Talk:Hamas/Archive 7

Points of reference... Sinn Fein and the IRA
I thought that I might point out that a similar relationship to Hamas and the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades existed between the Northern Irish movements of Sinn Fein and the IRA during the 70s, 80s and 90s. I think that these two excellent articles on Wikipedia perhaps offer a useful template for this article. In both of these articles, the introduction outlines the organisation broadly within its own terms, whilst the subsequent sections talk in detail about controversies and the views of others.

Interestingly, the UK - having dealt with Sinn Fein and the IRA - only officially consider the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades to be a terrorist organisation. But, perhaps that point should be saved for a different discussion -- 128.232.240.178 13:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamas' own view
An interesting article in the LA Times by a Hamas official shows its own view:



&mdash;Ashley Y 00:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamas is best know for....
I agree with Nbauman. Newspapers that are generally considered to be reliable sources cannot be considered to be reliable sources if they give opinions without supporting evidence. This is why a reputable journal like the Wall Street Journal is not regarded as a reliable source in the Global Warming article. They regularly publish editorials disputing the consensus on climate change. But they do not cite peer reviewed papers when they do that.

Basically the facts reported on wikipedia have to be verifiable. That means that if wikipedia refers to the Baltimore Sun, then I should be able to verify that fact from the Baltimore Sun. Which means that they should explain how they obtained that fact, e.g. a poll or they should cite a study published somewhere else. Count Iblis 20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have completely misunderstood (or perhaps not read) WP:V. It says that sources are either reliable or not; it doesn't say that we have to be able to fact-check them ourselves, or that they suddenly become unreliable if we happen to disagree with something they've said. Regarding newspapers, the statements in question do not come from their opinion pages, but rather from their hard news pages. In addition, the sources used are not just newspapers; PBS, ABCNews, Time Magazine, and Der Speigel are not newspapers. And James L. Gelvin is certainly not a newspaper; rather, he is a recognized, highly respected, expert in exactly this field. Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV says: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions\u2014but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute..."


 * "Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources.


 * When you say, "It is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks" that's not a fact but an opinion, just like saying that the Beatles were the greatest band. You have to attribute it to the media, and you haven't done so.


 * You also have to support that with reference to a particular survey, or to something equivalent to the Billboard Hot 100. You haven't done that. That long list of citations is merely a collection of opinions, the equivalent of saying, "the Beatles were the greatest band." According to WP:NPOV you can't say that without reference to something like a particular survey.Nbauman 21:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The sections you are citing apply in the case of a single opinion. When you have a dozen different reliable sources all making the same claim, and none claiming anything different, then it is a simple fact and can be stated as such. Have you found any reliable sources that claim anything different? Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One should be able to read from the sources how the conclusion was arrived at. Otherwise it is just an opinion and that should then be stated in the article. As for contradictory published opinions, you wouldn't expect there to be any, because Hamas being best known for X or Y is simply not an interesting topic for research.


 * Perhaps Hamas is no longer "best known" anymore for sucide bombings but rather for their takeover of Gaza. But assuming that to be the case, you wouldn't see a flood of articles that will write: "Hamas used to be best known for suicide bombings, but a recent poll conducted by X now says that Hamas is best known for the Gaza takeover." Can you imagine reading this somewhere? I can't, and this just shows that when people write about Hamas being best known for X or Y, they do that for literary purposes.


 * Such statements then can lead lives of their own, detached from future developments. Suppose that after 30 years there is peace with Israel, there is a Palestinian state and that Hamas is a repectable political party. Even then you would still have your old sources saying that "Hamas is best known for suicide attacks" and there would still not be any sources saying that Hamas is best known for something else. Count Iblis 23:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "One should be able to read from the sources how the conclusion was arrived at". According to whom? Is there some part of WP:V you are referring to? In fact, using original research to try to confirm or refute reliable sources is a violation of policy. And you don't need a bunch of articles saying Hamas is not best known for suicide bombings, you just need reliable sources saying it is best known for something else. Regarding your final point, when that time comes, we will be able to say that it was best known for suicide bombings. There's no point in trying to pretend that the truth doesn't exist; Hamas is infamous for suicide bombings, and that fact is also verified. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that one has to perform original research to verify sources. If I read something in a newspaper about some event, I know that a journalist is reporting on facts. Unless that newpapaper is not reliable (e.g. known for inventing facts), we don't have to question that. But statements that are clearly not the result of observations or measurements must not be taken too seriously. I agree that Hamas is infamous for suicide bombings, that is pretty much undisputed. But very specific statements (in this case the word "best" in "best known" and "outside the Palestinian territories") requires additional evidence which simply does not exist. Perhaps this issue must be raised at the talk pages of WP:V and related pages... Count Iblis 01:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a fine line between "infamous" and "best known", and the sources do say "best known". And, as I've pointed out, they're not all newspapers. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "One should be able to read from the sources how the conclusion was arrived at". According to whom? Is there some part of WP:V you are referring to?


 * We're referring to this part of WP:NPOV:


 * we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey;


 * "the Beatles were the greatest band" must be supported by references to a particular survey.


 * Similarly, "Best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings" must be supported by references to a particular survey.


 * It's not sufficient to simply find many newspapers that describe the Beatles as the greatest band, just as it's not sufficient to find many newspapers that describe Hamas as "Best known" for its suicide bombing.


 * Therefore, that line about Hamas violates WP:NPOV. Nbauman 05:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you've read the responses above, which deal with what you're saying. It's not just one source that says they're "best known" for that, but a dozen. When a dozen diverse reliable sources say something, one cannot list every single one that says it; rather, one simply reports the fact. If you find reliable sources that say they are best known for something else, then, of course, one would have to report on both "sides". But right now, reliable sources support only one view. Jayjg (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several sources that say "Hamas is best known in the west for...etc etc". I think this is more NPOV as there are many Islamic communities/countries in the east that that dont have the view as well as many countries who probably don't even think about what Hamas is known for at all. Wayne 06:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When an opinion on such a controversial subject is disputed, newspapers are no longer a RS as they usually conform to their governments POV. In fact they actually lie as was proved when FOX was sued and the courts ruled the media has no obligation to tell the truth even if they know what they report is a lie. If we use only Islamic newspapers I guarantee they will mostly say Hamas is best know for their humanitarian works but no one is suggesting we edit that in. I suggest using a RS that is an academic opinion for a reference to avoid the dispute. Wayne 17:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, to begin with, American and British newspapers do not, in fact, "usually conform to their governments POV". Second, we haven't quoted FOX here. Third, as explained many times, many of the sources are not newspapers. Since you seem to be ignoring my comments, which pointed out many times that it was more than just newspapers, I'm not going to respond any more to yours. I hope you don't mind. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've obviously read the responses above. You keep repeating an argument that violates the explicit words of WP:NPOV.


 * If you want to say, "The Beatles were the greatest band," it's not enough to get repeated media statements that The Beatles were the greatest band; you have to get a RS reporting a survey of people from, say, Liverpool, saying that The Beatles are the greatest band.


 * Similarly, if you want to say that "Hamas is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks," it's not enough to get repeated media statements; you have to get a RS reporting a survey of people from outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip saying so.


 * The example of The Beatles in WP:NPOV parallels the case of Hamas in every substantial way. You're violating NPOV and I'm going to change it.


 * I propose we take this to arbitration, since you simply deny that WP rules apply even when they clearly do. I believe that any unbiased reader of WP:NPOV will agree with me. Nbauman 18:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But you keep inserting falsehoods into the statement; it's not just "Western media" who make this claim, and you still haven't found any sources that say they're best known for anything else. Also, the Arbitration Committee doesn't deal with content disputes, and doesn't in any event deal with disputes that have not first been through mediation. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that is about as clear as it can possibly be stated. Jayjg, Avraham, and any of the others who keep insisting on a unqualified version of the "best known" line are running afoul of the Assert facts, including facts about opinions\u2014but do not assert the opinions themselves bit of WP:NPOV. Tarc 19:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As explained, oh gosh, 5 times now, we can't really list all the sources which say it, because there are a dozen now. At some point something just becomes fact. Of course, I have welcomed someone else providing a source that says Hamas is "best known" for something else, but so far there have been no takers. How about you? Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The number of citations is irrelevant. There are hundreds of reputable sources that contradict the scientific consensus on global warming. However, because they give opinions, mostly of dissenting scientists and do not give detailed scientific arguments (also there is no peer review in newspapers), such articles cannot be regarded as a reliable source for that article. I think that this case is much the same. You can have many articles making statements that can only be established using some research. But if that research (like conducting polls) is not done, then it is just an opinion.


 * With Jayjg's rule, the pseudoscience pushers would have a field day on wikipedia. There are a lot of them here on wikipedia who edit articles like theoneon Cold Fusion. They write about some observed anolay that has allegedly been observed, giving some citation to a newspaper article. You'll never be able to dispute that directly by citing some scientist who contradicts that, because they won't bother. The way to deal with this problem is to demand that the citation for a claim be of an acceptable standard. In case of scientific articles that would be the peer reviewed journals that have a high impact factor in the relevant field.


 * In case of this article, one has to make sure that if we present something to be a fact rather than an opinion, the literature indeed presents it in that way. But the sentence "best known..." in the cited articles is presented there as a vague opinion, not supported by any research. Count Iblis 20:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your slippery slope argument does not apply, as "pseudoscience pushers" are not reliable sources to begin with. On the other hand, The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, and Mark Andersen are. And in any event, James L. Gelvin is certainly an expert on this topic. Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it were only that simple. From time to time you'll read articles on, say, Cold fusion, in similar reliable sources that give the perspecive of someone who disputes the established scientific point of view. Let me give another example. Prof. Lindzen is an expert in meteorology, who regularly publishes his skeptical ideas on climate science in the reputable journal The Wall Street Journal Count Iblis 21:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And you know what? He may be right. He's not the only respected scientist who is a climate science skeptic, at least regarding the current claims being advanced regarding the accuracy of the models being used, the attribution of causes, and the predictions for the future. However, that's completely unrelated to the topic at hand; there is no pseudo-science here, and no-one is claiming anything particularly outrageous or even that hard to believe. I think we're all agreed that Hamas is infamous for suicide bombings, so now it's just a tiny issue of degree, whether it is not only "infamous", but also "best known". As I said earlier, that's a very find distinction. I've already ignored some of the original waffle put into the sentence, where it says "outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip", even though almost none of the sources qualify "best known" in this way. Indeed, you can bet that Hamas is very well known for its suicide bombings inside the West Bank and Gaza Strip as well. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, if The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, all had articles saying, "The Beatles were the greatest band," without reference to surveys or other supporting material, would you say that we could then write in Wikipedia, without attribution, "The Beatles were the greatest band"? Nbauman 21:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have left off a couple of the sources. This doesn't surprise me. Have I been able to make it clear to you yet that James L. Gelvin says the exact same thing? That Gelvin is an academic expert? Try an analogy that includes that sort of source, then I'll respond. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have no objection if you wrote, "According to James L. Gelvin, Hamas is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks."


