondary source and preferably several that discuss this issue. Wiki editors shouldn't be synthesizing statements like "some experts" or deciding how contested it and such like. We need to follow what high quality sources say on the matter or say nothing. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Evelyn161054, 26 June 2011

|United Kingdom | style="background:#ffb6b6;"| The military wing of Hamas is designated a terrorist organization by the UK Government|-

Evelyn161054 (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The previous entry is now out of date/incorrect as the Charity Commission cleared Interpal in May 2010. The following may be found under the "Interpal" wikipedia entry.

"Interpal has been ordered by the Charity Commission to end its links to The Union of Good, which had been designated by the U.S. Treasury as “an organization created by Hamas leadership to transfer funds to the terrorist organization”.[13] In May 2010 the Charity Commission found Interpal to be in full compliance with directions.[14]

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Interpal#2006_to_2009_inquiry

And only Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades is listed in the Home Office list of proscribed terrorist organisations.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/proscribed-terror-groups/proscribed-groups?view=Binary

This is quite an important change to make as the reader will be left with the impression that it is illegal to donate money for Palestinian humanitarian aid if it is left as it is.

messieur de hamas je vous solicite par ce que nous partont vers une crise mondial ils faud accepter les aide des autre pay pour que le president tienne sont mandat je suis pour la paye dans ce monde faite un compromie de paye et faite un reunion avec le soutiend de l onu alla wacbar benamra nabil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.103.144.102 (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not done for now: The source you provided does not unequivocally state that it is safe to donate to other parts of the organization. Can you provide a reliable source that makes it clear that the ban is limited in scope? Monty₈₄₅ 00:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Dubious reverts?

Revert: Header was consensus per Talk. Funding is separate, either Hamas party or domestic budget. (ie: donations to U.S. Republican party are not considered part of the Unites States domestic budget

• Where is this consensus in talk?
• This is from the source: "aid provided by American and other foreign groups goes to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, where most of the 1.6 million residents are refugees." Nearly verbatim. The rationale for revert provides no reason why it should be removed.

Remove unsupported allegation (ie: conspiracy theory) per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Source (DEA) makes no claim that HAMAS is involved with drugs, only suspicions that some civilians who donate to HAMAS do

• The source doesn't say Hamas is involved with drugs. The edit doesn't say that. "another reported funding source for Hamas are alleged ties to drug trafficking organizations."

According to the CBS source, Michael Braun, the Chief of Operations for the US Drug Enforcement Administration described FARC, the Taliban, Hamas, and Hezbollah "hybrids -- They are one part terrorist organization and are becoming one part global drug trafficking cartel."

What is NPOV, UNDUE about this? And conspiracy theory? A leader in the DEA is pointing fingers at Hamas, that doesn't translate into a conspiracy.

Editors should read sources before they remove them. Please restore these edits. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• The section header is long standing without complaint and was added a year or more ago after discussion on this page. Do you seriously contend that donations to the HAMAS organisation and domestic funding for Gaza itself following the election belong together?
• Where the foreign funding goes is irrelevant as it goes to the same recipients as the HAMAS domestic funding. It is POV to single out that funding as it implies HAMAS domestic funding does not go to those people. Having said all that, now that the funding has been worked out the entire paragraph is no longer relevant and should be deleted. The situation was very short term and you need to keep in mind that the U.S. audits Arab charities so it is POV to imply that HAMAS wanting to audit is somehow wrong.
• Quote:The source doesn't say Hamas is involved with drugs. The edit doesn't say that. If you bother to read the entire pdf you will notice that it doesn't cite evidence of direct HAMAS involvement. HAMAS involvement with Arabs in South America is described as minor and the ONLY involvement with drugs that is alleged. Saying "alleged ties" is conspiracy theory without evidence other than suspicions. Can we say on their page, "the Republican party has alleged ties with global drug trafficking" just because some donors are traffickers and party supporters? I think not. Find a source that gives evidence of direct HAMAS involvement and the claim can go back. Wayne (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• An absence of complaint does not = a consensus. The section header is more than a year old, as you say. With all the new data that has been released since that year, a section header can be amended. I split the section because according to the sources much of the funding that goes to Hamas or projects that are vetted through the Hamas leadership (NGO aid for example) shouldn't be considered "domestic funding." Domestic funding is domestic - taxing Palestinian businesses for example.
• A leading DEA agent says money going to Hamas comes from drug-rings in South America. I don't understand how you can interpret that as a "conspiracy theory." All I did was quote the DEA agent. "alleged ties" is not a conspiracy theory buzzword.

