Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PLO and Hamas

'''Article listed on Votes for deletion July 2 to July 9 2004, clear consensus was not reached but there were more votes to keep than any other (12 keep, 7 delete, 6 merge but no agreement on where to merge to). Decided to keep but retain listing on cleanup.'''


 * Well I'm new here, but it seems to me that all the quotes are pretty well linked to sources (although I didn't track them down to check), and any opining is implicit rather than explicit. That being the case, I would think the proper method for balance would be to insert a section of equally supported factual stuff countering the argument, rather than deleting what appears to be a collection of real items relevant to the topic. Let me put it this way: Pretend you're researching for a paper on links between PLO and Hamas. Would you benefit from finding this page, or from having it removed? I would say that, if you are mature/competent/honest enough to regard the entries properly as a collection of links to other sources which you need to evaluate for yourself, then this page would be quite valuable and useful. Even more so if someone could add in an opposing array of evidence. Therefore I vote strongly for its retention in the spirit of Wikipedia as a compendium of knowledge for public consumption. -- gzuckier 7/2/2004
 * Another grotesque anti-Palestinian editorial dressed up as a encyclopedia article. It is not the information contains is necessarily false, but simply the way it is presented is irreconcilably POV. Whatever substantial content it contains should be merged elsewhere. -- Viajero 22:52, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * VfD is not the place to discuss the acceptability of article POVs. Take it to RfC.  Keep until then.  RickK 22:55, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge any worthwhile information with either Palestine Liberation Organization or Hamas and redirect. Then prepare to be called a censor, an extremist, an enemy of truth and NPOV, an anti-Semite, a baby-eating puppy-kicking monster, and so forth. :) &#8212;No-One Jones 23:13, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * But that's the problem - where to redirect it to? I'm going to have to say that there is no way to redirect it; you keep it or you don't. I listed it on Cleanup - Something needs to be done about that article. WhisperToMe 01:30, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, good info and a subject worthy of being covered. Everyking 01:43, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, it will most likely be a bit of a POV battleground, but what article about the Middle East isn't? I think it is a worthy subject, though. &mdash;Stormie 03:10, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Most of this content belongs in an encyclopedia, although as assembled here it is horribly POV, especially the section titles. Reluctantly keep, but please someone start cleaning up & NPOV'ing this thing. -- Jmabel 06:31, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC) I have no problem with moving this rewrite within other articles. -- Jmabel 19:38, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * I vote to delete this page, or at least the content of the article and turn it to a stub until we have something more substantial on the topic. In the meanwhile it should probably be monitored for anti-Palestine propaganda. -- Simonides 10:35, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. We already have PLO and Hamas--the relationship between the two can be covered on those pages.  We don't have Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.  [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:52, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete (probably easiest to merge with the PLO article). Doesn't deserve its own article. +sj +  18:48, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * make NPOV, merge, and delete. No need for redirect IMO, but leave one instead of deleting if people want.  &mdash;siro&chi;o 23:57, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It makes sense to have an article on the important subject of the relationship between these two entities, with links to it from Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas.  The alternative would be to take this fairly lengthy material, make it even longer by adding information from other perspectives to make it NPOV, and then insert it in both articles.  A separate article is more efficient (and is easier to edit, including rendering it NPOV). JamesMLane 08:10, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Did you just see the argument above? "We already have PLO and Hamas--the relationship between the two can be covered on those pages. We don't have Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. " WhisperToMe 20:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw it. I thought I made my response clear.  This material is relevant to both organizations.  To cover it in those articles would mean a lengthy section in each, duplicating the same information and cluttering up each main article.  That's why I prefer a separate article, linked to from Palestine Liberation Organization and from Hamas. JamesMLane 21:09, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons stated above. WhisperToMe 20:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is important issue and relevant to the Isr-Pal conflict. It is pretty lengthy in its current form and can be added with lot more content. MathKnight 19:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is POV conspiracy theories pretending to be an article - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  22:16, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you contending that the quotes are fabricated? If the quotes are genuine, but you contend that they've been taken out of context, that's not a reason to delete.  Instead, you should add information, by inserting facts about the context and an explanation of how it affects the apparent meaning.  JamesMLane 01:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Their relationship (or lack thereof) is important enough to be covered.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 09:43, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is yet another in our history of articles of selected quotes trying to make a point. Secretlondon 22:49, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * If the quotes are unfairly selected, then some of the quotes that were maliciously passed over should be added, so that the article presents all sides of the issue. JamesMLane 01:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The relationship between the two is an articleworthy topic. Ambivalenthysteria 04:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * NEW PROPOSAL: How about we keep this page where it is now--but rather than link to it, just put it's contents in a section of the PLO and Hamas articles (a la ).  That way, there's only one version of the content, but it's seamlessly blended into both articles, rather than having separate articles? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:09, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about how this would work. Why is it better than a simple "See also: PLO and Hamas" in each article? JamesMLane 15:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It satisfies both sides: those who believe the material belongs in the articles PLO and Hamas, and those who want the material in one place for ease of NPOVing and consistency. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * One problem is that someone turning to the article on the PLO would then find a disproportionately detailed discussion of one particular point about the PLO. Some users complain that the current PLO and Hamas article is unfair to the PLO.  They would complain even more loudly, and with more justification, if one-third or so of the main PLO article were devoted to this material.  The subject is worth covering but it's not, by itself, half as important as everything else about the PLO put together.  A better structure for the encyclopedia is to have a general article on the PLO, with specific topics like Proposals for a Palestinian state and PLO and Hamas covered in more detail in separate articles.  Our current lengthy article on the PLO includes only one quote about Hamas, compared to three about Palestinian refugees, three about the peace process, etc., which is a reasonable allocation.  If more than two dozen quotes about Hamas were to be dumped into the main article, it would create an imbalance that would give too much emphasis to the PLO's ties with Hamas. JamesMLane 16:19, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The point is we don't need two dozen quotes on the topic; we need, at the most, a compact paragraph stating the essential POVs regarding the relationship of the two entities. Most of these quotes will go, one way or another, because they are not essential. Less is more. -- Viajero 18:57, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with the policy of stating the essential POVs, but that shouldn't be overemphasized, to the point where we think our job is done if we merely state the POVs. An encyclopedia should also provide facts relevant to the dispute between the POVs.  I think almost every one of these quotes should stay.  Quotes from different PLO leaders, at different times, in different contexts, would presumably be cited by the anti-PLO advocates to show that it was a pattern, not one aberrational comment.  In looking at the list I noticed one closely overlapping pair, which I'll merge, but in general, I see no reason to deprive the reader of these citations.  For an encyclopedia, "Less [information] is more" is the wrong philosophy.  The main article on the PLO, with this and other more specific articles referenced in it, is a good example of how we can use hyperlinks and disk space to provide the reader with more information than a paper encyclopedia, without overwhelming him or her with a single, unreadably long article.  More is more!  To that end, I wish that the people denouncing this article as biased would improve it by adding the quotations or other facts that support the pro-PLO POV. JamesMLane 11:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Indeed we do not have to deal with physical space limitations here but this does not absolve us as editors with the obligation of creating compact, coherent, logically structured texts. As Adam Carr once put it, encyclopedia article writing is not regurgitating raw source material, it is the art of synthesis and distillation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a library, and collections of quotes (like other raw materials) belong in the library. While "less is more" is perhaps not the most appropriate way of formulating at it, "more is more" even less so. -- Viajero 13:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete--jossi 15:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * One of the surest signs of an article created primarily for propaganda purposes is that it is composed largely of "quotations". Quotations are the cheapest weapon in the propagandist's arsenal because it is all so easy to present any desired point of view.  There are thousands of people out there saying things and being quoted, and they don't even say the same things in different circumstances, so selecting as many quotations as you want that appear (perhaps with the help of lost context) to prove your point of view is a piece of cake.  It is especially easy if (as in this case) full-time propagandists have done most of the work already and you just have to visit their web sites.  Does anyone really doubt that any PLO people ever attacked Hamas (given that there have been many arrests of Hamas members over the years and even cases of Hamas members being tortured to death)?  And everyone who reads the news from a decent source has seen scores of verbal attacks by Hamas on the PLO. And, no, the way to fix it is not to collect "counter-quotes".  If you combine several piles of shit of different colors, you don't get a bunch of roses, you get a huge pile of multicolored shit.  The only way to fix this article (though my preference would be to delete it) is to scrap most of the "quotations" and present a balanced view of the controversy from the outside. --Zero 13:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Note that the page contains more than just quotations, but also news reports about PLO and Hamas joint activities - including joint terror attacks. MathKnight 15:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * If there were a quotation about Hamas from Arafat's driver, we wouldn't "balance" it with a contrary quotation from someone who sweeps the floors at PLO headquarters -- both are worthless and neither should be included. The actual article, however, quotes Arafat himself, as well as several other people who seem to be legitimate PLO spokespeople.  On what basis do you dismiss these quotatons as "shit"?  If the PLO has changed its stance toward Hamas over time, or if it says different things to different audiences, then there should be similarly authoritative denunciations of Hamas that can be added.  As for PLO attacks on Hamas, I've seen little or nothing about that in the mainstream U.S. media, but it's not the sort of story they'd play up.  Wikipedia could fill a gap here, if you or others would write up the details of some of these attacks, arrests, etc., and add that information to the article. JamesMLane 04:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete a random, POV collection of quotes and trivia is not an encyclopedia article. 172 11:31, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hopeless POV, nonarticle. Agreed w/ Zero and 172 on all points. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The information in the article is indispenseable. It might be that the article need a "clean up" and addition of descriptive paragraph to the long lists of facts and quotes. So fix and add stuff instead of delete because you don't like it. Be constructive, not destructive! MathKnight 09:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nothing should be deleted for POV alone. The title is clearly NPOV.  Cleanup -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  03:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)