 * But my position is you can't say "Hamas is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks," and attribute it to Gelvin or anybody else in the footnotes.


 * Once again, I'm asking you: if The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, all had articles saying, "The Beatles were the greatest band," without reference to surveys or other supporting material, would you say that we could then write in Wikipedia, without attribution, "The Beatles were the greatest band"? Nbauman 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But Gelvin doesn't say "outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip"; he simply says Hamas is "best known" for its suicide attacks. Would you be o.k. with that? How about if the article said "According to James L. Gelvin, The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, and Mark Andersen, Hamas is best known for suicide attacks"? Would that be a reasonable statement in your view? Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, a statement that began, "According to James L. Gelvin," etc. would not violate WP:NPOV. Nbauman 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But would it make sense to insert the sentence "According to James L. Gelvin, The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, and Mark Andersen, Hamas is best known for suicide attacks" into the article? Also, I'm very curious, as I can't seem to get an answer to this question: Is Hamas "best known" for anything else? Jayjg (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't make sense, but at least it wouldn't violate WP:NPOV.

I don't think it makes any sense to say in a purported objective, factual article that an entity is "best known" for anything. If there were an objective measurement such as polling data, it might (or might not) make sense, as in the Beatles example, but you don't have that objective measurement here. Nbauman 02:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the sources cited were probably talking out of their behinds when they came up with "Hamas is best known...". But honestly, who cares? Can't we just say "widely known", "well known", "notorious", etc? Yes, it's true that as an organization, Hamas does not invest a major portion of its resources into suicide bombings, and they've suspended their use of the tactic for at least two years now. Those facts should be mentioned, too, and prominently. But I don't understand why it's so important to split hairs over wording here. Can we just say "notorious" and leave it at that? Eleland 03:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not spliting hairs. It's an important principle that Wikipedia must stick to the verifiable facts. In using Wikipedia, we all agree to follow WP:NPOV and the other Wikipedia rules that prevent people with one particular ideology from taking over an issue and turning it into propaganda.


 * This Hamas article violates many Wikipedia rules, including NPOV, which is the most clear-cut and egregious.


 * Wikipedia absolutely must not say in the text that Hamas is a terrorist WP:WTA organization or that it's "best known" for its terrorist activities, without attribution. If Wikipedia allowed that, we would be arguing forever about for example whether Israel is a terrorist state. Nbauman 04:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with considering the aggregation of sources reliable, but I think it should be "Best known in the West for its sucide bombings" (or possibly "in Israel and the West"). I don't think the sources given support more than that. &mdash;Ashley Y 05:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ashley Y, please clarify. Do you mean you're fine with using the attribution, such as "According to James L. Gelvin, Hamas is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks."?


 * You agree that we can't just write, "Hamas is best known outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip for its suicide bombings and other attacks," right? Nbauman 10:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem we're having here is an administrator who is fabricating policy such as "at some point something just becomes fact". What the real policy states is that we are to assert the facts of the opinion (i.e. that many Western media/sources feel Hamas is best known for suicide bombings and such), and we are not not assert that opinion itself as fact (i.e. declaring that Hamas is best known for suicide bombings). Tarc 13:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Try to avoid comments which could be considered personal attacks ("fabricating policy"). I strongly suggest that this issue, which frankly strikes me as really, really stupid, be sidestepped. Describe Hamas as "notorious for" suicide attacks, or "well known for" if you insist that "notorious" sounds like editorializing. This article may have POV problems but laser-like focus on this single, fairly unimportant distinction between "best known", "best known in the West", "best known in the West according to (laundry list of reliable sources)" is a waste of time. Eleland 16:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the sources says "infamous", I believe, and other editors here have agreed that the term is appropriate. The problem is that all of the sources actually say "best known". I suppose we could try "Infamous for its suicide bombings etc.", if everyone else agrees. It can't really be "best known in the west" because almost none of the sources make that qualification. It astonishes me how editors here are willing to insert all sorts of unsourced claims into the intro on this subject, but mightily resist the actual wording used by a dozen reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, I keep asking you this question and you haven't given me an answer: If The Baltimore Sun, Time Magazine, ABC News, Der Spiegel, PBS FRONTLINE, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, CNN, The Scotsman, all had articles saying, "The Beatles were the greatest band," without reference to surveys or other supporting material, would you say that we could then write in Wikipedia, without attribution, "The Beatles were the greatest band"?


 * I'd like you to answer this question. Or if you can't answer this question, say so. \u2014The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nbauman (talk \u2022 contribs) 13:31, July 19, 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I asked my question first, so I'll expect an answer first. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I gave you your answer. You're obviously playing games with me. For the record, you can't or won't answer that question. I'll leave it at that. Nbauman 21:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you actually have never answered the question. Show me the post in which you did. And it's time for you to stop playing games; Wikipedia will report what reliable sources say on this topic, regardless of your determined attempts to whitewash this article. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You got your answer, and I'll answer again. The idea that Hamas has to be "best known for" anything is nonsense. Nbauman 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

 * Jayjg, how can "infamous" or "notorious" be a neutral point of view? Nbauman 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Because you are misunderstanding what neutral point of view means. It does not mean that the text has to be written as if by a lobotomized robot. It means \u201crepresenting fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).\u201d Here, fairly representing the views published by the LONG list of reliable sources brought in the article demands our use of terms similar to "best known", "infamous", etc. To do otherwise is to deny, or re-write, the evidence provided, which is a VIOLATION of WP:NPOV, besides original research. Here, I will bring a larger excerpt for your convenience, but I suggest that you re-read the policy on neutral point of view for your own clarification (emphasis added is my own):

-- Avi 17:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What Avi said. They are, indeed, and without question, infamous for suicide attacks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

One way to be neutral is to have balanced bias e.g. 'best known for suicide bombings and other attacks in it's war against Israeli attacks and occupation', but that doesn't seem to take things forward. I think it's meaningless to say what Hamas is 'best known for' as it shouldn't be reduced to such a limited description, especially one that is hardly unique, and controversial. --Flexdream 09:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Responsible for\u2026
I think that is a reasonable substitution. -- Avi 17:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that it would be better. You see that sticking to the hard facts works both ways... Count Iblis 17:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Too bland, doesn't represent the sources properly. I've put in infamous. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, but then there are other citations that can be used... Count Iblis 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that "best known" is amply supported. I also think that responsible for is an acceptable compromise. Consensus has not been reached for either one. I would like to know the arguments of those who do not believe that "best known" is appropriate, being that the literature seems to have used that statement. I would also like to know the argumets of those who believe "responsible" is insufficient. Thanks -- Avi 01:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah is best known for....
I can't find it in the Hezbollah article :) I'm sure that if I could find such statements in the lead, then that article would still have the POV tag on it and would certainly not have been awarded Good Article Status.

So, why not consider if we want to have difficult to verify statements (and I mean "verify" in the literally sense not in the wiki-law sense) that expresses certain opinions in the lead. In this case the statement is itself the opinion of people (that Hamas is best known for...) about which certain authors have expressed an opinion without doing any research to gauge that opinion. So, the dispute is whether it is an opinion about an opinion, or wheter it is a fact that it is "the opinion".

So, I would propose to focus more on the hard facts in the lead. Opinions about Hamas are facts too, but they are secondary facts. They must also be mentioned in the article, can even be mentioned in the lead if it is important enough. But any fact, whether it is a fact about the organization or a fact about the opinion of people must be presented fairly.