like I said, please restore my edits. Branding edits you might disagree with as "POV" or "UNDUE" is not inline with current editing policy. Wikifan^{Be nice} 13:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

1: You have to separate HAMAS money from Gaza money. As I said in my edit comment: donations to the U.S. Republican party are not considered part of the Unites States domestic budget so they should not be considered so for HAMAS. Do you have a source that says that NGO aid to Gaza goes to HAMAS for political uses rather than public works? Public spending of aid that benifits HAMAS is still domestic funding and the article already separates the use of HAMAS' own funds spent on public works from domestic funding. 2: There is nothing in the DEA claims that indicates that HAMAS themselves are directly involved in the drug trade. To imply that they are is POV and UNDUE. There is little doubt that some who support them are involved but that is irrelevant. We should ask ourselves...would a similar edit based on the same claims be acceptable in another article such as the Republican party? The GOP likely receives donations from far more people involved in the drug trade than HAMAS does so why should HAMAS be treated any differently? This article still connects the donations themselves to the drug trade which I expect would still be unacceptable in other articles. Edits should not give implications that HAMAS are "worse" than they really are or as bad as an editor may believe they are. Wayne (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "You have to separate Hamas money from Gaza money."
• Response: No I don't. I'm only adding what the source says. The source says there is a conflict between NGO aid and Hamas government. I don't get your analogy to the republic party. The republic party does not rule the United States. These are two totally different types of governments.
• " There is nothing in the DEA claims that indicates that HAMAS themselves are directly involved in the drug trade"
• Response: Yeah, I know. I read the source. The edit says nothing about Hamas "themselves" being directly involved in the drug trade - rather, a leading DEA officer says drug money is ending up in Hamas hands. This is a valid edit and supported by a strong source. To imply Hamas is directly involved would be undue (not POV, I don't know what that means), but the edit does not say that.

You still should restore the edits as a gesture of good faith. Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The analogy to the republic party is that both are elected governments and both recieve money from donors. We dont include donations with the national budget in the Republican article so shouldn't here. The edit may not have said that HAMAS was directly involved in drugs but mentioning that they receive drug money (an unknown amount described as minor) implies HAMAS either encourages drugs or is involved. Implications are POV. Wayne (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a terrible analogy. Hamas rules Gaza, the Palestinian political apparatus is totally different than America's republic. Your reliance on this republic party analogy is troubling. We must defer to what the sources tell us, not our own opinions. I really don't think you have a strong case for deletion as the edits are taken straight from the sources. And like I mentioned before, no one is implying Hamas is "directly" involved in drug smuggling. The edit doesn't say that. Am I missing something here? There is no implications of "POV." I don't know what that means to be perfectly honest. Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Social services

Just so no one thinks I'm slandering the good name of Hamas and its Social welfare ring...

Hamas devotes up to 90% of its estimated $70 million annual budget to an extensive social services network...

The sources paint a different picture. I think whoever added that did it in good faith, because one source says, "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. 90 percent of its work doesn't mean 90 percent of its budget. The other source says, ...Hamas probably has an annual budget of between $70m and $90m, 80 to 85 per cent of which it spends on its political work and its extensive networks of schools, clinics and welfare organisations... So that means that 80-85 percent is social AND political work. So less than 80-85 percent is done on social work alone.

I made an edit. Unless someone has more specific sources, my generalized version should stand. Modinyr (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Do your best. Very challenging to make controversial edit (even with sources) without without long talk discussions. see above for evidence. don't be offended Wayne reverts you. Wikifan^{Be nice} 16:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough of "POV"

Editors must be explicit in their reasoning. Blanket condemnation of "POV" is not sufficient for removing content. For example:

Per WP:POV "known to" is present tense.

• Known is past tense
• The source clearly states Hamas supports the families of suicide bombers. Just because suicide bombings have stopped does not mean financial support for the families of suicide bombers has stopped. Editors made that conclusion on their own without consulting the source. This isn't even about POV. It is about verifiability. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a common sense edit that doesn't need explaining to native English speakers. "known" on it's own may in some convoluted way be construed to be past tense but the sentence says "the party is known to..." which is present tense. If you want it to read past tense then it should read "was once known for" which also requires you to separate out the claim into it's own sentence as it is no longer applicable. HAMAS has not done this for five years so it is POV to imply they still do so and as their support is already mentioned several times in the article it would be irrelevant anyway. Just because something is negative doesn't make it's inclusion mandatory. Wayne (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the sentence:

The party is known to financially support families of those who have been killed (including suicide bombers) or imprisoned while carrying out militant action or supporting such action.