If we assume for a moment that Hamas is indeed "best known for suicide attacks" (e.g. suppose that a poll shows this), it would still not be a good idea to mention this in the lead. The suicide attacks themselves are then more important facts and these should be presented more prominently. In the lead you want to put the most important facts about the organization. So, one has to wonder why one would want to mention an opinion about the conduct of an organization in the lead, rather than the conduct itself. Count Iblis 17:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All I know is that Tarc inserted that falsehood about "in the Western media" again, which shows he hasn't even bothered to look at the sources or the Talk: page. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have, and the only one spouting falsehoods here is you I'm afraid. The sources are all examples of Western media, and the continued insertion of it is a clear NPOV violation.  Hell, the "infamous" term is even worse, as now we're nose-diving into weasel words. Tarc 21:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tarc, I have clearly pointed out several times that not all sources used are "Western media". I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself. Please review the sources and the Talk: page, and refrain from inserting original research falsehoods into the article again. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All of the sources grouped together under note #5 are Western media and books by Western authors. Please stop distorting the facts. Tarc 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, it appears you tried to pull a fast one there. A book by a scholar of the Middle East, whose particular expertise is nationalism and the social and cultural history of the modern Middle East, is not "Western media". Please don't insert falsehoods into the article again. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In the context of the discussion, "Western media" and Israeli sources are one and the same. You should have known that, and if you didn't well, now you do!  Whoops! Tarc 12:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, "Israeli sources" is not the same thing as "Western media. More importantly, you seem singularly unable to read; there are no Israeli sources used to support that claim. Whoops! You've been exposed again. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Distinction without a difference, son. You're quite in the minority view here, so perhaps you should just quit while you're behind. Tarc 22:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, actually, there's a huge difference between a scholar on the subject and a "Western media source". By the way, were you able to find that "Israeli source"? I can't seem to locate it. As for "quite in the minority", I have 12 reliable sources and two strong policies on my side, which puts me in the majority. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Best known for ---> Responsible for
I know that the sentence now reads a bit more awkward and that the citation needs t be modified a bit. Also, we may want to qualify this statement a bit more. But I think that this is better, given what I wrote above... Count Iblis 17:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've modified to something more realistic, "infamous". The sources actually support "best known", but I'm willing to compromise. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're willing to compromise. We can compromise on something more neutral than "infamous", which has a clear bias and point of view. Nbauman 21:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, you have misunderstood what "neutral" means in the WP:NPOV policy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nbauman has not misunderstood what "neutral" means. Administrator should cease from pushing POV in the intro to this article. The second paragraph is highly misleading. It states the obvious falsehood that Hamas is best known outside of Palestine for its suicide attacks. Nonsense. Everyone here knows that that is untrue, but one person is almost singlehandedly stonewalling efforts to insert reality into the second paragraph. I don't want to sound combative, but reading through the archives it's pretty clear that that is what's happening here. Please cease from pushing POV at the expense of reality. There is a near-consensus here, since the sentence with "best known for" is so clearly absurd. The weak argument that we are just going along with the sources doesn't hold water here, since the sources aren't based on polls, and since almost everyone here thinks the current phrasing is misleading. Let's put something in the second paragraph that reflects reality. The point of this article is not to make Hamas look bad by inserting whatever reflects our viewpoints at the expense of a reflective and accurate article. Finally, the editor who is downplaying the significance of this aspect of the intro might reconsider; with Gaza effectively starving to death right now, propaganda-pushing at the expense of fact and perspective is no light matter. Organ123 00:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In reality I think everyone here knows it's true, though some are publicly denying it because of personal bias. In any event, the material is properly sourced to reliable sources, and not one person has yet to come up with any other thing that Hamas might be best known for. Your argument that "the sources aren't based on polls" is a fundamental violation of Wikipedia policy; WP:V says we rely on reliable sources, we don't use our own original research to try to disprove them. Finally, the editor referring to "propaganda-pushing" would do well to avoid engaging in it in the future; that would be a nice change. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually we don't have a strict separation between reliable sources and non reliable sources. See the examples about scientific topics I gave above. This is not an Original Research issue, rather just demanding that the sources give facts rather than opinions (and if they give opinions rather than facts that we report it here as being an opinion). If a source is reliable they will tell how they got the facts they report on if it isn't obvious.


 * Anyway, I think the best thing to do is to avoid the issue altogether. If there are no objections then let's just replace:


 * "Best known for" ---> "Responsible for"


 * and replace the citation by the citations given in the section about military and terror attacs. Count Iblis 01:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep acting as if a) "facts" and "opinions" were completely different beasts, b) one could easily distinguish between the two, and c) Wikipedia policy insisted we should only deal with "facts". It's not our responsibility to decide what "THE TRUTH" is; instead, we repeat what reliable sources say. And in this case, reliable sources say "best known". There's no getting around that simple point. Oh, and what else is Hamas "best known" for? I'm going to repeat that question in every single comment from now on, until someone finally answers it, or publicly admits that they're best known for suicide attacks - something we all actually know, but which most of us has been reluctant to admit so far. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:42, 20 July 2007

(UTC)
 * There is also a source that says "perhaps best known for". And I'm not really sure that people in Iran and Syria have this opinion (partially due to their state propaganda). And today Hamas may well be better known for the recent events in Gaza. The problem I have with the sentence is that in the reliable sources themselves they were never meant to be taken to be hard facts. You can't take one sentence quotes from articles and then say that because the journal in which it is published is a reliable source it must be taken to be the truth without question.


 * If you want to know what reliable sources say, then you must focus on articles that investigate this matter. It is wrong to take an article that reports on some totally different aspect and in the introduction makes a sweeping statement and then quote that statement.

Count Iblis 01:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But it's not just one source, it's a dozen, and it includes works by scholars and experts on the subject. And as far as Hamas being "best known" for what happened in Gaza, according to whom? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In astrophysics you can find many articles that write in the introducton that "the lightest supersymmetric particle is the best motivated candidate for the dark matter". But that's presented as an opinion. If I need to give a citation to the claim that it is well motivated in a research article, I cannot give citatons to these articles just because they make such statements in the intro. I must instead cite articles that discuss the viability of that type of particle as a good dark matter candidate.


 * Anyway, why do you object to mentioning that Hamas is responsible for suicide bombings in the lead? Count Iblis 02:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain again why one should replace: "Best known for" by "Responsible for". Suppose you think that the fact that Hamas is Best known for suicide attacks is very significant. But then the reason why Hamas is best known for that must be even more significant: namely that Hamas has carried out many suicide bombings. Therefore that would be the thing to mention in the lead. That then defines that aspect of Hamas that makes it "Best known for suicide bombings". This simply has more to do with Hamas itself. The perception this has caused in the minds of the public is a consequence of that. Count Iblis 02:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Count Iblis et. al. are correct. Administrator keeps mentioning WP:V -- but verifiability is exactly the problem with the "best known for" language. It's simply not verified without a poll, and, since there are obvious contradictions to the claim (see Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, etc), almost every single editor to this page has a problem with it. "Responsible for" is a much more verifiable claim, one we can all agree on. Is Hamas "responsible for" suicide attacks? Of course it is. Done. I suggest that Count Iblis enact his/her proposed language. Then we can worry about improving the intro, but at least we'll be dealing with statements that aren't obviously false. Organ123 13:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you've misunderstood WP:V. WP:V does not say "sources become unreliable if they haven't done polls". I'm restoring the properly sourced material, rather than the pablum that's currently there. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't misunderstood anything. I'm asserting that a small minority of editors here are forcing the insertion of unqualified, unverifiable statements into an article, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the editors. Please see WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:RESOLVING DISPUTES. Organ123 23:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your ad hominem and factually incorrect statements have nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia policy, except that they are a violation of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I have not violated WP:CIVIL, nor have I used ad hominem or factually incorrect statements. In fact I was stating a factual observation of what was occurring here, and suggesting that editors and administrators who were forcing the insertion of unqualified, unverifiable statements kindly refer to Wikipedia's policies opposing such actions. Please see WP:CIVIL and ad hominem for further information. Furthermore, I will not be put on the defensive about WP:CIVIL claims when I have been nothing but civil with an administrator who has been consistently uncivil towards me as well as other good faith editors who disagree with his/her viewpoints. Organ123 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The sourced material is just one sentence. I've changed that sentence and given a new citations supporting that new sentence. The mark up text containing all the old citations doesn't count as "sourced material" that should not be deleted. That would prevent anyone from making changes to the text, because you essentially fix what the citation should be for that sentence. That's a strange way to write an article, no one writes articles that way. Also, the old statement with the same refs are given further on in the article. So, the citations are still referred to in this article. Count Iblis 00:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is thoroughly documented, but for some people no amount of sources will be enough. I suggest you stop this nonsense and move on. \u2190Humus sapiens \u043d\u0443? 03:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement is not backed up by valid evidence in the literature at all. Try to submit an article about public perceptions of militant groups to a peer reviewed journal. Write that Hamas is best known for suicide bombings while giving the references we give here :)


 * It would be better to focus more on the facts themselves. What is nonsensical is to protect a sentence like "Best known for X" and revert my edit that says "Responsible for X". Count Iblis 13:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Editors and administrators should adhere to WP:consensus and not force (obviously false) text into an article against the wishes of the vast majority of the editors, particularly when an alternative text that everyone agrees is true has been presented. Organ123 23:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's bizarre that you keep claiming that something sourced to 12 reliable sources is "obviously false". The sources explicitly state it is best known for that. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is clearly not "obviously true". We are taking sentences from articles that were never meant to be the very precise truth. That is very clear if you read these articles. The sentence just expresses the fact that Hamas is generally well known for suicide bombings. But to what extent exactly and where in the world is Hamas best known for suicide bombings is not rigorously determined.
 * If we write in this wiki article that "Hamas is best known..." while giving the refs, then to a reader that suggests that it has been determined that this is the case. That's outright misleading. If I did such a thing in a scientific article, that would be considered a big mistake, perhaps even outright scientific fraud.Count Iblis 20:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When James L. Gelvin writes an academic book on the subject, in which he explicitly states that Hamas is best known for suicide bombings, he means it as a precise truth. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is meant to be the precise truth, then there must necessarily exist research performed either by him or by someone else that shows this. It is not original research for us to actualy read a source and then see if he refers to other sources, in which case we would go to these other cited sources, or read in the source itself how the author determined the statement to be true.


 * But from my experience, not everything that is written in academic texts or peer reviewed articles is meant to be the precise truth. When we do mean something to be taken the literal truth, we always back up what we say using evidence, either by presenting results from research, or by referring to the literature. If we don't do this then that's an indication that it is an opinion or it could be common knowledge. It is therefore wrong to repeat such an opinion somewhere else by giving a citation to the  article that gives that opinion, because then the presence of the citation at the end of the sentence suggests that it has been determined to be a fact.Count Iblis 21:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But, in fact, it is original research for us to look at a reliable source and decide that we don't like his methodology, or sources, or reasoning, or whatever, and therefore reject his claims. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. However, simply reading from the source to see if any sources are given or if there is any research presented at all, is not original research. This is what we are suppsed to do on wikipedia: Reading the sources and present the contents of the sources here. It is then important to present statements here on wikipedia with the same modality as they were presented in the sources. Count Iblis 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Best known for" versus "Responsible for"
As Avraham suggested above, let's hear the arguments of editors on why "Best known for" is not appropriate, or why "Responsible for" is insufficient. Count Iblis 20:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Best known for" is not appropriate
The main problem I have with the "Best known" sentence has nothing to do with whether or not this statement is actually true or if it is well sourced enough to present it as a fact in this wiki article. I think that it is better to focus on the facts about Hamas itself in the lead. Facts about opinions on Hamas are of secondary importance and should be mentioned in later sections of the article. In the lead, you want to define the organization we are talking about. The facts presented there should be directly related to the organization.

Clearly, the fact that Hamas has actually carried out suicide bombings is something that belongs in the lead. The public opinion is not such a fact, because that could change even if Hamas doesn't change. The discussion above is evidence for this. Some editors dispute if we can take the sentence "Best know for suicide bombings" literally. E.g. is Hamas really best known for suicide bombings in Syria and Iran? I would say that Hamas would still be the same Hamas whether Hamas is best known in Syria for suicide bombings or not. So, it is irrelevant as far as defining Hamas is concerned.

And with the same argument one can say that it is not ok. to mention that Israel is "Best known" for the troubles in the Mid East in the lead, that Clinton is "Best known" for the Lewinski affair, that Bush is Best known for lying about WMD (and note that he could be best known for that, even if he didn't actually lie about WMD).

Then there are some specific problems with the "Best known" sentence that are problematic in itself. This sentence, as it is presented in the literature, is not meant to be taken as the precise truth. It is simply not presented that way, i.e. with citations or supported by evidence in the form of polls. This makes it problematic to write this sentence in this article with a reference at the end. Because that reference suggests that it is the precise truth and readers should see the reference for details.

Just imagine that you would read this "Best known" sentence in an article about public perceptions of militant groups. If a citation to the literature is given, then the reader would expect that Hamas has been found to be best known for suicide attacks and that the evidence for that can be found in the cited article. But if the reader then reads the cited article and finds that the sentence is simply repeated there without a further citation or without evidence, then the reader will feel deceived. A better way to include that sentence is e.g. "according to some authors, Hamas is best known...". Count Iblis 22:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly Hamas is unlikely to be best known for suicide bombings in Syria and Iran. The sources are all from the West and are implicitly referring to their readerships when they say "best known". However, I have corrected the article to say "in Israel and the West". &mdash;Ashley Y 01:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would agree with that. I think that you improved the sentence. But in the lead we should focus on "hard facts", rather than opinions... Count Iblis 02:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I wrote above, it should be clear why I disagree with the arguments given by Jayjg.

Jayjg: "The sources say "Best known for""

Reply by Iblis: The sources say many things about Hamas. Why would we pick one particular statement and not another statement for the lead? Clearly, in the lead we should focus on the most important facts about Hamas. The fact that Hamas has actually carried out many suicide bombings dwarfs facts about public opinion on Hamas.

About the accuracy of the statement: "Best known for" (without adding "in the West"):

Jayjg: "Literally a dozen reliable sources say Hamas is "best known" for its suicide attacks. These include scholars who are experts on the subject. Everybody recognizes and admits that Hamas is infamous for its suicide attacks, and we have no sources that state they are "best known" for anything else. If it were just one source alleging this, then we would have to specifically mention the source. When a dozen sources say it, and none contradict it in any way, then it is an undisputed fact. That Wikipedia editors here dispute it is irrelevant; only the disputes of reliable sources matter."

Reply by Iblis: There are sources that do say "Best known in the West" "Perhaps best known" etc. These sources do contradict the stratement "Best know for". Language is not the same as mathematics. In mathematical logic a statement like "Best known in the west" does not contradict "Best known everywhere", because "best known everywhere" is clearly consistent with "Best known everywhere". However, you wouldn't write "Best known in the West" if you believed that "Best known everywhere" were also true.

So, the sources do not agree if Hamas is indeed best known for suicide attacks everywhere in the world outside the Palestinian territories. But what is more important is that this "Best known" thing is not really the subject of the cited articles. There are no articles with a title like "Hamas is Best known for suicide bombings". This is simply not a "hot item" that is well researched.

As a consequence, if the public now knows Hamas best for their Gaza takeover, then you wouldn't expect to see articles saying that, say, "Hamas used to be best known for suicide bombings, but now Hamas is best known for their takeover in Gaza". Instead, all the articles that write somewhere that Hamas is best known for something will still be the same old articles that say the same thing.

Clearly the argument that it is an undisputed fact just because you can find the statement in a dozen or more articles is not valid in general. Count Iblis 02:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As stated before. it is a simple matter of adhering to WP:NPOV, particularly "Assert facts, including facts about opinions\u2014but do not assert the opinions themselves." The Wikipedia should state that the fact that there are those who believe that "Hamas is best known for suicide bombings".  The article should not be making the declarative that Hamas is best known for suicide bombings.  There is a subtle, yet extremely significant, distinction there. Tarc 12:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this argument. Count Iblis 02:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg argued: ."..if a group is "best known" for something, then it belongs in the lead. Why would you not immediately mention in the lead what they are "best known" for?"

My reply would be: Yes, but because the suicide bombings are what they are best known for, we should mention the suicide bombings, i.e that Hamas is responsible for suicide bombings. Hamas is not best known for being best known for suicide bombings :).

If some robot with no knowledge of Hamas were to read the wiki Hamas article and we were to ask to him some questions about what his impressions of Hamas are, he could say: "I know Hamas best for suicide bombngs. In my version he would have read about it in the lead and the reference for the suicide bombings are also given there.

In Jayjg's version, he would read that Hamas is "Best known" for suicide bombings in the lead and the references back up that "best known" fact, but not the actual suicide bombings themselves. Then he may not say: "I know Hamas best for suicide bombings but rather "Most people know Hamas best for suicide bombings". Count Iblis 02:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources say "Best known for"
Literally a dozen reliable sources say Hamas is "best known" for its suicide attacks. These include scholars who are experts on the subject. Everybody recognizes and admits that Hamas is infamous for its suicide attacks, and we have no sources that state they are "best known" for anything else. If it were just one source alleging this, then we would have to specifically mention the source. When a dozen sources say it, and none contradict it in any way, then it is an undisputed fact. That Wikipedia editors here dispute it is irrelevant; only the disputes of reliable sources matter. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the (i.e. my) current version, I think it appropriately reflects the sources. But I'll admit a bias: despite WP:NOTTRUTH, I think it quite likely that if you stop someone in the street and ask them about Hamas, they'll mention suicide bombing. &mdash;Ashley Y 02:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the argument "even if true, why should be put that particular fact in the lead", it seems quite obvious; if a group is "best known" for something, then it belongs in the lead. Why would you not immediately mention in the lead what they are "best known" for? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Are we supposed to be putting counter-arguments in these sections? I didn't think so, otherwise the sections will become horribly muddled, and no different than the previous debates. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, It's better to move my reply to the section above... Count Iblis 02:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Most reliable sources I see say that Hamas is best known for it's suicide bombings/attacks. So, I definitely have to concur with Jayjg    WacoJacko 06:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also believe that since it is what Hamas is "best known" for, it belongs in the lead.WacoJacko 06:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But where do those reliable sources get their information from? Best known from what point of view?  How would you not know they're best known for other things from another point of view?  And from what I can see, this "best known" nonsense comes from "highly accredited" American news sources-- is that reliable?  Is that neutral?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafgreentea (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Best known for" is about the perception in (part of) the world, rather than about the organization itself. As it is interesting to analyze, for what the party are best known in the world, however, it can moved to a section "Public relations" or "Public perception" or "Media relations". Or changed to "Most in the news for" with a justification in which part of the world this is, or simply left out. Corailrouge-eng 00:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

the hamas training kids to fight and to be terrorist
i think we must to add thet video to the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fKou3EgNTo people need to see the hamas nurture the hatred against israel, in these video these Palestinian kids swear to Jihad against israel, these kids in kindergarten, what you have to say about that?


 * We should use only reputable sources. I can't see the video from this computer, but note that "swearing Jihad" against an enemy that is oppressing you is perfectly normal, i.m.o. We don't tolerate other States even infringing marginally on our sovereignity. The US has even imprisoned a man to life in jail for spying for Israel. So, I can't imagine that US kids would not be taught to hate an enemy if the US were under occupation. In fact, teachers who told positive things about the occupying country woud probably be prosecuted for treason after the end of the occupation. Count Iblis 14:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so if I understand your logic correctly, it is "perfectly normal" for the Mexican school system to teach hatred for Americans, and instill within young Mexican children the burning desire to aspire to kill themselves and take as many Americans with them as they possibly can because Texas is under US occupation? Granted, this is reductio ad absurdum but IMO, I beleive your argument is one based on an emotional reaction to a difficult situation, and not based necessarily on (perhaps cold and dispassionate) logic. -- Avi 15:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, ultimately what matters is how the population feels about the situation they are in. Clearly, the Mexicans don't care about Texas. But to give another example, the Serbs kept their national identity for centuries during the Ottoman occupation. People have nationalistic feelings and this can lead to problems whenever their nationalism conflicts with the nationalism of the state they are living in. Under these circumstances it is "normal" to see hatred. But then things that are "normal" don't need to be desirable.


 * Perhaps because we are humans, we have difficulties facing the ugly truth about ourselves. I would say that there is a clear pattern if you look at the war in Yugoslavia, Hindus and Muslims killing each other around the time of partition of India, Genocide in Rwanda, The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc. etc. What we tend to do is to blame extremists who play a leading role in the violence. To me it is a bit too coincidental that all these conflicts were caused by extremists who should be very rare to find in peaceful societies.


 * What really happens is that people tend to support more radical people when they feel (rightly or wrongly) that their rights are denied. So, if you re-run history without Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic when Yugoslavia fell apart, you would probably still have other people like Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic as leaders. Count Iblis 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not inherently wrong to discuss this kind of thing, as long as it's sourced properly to reliable publishing outlets. I'm just concerned that it will be taken out of context to promote the popular Western narrative of peaceful, democratic Israel versus irrational violent Palestinians. It should be noted that Israel maintains hundreds of not thousands of religious schools, which teach among other things that "Greater Israel" including, at the very least, every territory Israel has now, and in some cases territories as far afield as Western Iraq, is the divinely granted right of the Jewish people. Hell, they even have pre-military schools designed to make children better prepared for their mandatory military service. I know that there have been very credible academic studies on the official Palestinian schools which found a very careful program of avoiding incitements to conflict, to the point of ignoring or downplaying vital portions of Palestinian history. I'd be curious to know if any similar studies have been done on the Hamas schools...? Eleland 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Isreal stole someone elses land based on supernatural beliefs - surely they didn't expect to be loved because of that?. --IceHunter 14:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * More class Edutainment from hamas because everyonr knows you've got to learn to abuse animals before you can move up to humans.  <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  21:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How does your theory explain that Adolf Hitler loved animals and was a vegetarian? Count Iblis 21:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Try reading about serial killers, the abuse of animals as a child is standard part of thier development (in most cases) to the point it is diagnostic. But to you the crimes of the little satan make it ok to swing cats by thier tails. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  22:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS wikipedia is not a chatroom, i'll be adding the PETA criticism tomorrow when i have some time but it looks like we need a new page for this TV channel and its family viewing. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Israeli embassy editing this article
According to Wired's article about Wikiscanner, somebody from the Israeli embassy made this small change to this article.