There is nothing to suggest Hamas has ceased supporting the families of those who have been killed by suicide bombers. Rather, Hamas has failed to pull of a suicide bombing in five years. Do you see the disconnect here? It would be POV (whatever that means) to remove cited information because an editor doesn't think it matches the current position of Hamas. But the source is explicit. It's about aiding the welfare of relatives/families of suicide bombers. Do those families suddenly go away when Hamas halted suicide attacks? No. Please restore the edit, the removal is without merit. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hamas has NOT "failed to pull off a suicide bombing in five years". Hamas renounced suicide bombings in 2006 and no longer supports such attacks. The edit remained in the article for five years despite being outdated so it was due for removal. Implying that HAMAS still supports suicide attacks is POV however you look at it. Here's a similar example that may be easier to understand, would it be correct grammar to say "Wikifan is known to wet his bed" based on it being true when you were a baby? We could now correctly say "was once known to" but would it be relevant? No, because it has become POV. Wayne (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said Hamas supports suicide bombings, no one is implying anything. You removed the edit under the premise that it was "POV" because Hamas has halted suicide bombings. HOWEVER, the source does not dispute this - rather, it says, as I quoted above verbatim, Hamas supports the families of suicide bombers and their relatives. Do you have a source that says something else? Do you have a source that says, explicitly, Hamas no longer provides welfare for the families of suicide bombers? No. Your removal was based on your own perspective, not what the sources say. So restore the cited edit unless you can find an RS that supports your removal. Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

pretty clear that it is a simple case of reliable source says 'x', so leave it in. and in any case, hamas continues with their suicide bombings - february 4, 2008, and with their terror killings of israelis - august 31, 2010, as seen in this reuters article. Soosim (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the Israel ministry of foreign affairs (MFA) suicide bombings since 2005 were carried out by Islamic Jihad or the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades which is Fatah not HAMAS. Quite a few sources say the February 4, 2008 attack was HAMAS and some say al-Aqsa and HAMAS both claimed responsibility but the Israeli government says al-Aqsa with HAMAS praising the attack. The closest I can find for HAMAS still being involved in suicide bombing is a statement made by MFA spokesman Yigael Palmor in June last year where he said "the separation barrier and the good work of the Israeli and Palestinian Authority security services is the reason there have been no suicide bombings (since 2005), the intent of Hamas is still there, their capacity has been neutralised." HAMAS renounced suicide bombings in 2006, 2008 and again in 2011. Wayne (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that, but Soosim is right. Source says "x" - no source has yet to refute it. The fact that there is a lull in suicide bombings by Hamas has nothing to do with Hamas financial support for the families members of suicide bombers. Get it? This has been repeated again and again and yet you respond with claims that editors are denying the fact that Hamas ended suicide bombings. This has nothing to do with actual terrorist acts. Is this making sense? Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The article already mentions HAMAS involvement in past suicide attacks in both the lead and body of the article. This edit is written in the present tense which implies that suicide bombing is still ongoing which is POV. Wayne (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the sentence implies nothing other than Hamas supports the families of suicide bombers. Nothing POV about it. Only thing POV is editors removing cited content. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The sentence still says HAMAS pays the families of militants killed which by definition includes suicide bombers. Do you also want to separate out the other types of militants to? Do we specifically mention militants who murdered Israelis and militants who were murdered by Israelis? The sentence is accurate, does not exclude suicide bombers and specifically mentioning one type of militant that no longer exists (in the present tense) appears to be little more than an attempt to portray HAMAS as negatively as possible. Wayne (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hamas is doing a great job portraying themselves that way. The source has no relationship with the lull in suicide bombings - your original reasoning for deletion. We have two editors in this discussion that have said, quite simply, the content is backed by a source. Do you have a ref that says Hamas no longer supports the families of suicide bombers? We as editors cannot come to those kinds of conclusions. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you bother to read what people write? You have not answered any of my concerns and made false claims regarding the edit. WP does not require everything in a source to be minutely detailed or you may as well copy/paste the entire article. My version does not exclude suicide bombers as you claim. You appear to support inclusion solely because it is negative information with no regard to NPOV. Answer my concerns or get someone who speaks better English to explain the grammar construction if you dont understand them. Wayne (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I read what you wrote. WP requires everything to be cited. Saying Hamas no longer supports the families of suicide bombers because there is a lull in suicide bombing is original research. Do you have a ref that supports such an edit? Two editors have asked you. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Point out where I said HAMAS no longer supports the families of suicide bombers. You ignore what is being said and then make false claims to avoid having to support your own view. My proposed edit still says HAMAS pays the families of militants killed which by definition includes suicide bombers. It avoids implying that HAMAS still condones suicide bombings. This is a grammatical edit not rocket science. Wayne (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Militant Wing/Social wing

Is there evidence that describes a unique "military" and "social wing" independent of each other? Numerous governments have recognized Hamas' militant platform as criminal/illegal/etc, but do not see the diplomatic wing in the same way.