Someone from the same url made this change too. Nbauman 22:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as proper sourcing is added, there should not be a problem, and, since, in these cases, proper sourcing was not added, it was properly reverted regardless of the source of the edit. So, what is the particular issue that you are trying to highlight here? -- Avi 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * AI've found a lot of minor edits on controversial articles are made without sources and ones by biased parties are particularly hard to get rid of if they are POV due to support by those with an agenda. NPOV editors dont tend have a similar network of friends to call on for support to get rid of such unsourced edits. Nbauman is probably letting us know to be vigilant. I have no problem with the Israeli embassy editing anything as a long as it's sourced but I'd prefer they not do it as an anon. Wayne 19:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood; however, I'd caution that everyone deserves the assumption of good faith, whether we have any (true, false, or otherwise) reason to believe that they may have personal opinions on the matter. Now, in the face of contravening evidence, AGF does dissipate, of course, but at this point, there should be no problem. Furthermore, as we are discussing on the admin incident noticeboard, such use of wikiscanner is increasingly being felt as harrasment, a violation of privacy, an assumption of bad faith, and overall rude, and should be avoided. -- Avi 20:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Some people have said that on the Admin noticeboard. But there is no official Wikipedia rule right now against the Wikiscanner, correct? Nbauman 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As there are a number of admins who do see it as harrassment, a violation of privacy, and the lack of AGF, all of which, are official wikipedia policies, does it matter? [[Image:Face-smile.svg|25px]]. There has been a long discussion on the e-mail list I beleive as well. -- Avi 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On the talk page of COI, I argued some time ago that this policy should be deleted, basically because the edits matter, not the editor (who almost always is anonymous anyway). Perhaps someone should put this COI nonsense on AFD... Count Iblis 21:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an admin who loves WikiScanner.


 * Signpost/2007-09-10/Jimbo interview


 * <font color="#000099"> WS: Finally, what is your opinion regarding WikiScanner? With increased press attention toward the potentially bad edits made by corporate entities, how can we balance press attention back toward the positive areas of Wikipedia?


 * <font color="#990000"> JW: I love WikiScanner in general; I am hoping that we could find a way to warn people who are about to make an edit from a corporate network that their edit will be public. And encourage them to be good.    \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbauman (talk \u2022 contribs) 03:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

More problems with the first paragraph.
The third sentence reads: "Following the Battle for Gaza in June 2007, when Hamas used force to take control of the Gaza Strip after Fatah refused to hand over control to the new government, elected Hamas officials were ousted from their positions in the Palestinian National Authority government in the West Bank and were replaced by rival Fatah members as well as independents.[3][4]"

Reference 3 fails to support the idea that "Fatah refused to hand over control to the new government."

Reference 4 provides no quotes but only supports those claims basically by means of heresay.

The closest the reference gets to supporting the idea that Fatah refused to surrender some power to "legitimate" authorities is a quote by Sever Plocker, an editor at the daily Yedioth Ahronot, who wrote:

""It is not very pleasant to admit it, but in the battle for control of the Gaza Strip, Hamas was in the right. Hamas is cruel, disgusting and filled with hatred for Israel, but it was victorious in democratic elections, and all it wanted was to reap the fruits of its victory...

Hamas did not 'seize control' of Gaza. It took the action needed to enforce its authority, disarming and destroying a militia that refused to bow to its authority."

To summarize my complaints about the first paragraph. The second sentence is a blatant falsehood. The third sentence is basically un-sourced opinion and editorializing with a strong POV.

I will wait until tomorrow for enlightenment from senior editors. Then I will edit.

Cyclopiano 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in first paragraph.
From the first paragraph: \u201cIt was elected in January 2006 as the government of the Palestinian people.[2]\u201d

If you follow the link, to the BBC article, you find: \u201cPreliminary results give Hamas 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber.\u201d

I don\u2019t see how a political party having a 57% majority in parliament amounts to that particular party being \u201celected as the government.\u201d

I suggest that the sentence \u201cIt was elected in January 2006 as the government of the Palestinian people.[2]\u201d

Be replaced by

\u201cIn the 2006 election, Hamas won 76 of 132 seats in parliament, a 57% majority.\u201d

Cyclopiano 20:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have heard no objections from senior editors RE my proposed edits to the first paragraph. Still, I need to sleep on it.

67.40.179.48 03:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate discussion of why my edits are being reverted.
I have made the effort to explain that references 2,3, and 4 actually contradict the text that I have chosen to edit.

If a wikipedia article claimed that the sun was powered by giant hamsters running in giant hampster wheels and then used as references an astrophysics article that claimed the sun was powered by nuclear fusion wouldn't some editing be called for?

It is policy that encyclopedia articles not make claims that are unverifiable, or worse which are patently false.

Zero evidence has been provided that Hamas was ever elected "governnment of the Palsetinian people."

and zero evidence has been offered to support the claim that "Fatah refused to hand over control to the new government;" Not even Hamas claims that.

In fact zero evidence has been provided to support the idea that Hamas was ever legally entitled to "control of the government." They just won a legislative majority.

So please, whoever keeps reverting my edits: Please be gentlemen and explain your reasoning.

Cyclopiano 02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you check the article history, you'll see that the revert belongs to User:Tom harrison, and administrator who has done the same thing over over at Hezbollah lately, unfortunately.
 * As for the Hamas and Fatah content, your version seems to be more factually accurate at the moment, yes. I'm curious as to why you've deleted the ISBN numbers from various refs, though. Tarc 03:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tarc...What's an ISBN number and how did I delete them? I didn't edit any refs on the article page--on the talk page I just typed in the ref number.

Cyclopiano 03:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ISBNs are numerical codes used to idenify books. They have since been restored by Count Iblis, but on your last edit some of the citations changed.  e.g.


 * "This dismal place was (and remains) a breeding ground for Hamas, the fundamentalist group now infamous for their suicide bombings." (Andersen, Mark. All the Power: Revolution Without Illusion, Punk Planet Books, 2004, ISBN, p. 178)


 * changed to


 * "This dismal place was (and remains) a breeding ground for Hamas, the fundamentalist group now infamous for their suicide bombings." (Andersen, Mark. All the Power: Revolution Without Illusion, Punk Planet Books, 2004, ISBN, p. 178)
 * Tarc 14:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tarc,

Those weren't my edits--unless my changing the sentence I described above could somehow have done that?

Cyclopiano 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How can I contact Tom Harrison?
He is an administrator who has reverted my edits, and I would like to engage him in conversation about that. I feel like it would be rude to edit his user page--is there a way I can just send him a message and ask him to read and respond to my comments on the Hamas talk page?

Cyclopiano 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to contact him. Just edit the page again (make sure that the references are displayed properly). Count Iblis 13:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This page is on my watchlist, so I see changes to its talk page. In general, you can contact people by editing, for example, User talk:Tom harrison to leave a message. Count Iblis is right; I reverted your edit to restore the ISBNs to the references. Tom Harrison Talk 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Destruction of Israel
Hamas has never called for the destruction of Israel. There is not even a citation for it. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.22.39 (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but if they blow up one bus and hotel at a time, what's the difference? They're just slow about it? \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.58.254 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the Covenant of Hamas suggests that Hamas believes it has a religious duty not only to destroy the nation of Israel but also to kill every Jew in the world. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclopiano (talk \u2022 contribs) 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

no. as long as Jews don't have political power in Israel Hamas will be happy. They don't care if the place is called Palestine or Israel as long as jews don't control it and most of them leave. Zeq 18:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"and most of them leave"...doesn't make sense with what you are saying \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.51.9 (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hamas has called for the distruction of Israel many times in the past. They are very carefull about what they say to the western media, so you wont find any quotes in English. I will translate some and edit in a few days, with the relavent sources of course. AviLozowick 22:00, 24 February, 2008. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by AviLozowick (talk \u2022 contribs) 22:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel quite often, even in public. One instance that springs to mind was the discussion of their electoral platform. Have a look at http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD107906 and read the full "Hamas Election Platform Does Not Include Eradication of Israel" paragraph. TerminusEst (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/1509327/Extracts-from-the-Hamas-charter.html) reports these extracts from the Hamas Charter:

"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."

"Hamas believes the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf [land] throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. . . Hamas is a distinct Palestinian Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of life and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine."

"When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, Jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims. In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad."

Sure sounds like "Destruction of Israel" to me. "Every inch" of Palestine makes clear that even if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders and gives up the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall, Hamas will accept that only as a first stage, using the temporary cease fire it wants to arm the territory it has received as a launching ground to take over the rest and kill all the Jews in Israel.GreekParadise (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a category called "islamic terrorism" or this is name violates wikipedia rules ?
I honestly don't know but as long as we do hamas seems to fit this category. maybe the category should be renamed to islamic militantsim ?

Hamas is both charity, a political and militant organisation. It's action in Gaza recently could be qualified as terror not just against israel but Palestinians as well. Zeq 14:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The argument by tarc to revert was that Terror is part of WP:WTA so this means the whole category is wrong. He should file a CFD instead of reverting here. Zeq 04:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What I should or should not do is not a concern of yours, really. The category apparently has practical applications. such as for self-identified terrorist groups al Qaeda or definitive terrorist incidents 2002 Bali bombings.  I don't believe that it belongs here, though. Tarc 12:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your argument was that the word "terror" can not be used. If so this argument does not apply here but in a place where the category is defined. Zeq 13:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It should not be used here, in my opinion. Clear? Tarc 15:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * that much is understood but explain why ? so far you gave a reason that apply else where (in general) and not sopecifically here Zeq 17:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * /sigh
 * Zeq, read WP:WTA, especially the "X says Y" part. Tarc 18:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * this is a gain an argument about the name of the category. Once the category exist : hamas belong there. Zeq 18:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. No, they do not.  I'm really unsure as to how this can be explained to you any better than it already has been.  Perhaps others can toss in their two cents. Tarc 19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article states that Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by several countries. Terrorist is not a word to avoid in this article, per WP:WTA.  (SEWilco 20:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC))


 * No one is saying that there should be a blanket ban on the term, and that isn't what WP:WTA says either. What the article should avoid is declarations of a "Hamas is a terrorist organization..." nature, and should follow the "Nations X Y Z list Hamas as a terrorist organization, because..." guideline.  The same rationale should be applied when choosing between Category:Organizations designated as terrorist and Category:Islamist terrorism. Tarc 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can a good article about organization/group/country X not mention the assassination of its leader?
I made the same comment here. In case of Hezbollah this is more problematic, because the article is supposed to be a "Good Article" and we want to to get it to FA status. In case of the Hamas article, well, there is a reason why the POV tag hasn't been removed yet.

Anyway, whatever one's personal opinions, one cannot justify not mentioning anything about the assassination of a leader of organization X by country Y in an article about organization X, especially if it devotes a lot of space on the conflict with Y, mentioning attacks on Y, even hostile rhetoric of X against Y. Count Iblis 14:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Levitt / Sara Roy
Not a topic I'm currently interested in working on (I think I'd be doing a disservice in getting involved in editing this article without reviewing a lot of past discussion), but I recently read an article that might be of interest for those who are. Its a book review, and I think the reviewer's disagreements with the book reviewed put in a nutshell some of the disagreements about Hamas by its moderate critics (Roy) and harsh critics (Levitt). Probably something citable in the review and/or the book


 * Sara Roy, [http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol14/0707_roy.asp Review of Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad by Matthew Levitt), Middle East Policy Council Journal, Volume XIV, Summer 2007, Number 2.

"Pull quotes":


 * \u201cWhile there can be no doubt that, since its inception, Hamas has engaged in violence and armed struggle, and has been the primary force behind the horrific suicide bombings inside Israel, Levitt\u2019s presentation reduces this increasingly complex and sophisticated organization to an insular, one-dimensional...entity dedicated solely to violence...and Israel\u2019s destruction.\u201d
 * \u201cThe ability of Hamas to reinterpret itself over time through processes of radicalization, de-radicalization, de-militarization, and re-radicalization is a pronounced and common theme in its historical evolution.\u201d

As I say, at least worth a read. (I first encountered this reprinted in Index on Censorship.) - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hamas being Sunni Muslim
Section 4 of the charter of Hams states "The Islamic Resistance Movement welcomes every Muslim who embraces its faith, ideology, follows its programme, keeps its secrets, and wants to belong to its ranks and carry out the duty. Allah will certainly reward such one." This statement says that it is a Muslim group, and not a sunni muslim one. I believe that this should be changed to say it is a muslim group. Thanks for your time.--SJP 13:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Using children in combat
The link in the article doesn't support the claim. If nobody can find a good reference, I will delete the claim. Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 02.11.2007 10:39
 * This needs a clean-up, and the recent IP editors comments and speculation removed, which will happen in a moment. The WPost article mentions a 16-year-old who was pressed into suicide bomb duty.  While certainly a grossly inhuman act, 16 is not a "child" by any stretch of logic, and its usage here is a serious attempt at POV-swaying. Tarc 12:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's better now, but the article doesn't say it was a suicide bombing. There also doesn't seem to be any further information available on Wissam al-Sheik Khalil, the victim. I think this whole subsection is a case of exceptional claims requiring exceptional sources, as per WP:ATTR, and should thus be removed. Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 02.11.2007 13:15
 * I believe the current version is sufficient, please do not delete it. Zeq, please do not restore the older, poorly-written, POV version. Thanks. Tarc 15:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not a good reason. "poorly written" "I believe" etc... are not arguments we use arounf here. Zeq 18:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that the linked article didn't even verify the claim, it just reported that the kid said it. It's equally possible he was a Tanzim volunteer who saw the propaganda value in telling a Western reporter that the other party's militia conscripted him. It's a totally inadequate source for the claim being made. <tt>&lt;<font color="#00A0F0">el <font color="#005080">eland /<font color="#00A0F0">talk <font color="#005080">edits &gt;</tt> 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mind you, I should add that Hamas considers 16+ to be adult, and recruits them to fight, carry weapons, suicide bomb, etc. (IDF also considers 16+ noncitizens to be adult for the purposes of detention, etc.) <tt>&lt;<font color="#00A0F0">el <font color="#005080">eland /<font color="#00A0F0">talk <font color="#005080">edits &gt;</tt> 22:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh, according to Human Rights Watch, Hamas has made statements against using people under 18 in their operations, so obviously they recognize the problem themselves. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/childsoldiers0104/childsoldiers.pdf TerminusEst (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Section "Shelling and rocket attacks on civilians"
This section on the Hamas article has no sources that I can see. It should be sourced. Something like this needs to be sourced.--SJP 17:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a common knowledge and Hamas does not bother to deny it. They even called their rocket on the name of their terror brigades - Qassam. MathKnight 16:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumably they are both named for the sheikh, rather than one for the other. <tt>&lt;<font color="#00A0F0">el <font color="#005080">eland /<font color="#00A0F0">talk <font color="#005080">edits &gt;</tt> 22:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

HAMAS IS A TERRORIST ORGINIZATION
ok.. why am I reverted when I change palestinian militant orginization to terrorist orginization? Hamas commits suicide bombing on innocent civilians. That makes them a terrorist orginization.. anything they claim to be is second fiddle to the FACT they commit suicide attacks on civilians. Terrorist orginization is exactly how it should be labeled. -24.253.46.31 16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is because of this Wikipedia guideline. You can read there how to handle it. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * well in this case insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan would be people in a stuggle against the governement and fighting the government..someone who targets/kills innocent civilians as method of inducing fear and forcing (through terror of the populace)the govt to change there ways.. which pretty much defines hamas..as they love blowing up loaded buses with civilians.. they are the very definition of terrorist..-24.253.46.31 18:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be, but there are guidelines to follow here; this is an encyclopedia, not a right-wing, rant-filled blog. What we do is describe the activities of Hamas, detail what nations/organizations/entities designate Hamas a terrorist organization and why, and present this to the reader.  What we do not do is simply declare "Hamas is a terrorist organization" and leave it at that.  If that is what you are looking to do here, make  blanket declaratives, then you are in for some sore disappointment. Tarc 18:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I once came upon a Wikpedia guideline that said "There is no need to state that something is evil or good, the facts should speak for themselves." We should probably apply that logic here as well. If we state the facts about Hamas, then our readers than can make the conclusion, or not, that Hamas is a terrorist group. --Ipatrol (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Listen it does not matter wether you are left or right the fact that Hamas specifically targets noncombatants means they are a terrorist organization. Furthormore the fact that they go out of their was to murder children means they are a terrorist organization.Psycowitz (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Good source
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2937105.ece --Zeq (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Rjection of UN resolution by Hamas
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546761142&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Zeq (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hamas terror
it is a certain fact that Hamas is an organisation that kills inoccent Israelis every week. Yet for some reaso this information does not arise in the artical. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by SchlindlerLeo (talk \u2022 contribs) 21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hamas -- Avi (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

request transition word
I request a transition word at the beginning of this sentence. "Australia [11] and the United Kingdom [12] list the militant wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization." Thanks --Kushalt 01:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Zionist propaganda =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us Contact Wikipedia Straight away we are launched into Terrorism this terorrism that.... Not until the fifth or sixth paragraph do we become aware that Hamas is actually the elected party of Palestine.

Now that doesnt read very neautral to me. We need some balance here.


 * Yes, I also think that this article isn't neutral, just like the "free media" in the western countries about this case. The Israelian regime, for instance, isn't described as a fundamental terror organisation, although they are constantly using outlawed (also chemical) weapons, - not to mention the ethnical cleanings in occupied palestine, not to mention the illegal settlements, the threats. Israel is demonstrably based on racist laws, and we can see clearly that it is not their purpose to live togehter in peace with palestinians. In the middle east, pro- palestinian propaganda is common. But we must not spread israelian propaganda here. Neutrality must always be the main aim of wikipedians and Wikipedia. --Englishazadipedia (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just finished reading the latest NG and it mentions multiple times that Hamas has not conducted suicide bombings for some time and actively discourages it. I looked it up and apparently Hamas banned suicide bombings in early 2006 and it is mainly Fatah-linked organisations and Islamic Jihad continuing the violence! I just read this article and not only does it not mention this but it uses language to imply it still does it on a regular basis. To fix the article will require some work changing tenses and rewrites of a lot of sections so how about we fix it? Wayne (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hamas just claimed responsibility for the latest bombings. They described it as very positive prior to the acceptence of responsibility (which I think is not correct) but it at least shows what they think of such bombings: they aprove of them. Zeq (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I need to correct you on several points. Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed it was responsible. Later the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades claimed it was responsible (they are Hamas affiliated but are not actually Hamas). They are likely lying as the attackers came from Hebron which is Fatah controlled. However it doesn't change the fact that there have been no Hamas suicide bombings for almost two years and the article needs to reflect this. Wayne (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You can correct me as much as you want but If hamas TV say they did it I take their word. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3503160,00.html Zeq (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to believe what you want but I prefer to rely on multiple sources rather than the only one that supports my own beliefs. Only this morning Hamas officials said they have no idea who did it. Even if you are right it makes no difference as the article still gives undue weight to suicide bombings. Wayne (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Add'l source? How about Reuters' 'Hamas statement says it carried out Israel bombing' http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL04122121220080205 '"The Izz el-Deen al-Qassam claims full responsibility for the martyrdom Dimona operation," Hamas's armed wing said the statement, referring to Monday's bombing in the southern Israeli town of Dimona.' The report goes on to say that 'The last time Hamas's armed wing claimed responsibility for suicide bombings inside Israel was August 2004, when 16 people were killed and 100 wounded in explosions on two buses...'69.129.124.251 (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thx for the source as it backs up exactly what I'm saying. Wayne (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't back up _all_ that you were saying, exactly, but I'm not going to quibble. It would appear that the Hamas ceasefire on suicide bombers, if it existed (suicide bomber by proxy), is now a moot point:
 * 'In a statement on Hamas' website signed by the organisation's delegate to Iran, Dr. Abu-Osama Abed Al Ma'ati, the suicide attack that occurred earlier this week in Dimona was described as the beginning of a new wave of similar actions..."The Dimona attack is a message. That message is that Iz Al Din Al Qassam has renewed the suicide attacks," the message said, referring to the Islamist organisation's military wing. Senior Hamas officials have said that the organisation uses such online announcements to declare a change in tactics or policy. Hamas' spokesman in Gaza said the organisation will continue to mount "resistance" and carry on with the suicide attacks.' 69.129.124.251 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The BBC reports that it was a joint operation of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, but it was "prais[ed by] Hamas". --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any obvious reason that wikipedians should believe the BBC over Hamas in this matter? 69.129.124.251 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not the BBC vs Hamas, it's the BBC quoting the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and the PFLP vs Reuters quoting Izz el-Deen al-Qassam. And considering the positive impact of the responsibility claims on the popularity of these organisations in Gaza and the West Bank, I don't think the claims themselves should be considered as reliable, regardless of the publisher's reputation. Bastc (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hamas: genocidal, no?
I would like to propose the following addition to the first sentence of the article: Hamas is a genocidal Palestinian Islamist militant organization and political party. This is because of the following passage from the Hamas charter :