But does the diplomatic wing=social "wing?" Gaza is heavily dependent on welfare from international aid organizations. Hamas fiscal contributions to the general welfare of Palestinians is almost entirely dependent on the support of foreign benefactors. I took the liberty of switching "social wing" with "social welfare" as none of the sources seem to refer to a "social wing." Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

HAMAS social welfare spending comes out of it's own organisational budget, not foreign aid (if we exclude Arab donors) and is separate from the domestic budget. The welfare comes from HAMAS the organisation. Wayne (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not according to the sources in the article. The UN and aid organizations are responsible for the vast majority of the social needs of Palestinians - i.e, supporting their refugee status. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing the HAMAS budget with the domestic budget. The UN and aid organizations do not contribute to HAMAS which spends the majority of it's budget on social welfare. The contributions of aid organisations to welfare is irrelevant outside of a summary in the domestic funding subsection as this article is about HAMAS. Wayne (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going by what the sources say. The section infers that Hamas (government) is responsible for all social needs, when in reality it contributes a fraction monetarily. Also, it's Hamas - not HAMAS. Per MoS, use Hamas in the article. Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That section is about work done using the HAMAS budget. HAMAS funding and domestic funding both have their own sections. HAMAS is an acronym so should be capitalised. I stick with the correct English through habit. Wayne (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying HAMAS? Hamas is not an acronym in the English language. MOS:ENGVAR. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What difference does it make what language the original is in? MOS:ENGVAR allows capitals for an acronym when it is the name of an institution. A google search shows both capital and lower case versions so both are used. Free English Grammar lesson: capitalisation: When a technical acronym becomes a common word in the English language it no longer needs capitalisation (ie:scuba). The most common capitalization scheme used with acronyms is all capitals. Acronyms of organisations should be capitilised (ie: CIA) however, acronyms longer than either three or four letters depending on the media organisations own MOS (the BBC MOS still requires all capitalisation) are usually written in lower case to avoid a jarring appearance in news articles (ie: Nato). Acronyms of organisations written in lower case should always be capitalised when used in a headline. That being said I'm not interested in requiring correct capitalisation in the article although I do find obvious or deliberately incorrect English little more than ignorance. However sentence construction is a different matter. Wayne (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Per MoS, Hamas is the correct word. The article cannot be littered with alternative spellings. Understand? Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The State of Israel's Right-To-Exist Issue

One of the core issues in public discourse on Hamas today is the Right To Exist of the state of Israel. This phrase should exist somewhere in this article (as it does rather prominently in the PLO article) simply and directly expressing what the past and current positions of Hamas were and/or are on this issue. Currently any statements on this issue are not phrased explicitly with the Right-to-exist language and are also somewhat hidden in a larger paragraph discussing the emotional ambivalence and/or hopes and dreams of their leaders for the Palestinian people. Hamas either does or does not formally and explictly acknowledge a right for the State of Israel to exist. The PLO does and reading the Hamas article literally doesn't let me know if Hamas has at some point explicitly (but that fact is merely missing from the article) or if they do only implictly (by some possible/theoretical inference of vague statements by their leaders) or rejects it explicitly (again with missing references to any possible statements of Hamas to this effect.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.151.83 (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a simple question but it should have it's own section in the article. Ignoring some Hamas members who are only giving their personal views, Hamas as an organisation publicly accepted Israel's "right to exist" in 2008 and Aziz Duwaik went even further last year by stating Hamas would also publicly nullify the charter. Khaled Mashaal had rejected this in 2008 by saying that although the charter was no longer relevant or enforced, nullifying it would lead to a loss of public support for Hamas. However, the recognition of Israel is based on a reciprocal recognition by Israel of a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital and a solution for the refugee problem. Despite pressure from the international community (with the notable exception of the U.S.) for Israel to negotiate with Hamas, Israel has a policy of not recognising Hamas as a legitimate mediator for the Palestinian people. Having said that, Israel is willing to negotiate if Hamas officially accepts Israel's "right to exist" unconditionally. This of course means Hamas would have to accept the legitimacy of the post-1967 borders which the Palestinian people will not accept. Wayne (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland

You probably can't read German, but if u could you would see that the article you provide clearly states, that Switzerland condemns Hamas terror action against Israel. Furthermore it states that a law against terrorism did not go through in 2003, hence Switzerland cannot forbid ANY organisation for being a terror organisation. However swiss law punishes terror acts. Switzerland has to be crossed out from the list, because it does not even have a legal basis for calling any organisation a terror organisation. --78.104.63.194 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Done AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hamas breaks with Syria

The article is outdated: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/hamas-leader-supports-syrian-opposition.html

May break with Iran too: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2012/02/29/hamas-signals-a-break-with-iran-but-is-that-good-for-israel/ FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I believed they're now headquartered in Doha and Cairo (Meshaal and Marzouq, respectively) and not Damascus. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2012

Please add a citation of Dr. Matthew Levitt's book on Hamas to the bibliography section of the page because the page uses information directly from his book. Although some footnotes cite Dr. Levitt's book, they incorrectly cite Dennis Ross as co-author. Furthermore, listing Dr. Levitt's book in addition to the three books already listed will greatly add to the scholarly discussion on Hamas and help researchers find a credible and reliable source. citation below. thank you

Levitt, Matthew (2007). Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300122586.
 

Dalshawa (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The book is already used for inline citations several places, so it seems inappropriate to put it again in the Bibliography section. Please see WP:FNNR. Apparently Ross wrote a forward for some printing of the book and is listed as a second author. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Dalshawa is clearly a hasbara editor. S/he's seen I added Sara Roy's book to the bibliography, and is now desperate to have Levitt's worthless shit put in there to give it what s/he regards as a similar level of prominence. "Worthless shit" is a succinct paraphrase of Roy's opinion. I'll be emptying the contents of Roy's book into this article at some point, so I dread to think how Dalshawa will control her/himself then! ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps Dalshawa is a prospective Haifa student!

Haifa U offering students new elective in 'hasbara'

"The students will participate in writing Wikipedia entries, publicizing hasbara (public diplomacy) talking points and confronting anti-Israel activists in online chat rooms."

~ Iloveandrea (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Primary source evidence that Japan classifies Hamas as terrorist

We used to have that evidence, but it has been deleted. The currently used news/opinion articles, which show a commonplace understanding likely based on this Wikipedia article, are not evidence at all. If anyone can find that old Japan foreign ministry (?) or ministry of justice pronouncement, from somewhere around 2002-2005, let's put it back into the article.Haberstr (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

By the same token, the Heritage Foundation is a partisan source and shouldn't be used to state that Russia does not consider Hamas a terrorist group. 169.231.55.127 (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It is easier to list countries that do not classify a group such as Hamas as terrorist, since most countries just don't do that, or any group. Anyway, I agree. It's disturbing that good primary sources have apparently been discarded for opinion articles.Haberstr (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Quotes section

I'll be going through and removing everything cited only to a primary source, and that includes translations by MEMRI. This is a top-level article, quotes by random clerics do not belong in an article on Hamas. See also WP:QUOTEFARM. I'm sure Wikiquote will be happy to accept these submissions. Or, you can make articles on these random clerics and quote them in that article. Matter of fact, I seem to recall a guide to editing Wikipedia that recommended such a course of action some years back. nableezy - 04:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You removed the quote about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They can be traced back to MEMRI, the original primary source, and is also quoted and used in this research paper on e-international relations (a secondary source). (There are a lot of other secondary sources, but mainly just blogs and forums, this is more of a research paper on a prestigious organization). Directly from the e-international relations Wikipedia page:

It is listed under "sites of related interest" by the London School of Economics and is recommended by leading professors and diplomats. Its articles have been cited by the Wall Street Journal's blog, The Brookings Institution's website, World Affairs, the Stanley Foundation's website, The Daily Beast, and the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect. It is indexed by the Human Security Gateway.

Another secondary source is here, here, and Jewish News Daily. They are all secondary sources as they use MEMRI as the primary source. --Activism1234 04:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That "research paper" is an essay by Maciej Osowski, who apparently is a student of International Politics/Intelligence at Aberystwyth University. In the quote you brought from the WP article on the site, you missed the important bit at the beginning of the article: is an open access e-magazine. That isn't a reliable source, sorry. The Jewish News Daily piece is just a link to the MEMRI page, the dailyalert.org, put out by the JCPA, is also just a link to and an overview of the MEMRI page, as is the realite-eu.org site, which looks like it is just some sort of aggregator. Reliable secondary sources please. nableezy - 05:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And really, just read the first sentence of that "research paper" and say with a straight face that this person should be cited in an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 06:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources? A secondary source would HAVE to either copy from MEMRI, include MEMRI, or link to MEMRI. Otherwise, it's not secondary. All you wrote was that you'd remove anything that's only a primary source. So I offered multiple secondary sources. Since you'll just call everything that links to MEMRI, including a research organization used by international media outlets and praised by mutliple organizations, and even a media outlet itself (Jewish News Daily), you create a situation in which there are no reliable sources that fit your skewed version. --Activism1234 13:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really. A reliable secondary source would be, for example, a news organization discussing this quote. Not a link to a MEMRI alert. nableezy - 15:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a terrorist organization? really...?