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

Also, there is a statement by a Hamas official saying that "We are a nation that drinks blood and there is no blood better than the blood of Jews." .

Does such a change sound reasonable? Victoriousturnip (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it does not. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure the word "genocidal" is apporipriate in the lead. if you find other sources who discuss the Hamas call for genocide you should add it to the article text. Otherwise let the reader read what hamas say this is clear enough without further charaterization.
 * Tarc, if you think hamas is  not  genocidal - you should find sources who sya so. Wonder if there are such sources. Zeq (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I should find sources that say Hamas is not genocidal so we can justify the word not being in the article? Please, do not waste my time with patently absurd statements such as this. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK I'll find sources for you if you don't want to spend the time:, , - do you need more ? Zeq (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. Several nations list Hamas as a terrorist organization, but that does not mean you get to refer to it as "...a terrorist Palestinian militant organization" in the article.  There are guidelines and polices that one must follow in the Wikipedia which you are quite familiar with.  Or shoud be, at any rate. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hamas charter is irrelevant as it is not policy or enforced (according to Hamas). Also I expect genocide to be a bit more destructive than Hamas is. The last few years Hamas has been all talk and bluster. How many people have Hamas killed in the last few years? 10? 20? thats not genocide. The word should be reserved for real acts of genocide or it will lose meaning. Wayne (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for dismissing the core document of this oragnization.....excuse me if they  did not cancel it I still take it very seriously... same go for threats of genocide...Zeq (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just gone through the references used for the page and the Hamas Charter information is outdated. The page several times states the Charter is "still in effect" yet in 2006 it was effectively replaced by the Hamas Manifesto. They are basically the same but the Manifesto removed calls for the destruction of Israel and the article should reflect this by reducing the weight given to the Charter. Wayne (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not Hamas mentioned the destruction of Israel in the election manifesto is irrelevant, as it was not meant to replace the charter. The charter is unchanged, and quite seperate from the manifesto, as illustrated by the quotes here: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD107906 TerminusEst (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism
What exactly makes Hamas antisemitic? This statement seems VERY POV to me. --85.1.231.55 (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't say they're antisemitic, but we do report the significant accusations of that. I've reverted the edit removing the entire antisemitism reference. Superm401 - Talk 17:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but does this belong in the header of the article, and not rather in a subsection that explicitly treats the international/israeli opinion(s) on Hamas?
 * And Hamas is primarily a political party, and not a "militant organization". --85.3.145.123 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

i dont think the word anti semitic has any place in this article because for one thing palestians who make up hamas ARE semitic people and are not against semites in general so if you are to go by definition of the term they are probably you could say anti-jewish but anti semitic is the wrong word and seems to be in use here as a loaded word out of its proper definition as per the wikipedia definition of semitic thanx \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.78.250 (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but i still insist on removal. There are many opinions and views out there. Some groups are calling Israel (and/or the US) "(neo-)fascist". So? This too would not belong in the header of these articles. --85.3.149.107 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But see the correct definition of the term is used here. Semitic may refer to Arabs as well as Jews, but in the English-speaking world antisemitism refers almost exclusively to anti-Jewish sentiment, and, while Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the views of the whole world, the articles in English should choose the words that English speakers use to refer to something. As for the assertion of Hamas not being antisemitic under that definition, well that is hardly even worth arguing. Killing all the Jews has generally been regarded as antisemitic. Even if they just want all the Jews out of Palestine, that is still antisemitic. If I wanted all the blacks to leave America, would I not still be racist against blacks? Gtbob12 (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism has nothing to do with Arabs, it's a term specifically coined to make Jew hatred sound sophisticated.--Saxophonemn (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Genocidal
I am removing the statement:
 * The Charter of HAMAS] is described as "[[Genocidal" by Association for World Education - an NGO in a letter to the UNHCHR 

since, besides being ill-formatted and grammatically dubious, it is undue weight and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. One NGO led by a pro-Israeli lobbyist does not merit inclusion in this section.

Before starting an edit-war, please remember that anyone could find at least 10 NGOs calling Israel a fascist or apartheid state, but none of them would merit inclusion in the article on Israel, for quite the same reasons.

Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 05.03.2008 13:17


 * Damn, looks like someone beat me to the punch. Anyway, the reasoning still holds. Thanks User:Tarc. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 05.03.2008 13:18


 * There is an article on israeli apartheid. Do we need an article on "Genocidal hamas" or can we use the Hamas article. I don't agree that there is anything exceptional in chartrizing a racist charter as gemocidal when it is so. The quotes are clear in the source. Zeq (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have enough good sources and you can make a point that the whole genocidal characterisation is itself notable and not just some fringe view, then feel free to start an article on the topic. Please be aware though that some of your comments regarding the article Israeli apartheid might come back to haunt you. Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 05.03.2008 14:51

here is another source. The hamas clearly calls for genicide: Zeq (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just read the speech that letter, which is OR anyway and not a RS, is refering to and the guy asks God to kill the Jews and Americans. It may be hate speech and innapropriate to verbalise it but I feel that it is a significant difference to asking people to physically do it. If we are going to label an entire country on the basis of one nutjobs prayer to God there will never be peace and this will never be a good article. Wayne (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, if you have enough good sources and it is notable, go ahead and start an article. This discussion is closed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 05.03.2008 16:57


 * Weisntal cenetr is WP:RS source which is also notable. Zeq (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that they are a RS. However a form letter for a mass mail campaign is not and especially when it misrepresents what was said to serve a political purpose. Being a RS does not legitimise everything they do. Wayne (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not an issue of legitimizing it is an issue of how various organizations charterize Hamas. Just as some organizations charaterize Israel in some ways and they get to be mentioned in Israeli apartheid I ask again should we have an article called Hamas genocidal intentions ? or we mention in an NPOV way how various notable groups see Hamas. ???? \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeq (talk \u2022 contribs) 05:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not dignify any Israeli apartheid strawman arguments with a response here; if you have concerns about that article, then bring it to that specific article's talk page, not here. As for this issue, I am a bit skeptical of "Genocidal" as a defining characteristic of the Hamas organization, and if a collection of NGOs calling them such are notable or relevant. Tarc (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't "dignify" anything. what you are doing is called "double standard". Zeq (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, no, what I am doing is not being suckered in by your logical fallacies. This is why the slew of "allegations of..." articles failed because the creators attempted to tie their existence to that of the israeli apartheid article, when they really should (and eventually were) evaluated on their own merits.  So if you would, discuss issues relating to Hamas here, and discuss issues of israeli apartheid over there.  Thank you. Tarc (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

POV disputes
This article seems to me to be heavily biased towards exonerating the Hamas from guilt for the continuation of the conflict. For example, it says: "...that while Hamas is willing for a ceasefire with Israel, its long term goal remains: Israel must withdraw from all land occupied in 1967" Implying that the organizations long term goals had always been that israel withdrew from the territories captured in 67', while the Hamas' long held views (written in their charter) are that the whole of Palestine must be freed (all territories captured in 48').