This site is so politically correct it hurts. "Political party"... yeah, right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.131.69 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the article says that it is not a terrorist organization. The lead says that it's a "Palestinian Sunni Islamic or Islamist political party" and that the "European Union, the United States, Canada, Israel and Japan classify Hamas as a terrorist organization". It's not an XOR. You can read WP:V and WP:NPOV to see two of the most important policies that govern Wikipedia content. You can also read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to see what Wikipedia talk pages are for. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hamas as only "political party" is POV

The view that Hamas is primarily a political party is POV which is not shared by most of international community, as EU, US and many other countries list it as terrorist organization The term militant organization is also widely supported. I propose changing of wording to Hamas is an Islamist militant organization and political party, considered by EU, USA and some other countries as terrorist organization. This wording can be backed with numerous sources. Political parties do not commit suicide bombings, shootings or rocket firings, therefore this do not go in lead.--Tritomex (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The number of countries that consider Hamas a terrorist organisation make up around 15% of the members of the international community, not "most". The article already covers the different views of Hamas in detail. Wayne (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Tritomex, I reverted before I saw this comment. Feel free to put the tag back. I suggest you merge this section with the section above. It's about the same issue and you will see my answer there and in my edit summary. I don't really see a problem with your proposed change because it acknowledges that Hamas are all of these things depending on who you ask. Regarding "Political parties do not commit suicide bombings"...please try to keep your personal views off talk pages. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hamas very obviously is at least partly a political party. That is a plain fact. They ran for elections, they were in the government, they currently govern Gaza. Also, the lead already includes who considers it a terrorist organization. nableezy - 06:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, having re-read, I'm not sure what you mean by "therefore this do not go in lead". Of course the fact that Hamas is a political party should go in the lead. That is a simple fact readily verifiable by RS. It is a political party and it is other things. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive view, Sean, I think my proposal acknowledge all views as per sources already stated. To make slight changes in my previous description my proposal Hamas is an Islamist militant organization and political party, considered by EU, USA and some other countries as terrorist organization. is acknowledging all widely sourced definitions of Hamas.Tritomex (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The above proposal is a better precis of all the views per the sources in the article and seeing as it incorporates the political dimension, it appears that the above objections have been dealt with. Ankh.Morpork 12:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesnt. The lead already includes who considers Hamas a terrorist organization. It's in the first paragraph. nableezy - 15:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I was assuming Tritomex was going to consolidate those parts (+refs) of the first paragraph. Is that the plan Tritomex ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how accurate the statement about political parties and suicide bombings is. Didn't the Nazi party kill 6 million Jews? Didn't the Communist party in Russia purge millions? Etc. Definitely a political party, but as Tritomex explains a bit above, his change would include it's a political party, and I don't object to it. It puts in all the various categorizations of Hamas, not just a political party, as Hamas was in fact a militant/terrrorist org before becoming a political party and remains so. --Jethro B 17:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Are people looking at a different article here? Because the first paragraph of this article already says the European Union, the United States, Canada, Israel and Japan classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, while the Arab nations, as well as some other countries including Russia and Turkey, do not. The lead already includes who considers it a terrorist organization. nableezy - 18:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And if i understand tritomex correctly, he's not calling to repeat this information, but rather to combine the information next to where it says political party. --Jethro B 21:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

But the fact that it is a political party is not in dispute. The same is not true for if it is a terrorist organization. The attempted equivalency here fails. nableezy - 21:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

My proposed edition Nableezy clearly put the term political party in the lead, and attribute the term terrorist organization to certain countries. If there is agreement on this issue by all I would merge the already existing description of Hamas as terrorist organization and remove the repetition of same sentence bellow. Also, I will add further sources directly supporting this attribution without removing the existing ones.

So Here is the proposal: Hamas (Arabic: حماس‎ Ḥamās, "enthusiasm", an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah, "Islamic Resistance Movement" is the Palestinian Sunni Islamist militant organization and political party, considered by EU, USA and some other countries as terrorist organization. . Hamas also has a military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.[6] Since June 2007 Hamas has governed the Gaza portion of the Palestinian Territories, after it won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament in the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections[7] and then defeated the Fatah political organization in a series of violent clashes. (The European Union, the United States,Canada, Israel and Japan classify Hamas as a terrorist organization,[11][12] while the Arab nations, as well as some other countries including Russia and Turkey,] do not.) removed Is there agreement for this edition?--Tritomex (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Proposal violates WP:NPOV. If I understand the proposal correctly, You aim to delete one viewpoint from the lead (that the Arab nations Russia and Turkey among others do not regard Hamas as a terror organization), while at the same time promoting the opposite view point (that the USA and EU among others do regard them as a terrorist organization) to a more prominent position in the first sentence. Dlv999 (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Proposal violates WP:NPOV. Hamas as a terrorist organization is a minority view so should not be be used as a primary description. Wayne (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

By using word some I clearly demonstrate that there are other countries with different opinion. I did not include Japan, Canada or Australia and others which consider Hamas as terrorist organization. As I see the fact that Hamas is also a militant organization is widely supported by sources. I am not against the repetition of the sentence related to view of Hamas as terrorist organization or not, I just do not see logical reason for that.

Minority view? It's the view of the world's leading European Union, along with the superpower USA. Not to mention some others, such as Japan and Canada. If the rest of the world says specifically Hamas is specifically not terrorist org, I can understand your point. But that is not the case. Whether Zimbabwe chooses to classify Hamas as terrorist or not in a matter that doesn't impact them is minor compared to EU, USA, etc. --Jethro B 15:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

We can't rank countries and organizations of states ourselves, assign them relative weights and make content decisions based on those. We have to rely on the sources about Hamas doing that. And for what its worth, although it's OR, the perceived relative importance of countries and organizations of states certainly seem very different in my experience depending on where you happen to be, who you are dealing with etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

While we can't rank countries, we also cannot classify it as a minority view. As listed in the article, many credible countries do consider it a terrorist organization. (Note that PLO has renounced terrorism, while Hamas has not.) --207.237.215.72 (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The article should classify it the same way that reliable sources classify it, which may be in a variety of conflicting ways, and if they don't, then neither should we. If there are sources that classify it as a minority view then we can say that. Sorry, I don't know what a "credible country" is. Several countries consider it a terrorist organization. We say that. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

WLRoss-Provide sources that states that the description of Hamas as terrorist organization is minority view.--Tritomex (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the view of Amr Moussa, Secretary-General of the Arab League, "The view that Hamas is a terrorist organization is a view that pertains to a minority of countries, not a majority." interview in the Washington Post. So that view certainly exists and has been published by an RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "militant organization" is widely supported by almost all sources and has to be included in lead.--Tritomex (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that the first sentence needs to include who considers it a terrorist organization, especially since this is not the article on the Izz ad-Dine al-Qassam Brigades. There are states that consider the IDF a terrorist organization (eg Iran). That doesnt mean it goes in the first sentence. nableezy - 16:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"widely supported by almost all sources"....could you provide evidence to support statements you make about sources or else they are just assertions which aren't very useful here. I'm not sure how correct you are. For example "Hamas is a Palestinian Islamist military and sociopolitical movement that grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood."Hamas: Background and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service. A quock look through google books shows that descriptions of Hamas vary quite widely between sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

IDF is the official regular army of a country, not a militant organization like Hamas repudiated by the majority of the free world and democratic nations. If the theocratic, terrorism sponsor, antisemitic, Holocaust denier, fundamentalist, human rights violator, misogynist, homophobic, islamofascist, fanatic, repressor and genocidal regime of Iran accuses the IDF for practicing terrorism... well, that's another discussion. In any case, Israeli soldiers should be more worried if Iranian leaders support them.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion about the article. Can you make that the last time you use Wikipedia as a soapbox ? It doesn't help and it is isn't allowed. If Hamas is a subject you have strong feelings about that you are unable to keep under control, pick another article to edit. There are millions. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I was answering to the user who said the lead indicating Hamas is a terrorist organization should be removed because "Iran accused IDF for terrorism". lol--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Laugh all you like, but the free world is made up of more than Israel and its backers. The overwhelming majority of states do not consider Hamas a terrorist organization. And your personal opinions on what Iran is dont really concern me. I can think of more than a few people that would call Israel a genocidal, Jewish supremacist, racist, terrorism sponsor, human rights violater, misogynist, fanatic, and repressive. I dont however spend my time writing that in a Wikipedia talk page. Finally, pay more attention to what people say. Nobody said anything about removing that certain states consider Hamas a terrorist organization. Kindly dont distort people's positions. nableezy - 17:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Except for a few radical states, no serious country supports Hamas. The great majority of the world only recognize the legitimacy of Abbas' Palestinian Authority. I don't know if Peruvian authorities listed Hamas as a terrorist organization, but I can assure you this doesn't mean the Peruvians support Hamas or refuse to consider it a terror group. Same applies to rest of international community.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Umm, your view on what states are radical and what states count doesnt matter. And the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of states do not consider Hamas a terrorist organization. nableezy - 18:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