Also, it quotes "Hamas is prepared to offer a hudna [broad cease-fire] to Israel if it [Israel] withdraws from the lands occupied in 1967 and respects all the Palestinian rights." but it doesn't say that Palestinian rights, according to the Hamas, include the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to Israel. And that this will result in the dissolution of the jewish state. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by Cederal (talk \u2022 contribs) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You must realise that these are (quite important) statements made by Hamas, thus worth mention in the article. Considering the following paragraph, I wouldn't say the article was biased toward exoneration. The claims to land (pre-1948) are mentioned there, as well as Hamas' refusal to recognize the state of Israel. I can't see how the article would be less POV by removing official statements made by Hamas, nevermind if they intend to live by them or not. TerminusEst (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing that should be said about Hamas is that they work toward their long term goal as expressed in their Charter. If you read carully the Charter does not talk about an independent Palestinian state. Hamas is Islamic organization not a nationalistic one. However Hamas see all of the land known as Israel (what they call Palestine) as an islamic Wakf land which can not be ruled by non mulsims. To that end they want to remove the jews from that land. They would not mind if some jews would stay as Dhimis. just read their charter it said it all. btw, Hamas is not in a rush - they would not mind 20 years ceasefire if that helps them build their streangth as they already do in Gaza. Zeq (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But the Hamas charter was written twenty years ago, when they were a very different and much smaller organization. There's no guarantee that it reflects their present thinking. It says nothing, for example, about electoral politics (precious little about politics at all) even though they got into that in a big way. Judging by their public statements, the leaders accept a de facto two-state solution, whatever daydreams they may feed their supporters about eventually driving Israel into the sea. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In all fairness, since they won the election, who can tell? While I have no illusions about their views on the state of Israel, I do believe that the Hamas leaders are fully aware they've shot themselves in the foot with the charter. In '88 they never realised that they could one day actually win an election and hence, never realised that they might be expected to sit at the negotiation table with Israel. Obviously, they can't just shift into reverse and ignore their charter, but I think they realise they need to soften up somehow. Otherwise what would be their reason for the election manifesto? TerminusEst (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not something new. Mahmoud al-Zahar was in Australia a few years ago and was interviewed for a current affairs program. He said then the charter was no longer enforced and that Hamas would recognise Israel if they recognised a Palestine state within the 1967 borders and gave right of return which is probably the main sticking point. Wayne (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the problem with Hamas. One leader says one thing, another something completely different. A couple of years back, Zahar himself said that Hamas would never recognize or negotiate with Israel. During the elections, I might add. TerminusEst (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has been following peace negotiations between Israel and the PLO (as I am sure Hamas' leaders have) know that Israel will never accept the right of return of Palestinian refugees. It is therefor very easy for Hamas leaders to say they're willing to accept ceasefires with that condition. Israel will never follow up on them, and they will never have to live up to their peaceful claims. My point is that such statements, made to westen press sources, are just a PR stunt, and that displaying them in the article without due criticism is POV. Cederal (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What you've been told about Hamas's official stance is simply not supported by the facts. The official Hamas position, expressed in official accords, is in line with the "PR stunts":"Those gathered agreed on a program for the year 2005, centered on the continuation of the atmosphere of calm in return for Israel's adherence to stopping all forms of aggression against our land and our Palestinian people, no matter where they are, as well as the release of all prisoners and detainees." Cairo declaration, 2005 )
 * "The Palestinian people in the homeland and in the Diaspora seek and struggle to liberate their land and remove the settlements and evacuate the settlers and remove the apartheid and annexation and separation wall and to achieve their right to freedom, return and independence and to exercise their right to self-determination, including the right to establish their independent state with al-Quds al-Shareef as its capital on all territories occupied in 1967, and to secure the right of return for refugees to their homes and properties from which they were evicted and to compensate them"
 * Palestinian Prisoners' Document, 2006
 * I don't disagree that we should include information about Israel's skepticism of this stance, but it's not merely a PR stunt for Western ears only. These documents, especially the Prisoners' Document and the 2007 Mecca accord reaffirming it, were written in Palestinian blood. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 13:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, we should take into consideration that whether or not the ceasefire offered by Hamas is realistic - it has been offered. Regardless of the Israeli response. I do feel that's too significant to be ignored, all things considered. But yes, perhaps some elaboration on the subject would be in order. TerminusEst (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We should also mention

Robert Wistrich quote
As per this diff,

This quote has several problems: In summary, this is the case of a bad source used to drive home a point not contained in the source. If indeed the point is pertinent, then I'm sure User:Zeq will have no trouble finding a better source for it. Otherwise, I will delete it again.
 * The quote presented does not substantiate the claim that "[o]ther articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews."
 * The quote itself is factually false, since the Hamas Covenant refers to the Protocols exactly once (check it out here).
 * The source itself is heavily parsed and the quoted statements appears in an ellipsis, and is hence probably not part of the statement to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
 * The original, unedited statement is itself not catalogued by the United Nations. The only two documents in which the author, Robert Wistrich, is mentioned are here.

Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 11.03.2008 08:30


 * You are arguing with the source - this is called Original reserach. Clearly it is not a bad source as you try to present it - it is simply a source that you don't like. You are free to bring other sources. --Zeq (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not arguing with the source. I'm arguing that the source does not meet the criteria set out in WP:RS (heavily parsed source from a non-mainstream outlet) and that it is being used to prove a statement it does not make (i.e. it does not say that "[o]ther articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews"). That's two points against Wikipedia policy, not WP:OR. If you feel this is not so, please tell us all why instead of mindlessly reverting. Otherwise I will continue removing it for the same reasons as before. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 13.03.2008 10:30


 * With all due respect you can not say that you are not arguing with the source when you clearly placed your logic, your knowledge, your coomon sense Vs that of the source. what you can do is find a different source and have both sources in the article. You can not just make (powerfull indeed) original arguments here in talk and based on that remove the source which does not fit the logic of your own arguments. This original thought of yours is indeed powerfull so maybe if you find a publisher we can include your view once it apear on a good source. Zeq (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Zeq, stop waving that red herring around or you're going to end up slapping yourself with it. My points were, and remain:
 * The source is a heavily-parsed letter by Wistrich in which the quoted statement is in an ellipsis and thus not his own. Attributing that statement to Wistrich is wrong.
 * The source is used to back the statement "[o]ther articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews". This, however, is not what the source says.
 * Zeq, stay on the ball, will you? Please address these two points. Otherwise, I'll have to assume you're avoiding discussion and settle this administratively. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 14.03.2008 07:30


 * Actually, I've decided not to wait and have put-up a request here. Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedrito  - <font color="#000">talk  - 14.03.2008 08:32

The term "Ethnic Cleansing" should not be used in this article to describe the origin of the Palestinian refugees.
My reasoning is as follows:

(1) "Ethnic Cleansing" is a vague, imprecise term In the words of Andrew Bell-Fialkoff (Wikipedia article on Ethnic Cleansing): "[E]thnic cleansing [...] defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of a population from a given territory." Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, "A Brief History of Ethnic Cleansing", Foreign Affairs 72 (3): 110, Summer 1993

(2) "Ethnic Cleansing" is not a nuetral phrase. It is a code-phrase created by proponents of racist genocide and expulsions and used carelessly as a euphemism by others. The implication of the phrase is clearly racist ie that a particular race is "dirty" and that an area of land will not be "clean" until they are either killed or expelled from it.

See, for example: "Its typical usage was developed in the Balkans, to be a less objectionable code-word meaning genocide, but its intent was to best avoid the obvious pitfalls of longstanding international treaty laws prohibiting war crimes." (Wikipedia article on Ethnic Cleansing).

(3) Even if the general understanding of "Ethnic Cleansing" were to be assumed ie "Ethnic cleansing refers to various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory in order to create a supposedly ethnically "pure" society." (Wikipedia article description of "Ethnic Cleansing") this is an historically innacurate description of the origin of the Palestinian Refugees.

Of course, the number and the origin of the Palestinian Refugees is contaversial and uncertain.

(a) There is, however, no evidence of an attempt in 1947-48 to create an "ethnically "pure" society" in Israel with no Arabs; on the contrary the declaration of 1948 states that "it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations." Declaration of Independence (Israel).

The subsequent actions of the State of Israel further back this up in that Arabs were permitted to remain bacame citizens of the new state and today some 1 million Arab Muslim citizens of Israel have the vote and carry an Israeli passport.

(b) The refugees in Gaza largely come from or are descended from refugees from what is now Israel, but the number directly expelled by Jewish forces is a minority.

The best reference for facts on this is the research done by the Israeli academic & Cambridge Phd Benny Morris (since unjustly vilified by both sides!) in "The birth of the Palestinian Refugee problem, 1947-1949" (Cambridge Middle East Library) a full length historical study which sets out through academic research into contemporary documents & primary sources to investigate this question.

He divides up the wartime Refugees of the hundreds of de-populated Arab villages and towns of what is now Israel into: E Expulsion by Jewish Forces A Abandonment on Arab orders F Fear of attack or being caught up in fighting M Military assault on the settlement by Jewish troops W Haganah/IDF "whispering" campaigns (ie psychological warfare geared to obtasining Arab evacuation) C Influence of fall of, or exodus from, neighbouring towns. and he lists the results of his research in detail.

He concludes: "The Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design, Jewish or Arab. It was largely a by-product of Arab and Jewish fears and of the protracted, bitter fighting that characterised the first Israeli-Arab war; in smaller part, it was the deliberate creation of Jewish and Arab military commanders and politicians." ("The birth of the Palestinian Refugee problem, 1947-1949" Conclusion. (Cambridge Middle East Library) )

It is therefore incorrect (and also misleading, careless use of language and not a NPOV) to write:

"Hamas does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state because it was formed by ethnically cleansing the native Palestinian population, unlike the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which has recognized it since 1988, and calls it the "Zionist entity".

I suggest that this should be changed to :

'"Hamas does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state calls it the "Zionist entity". Politically, hundreds of thousands of Muslim Arabs, now Hamas supporters living in Gaza, lost their homes and land in the 1947-48 Arab-Israeli war and these refugees and their descendants have not been permitted by Israel to return. Ideologically, as an Islamist group Hamas takes the line that Islamic territory (Waqf) cannot be conceded. This is stated in the Hamas charter '...the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day.' and  '... it, or any part of it, should not be given up.'" (Ref. Hamas charter)''. In this they differ from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which has recognized it since 1988. '''

--Sam 11:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The second half of that paragraph is also inaccurate as Hamas DOES NOT take the line that "Islamic territory (Waqf) cannot be conceded". For years they have stated they will recognise Israel within the 1967 borders if Israel recognises a Palestinian state. You cannot refer to the Charter for Hamas policy as it is not enforced in it's entirety. Wayne (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like the term myself as it has both a nuetral meaning and a pejoritive one. However we need to come up with a very good alternative as a term with both meanings can not be replaced because one is pejoritive. "Politically" just doesn't do it so find something better. I suggest "Hamas does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state because it was formed by the forced emigration of the native Palestinian population". Mention of the 1947 war specifically is not accurate as the forced immigration had already started before then.


 * Quoting Al-Zahar himself in 2006: "We do not recognise the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our neighbour, nor to stay (on the land), nor his ownership of any inch of land\u2026. We are interested in restoring our full rights to return all the people of Palestine to the land of Palestine. Our principles are clear: Palestine is a land of Waqf (Islamic trust) which cannot be given up." As for the charter, I cannot find one single source to verify it has been abandoned. However, I can (and did earlier) point to Hamas sources stating the direct opposite.TerminusEst (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no source listed that "explains" the Hamas position opposing a Jewish state as resulting from supposed "ethnic cleansing" in 1948 and thereabouts. So that entire sentence is unverified--the author is attributing a motivation where none is documented except the Hamas Charter as quoted in numerous posts above. So not only does it violate NPOV it's also not verifiable. Hence I have removed the dependent clause. Drmikeh49 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)