With your criteria, we could say exactly the same of all terrorist organizations in the world (except for Al-Qaeda, perhaps), even if they deliberately attack innocent civilians in a systematic way like Hamas. The majority of states probably don't know what is Hamas and have no relation with this conflict, unlike the entire European Union, USA, Israel, Australia, Japan and Canada.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thats just made up. nableezy - 18:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

But of course, I guess we all are very interested to know first the opinion of the Ayatollahs about this issue.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not keep including Australia in the list of countries who list Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Australia recognises Hamas as a "militant Sunni Islamist organisation and political party", Australia only lists the Brigades as a terrorist organisation. . Wayne (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

In my proposed edition I did not even went into minority or majority view, The view of Amr Moussa, that the view of Hamas as terrorist organization is a minority view, has same importance as the view of Avigdor Liberman that the "IDF is the most human army on planet" or the view of another Israeli minister that "Judea and Samaria is eternally part of Israel for 3000 years" or the view of Mitt Romney that "Palestinains are invented people" This alongside with the view of Amr Mousa are personal claims attributable to those who made it. We can not add this opinions as "facts" in lead of different articles. This kind of claims can not be sources for any validation. Latter I will post sources for my proposed edition, which is very neutral and balanced. I will repeat it: Hamas (Arabic: حماس‎ Ḥamās, "enthusiasm", an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah, "Islamic Resistance Movement" is the Palestinian Sunni Islamist militant organization and political party, considered by EU, USA and some other countries as terrorist organization.Tritomex (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that dispute the fact that Hamas is a political party? If there are they can be incorporated into the article. If such sources do not exist the POV tag should be removed from that statement as it is well sourced. Dlv999 (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source which dispute that Hamas is a militant organization too? If there is no, the lead needs to be changed and this word has to be incorporated to the text.--Tritomex (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This introduction is blatantly biased at present and going out of its way to downplay the fact this is a terrorist organisaton. I have added the POV tag. This is about the introduction as a whole, not merely the first sentence calling hamas a political party, which is also blatantly unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's an organization that has both a political wing and a military wing. Who says it's a political party with a military wing rather than a military organization with a political wing? Haven't Hamas officials said that both wings are equally important? I'll try to find a quote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think how it currently stands is the best way to put it. Hamas is a political party, and it clarifies lower in the paragraph that the EU, USA, Canada, and Israel consider them a terrorist organization, while other countries such as Russia and Turkey do not view them as terrorist organizations. The proposed change would be removing the point of view of countries who do not think Hamas is a terrorist organization. It is blatantly clear that whoever has proposed this change is biased in their opinion of Hamas because of the fact that they wish to do away with the opinions of countries claiming that Hamas is not a terrorist organization. 146.129.250.194 (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that they are a "militant" organization and "militant" is the issue here. The "terrorist" argument is irrelevant. I am of the opinion that the current wording, placing more emphasis on "political" is not ideal. They are more notable as a militant organization, they gained their entire political power through militancy, and they clearly were a militant organization before becoming a political party.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

What they were originally is irrelevant because they are separate from the brigades and they have distanced themselves from their more extreme views such as the charter. They are now seen primarily as a political party by most of the world. While there is no problem with mentions of their militancy, per weight, emphasis in the lead should be on political. Wayne (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You yourself quoted the Australian government saying that Hamas is a "militant Sunni Islamist organisation and political party". So I'm not sure where you get the idea that they "are now seen primarily as a political party by most of the world". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Primarily political for many reasons. There are many countries with governments more violent than Hamas yet they are not called militant in their articles. As Bush said when he was president...it's not a crime if he does it because being president gives him immunity. "[there has been] a 'paradigm shift' in Hamas — led by Mr. Meshal, over some resistance from hardliners in Gaza — away from an armed campaign and toward less violent popular resistance to Israel." -New York Times January 29, 2012. Wayne (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion. The question is what most reliable sources use. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)