Talk:Hamas/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

"Early Islamic Activism in Gaza" returned to pre-September 15 version, basically (with grammar/spelling fixes)

I have by and large reverted this section to the pre-September 15 version, when a massive number of what I consider strong anti-Hamas POV edits began at this entry. But I have made one minor addition and cleaned up spelling/grammar (it is basic etiquette, for those considering a simple revert of my changes, to instead incorporate my non-controversial changes into your revert). Note that the new version is 579 words while the post-September 15 version is 723 words. This is relevant since the Hamas article is presently 47K bytes over the 100K limit Wikipedia prefers (it prefers this limit because it takes a long time on older computers with relatively poor internet connections to download long Wikipedia entries, so limiting length when possible is a matter of courtesy to many Wikipedia users), and there is a History of Hamas Wikipedia article available. The following are the substantive contrasts with the present version:

  • At the very beginning, changed "Israel hunted down Fatah and other secular Palestinian Liberation Organization factions ..." to "With its takeover of Gaza after the 1967 war with Egypt, Israel hunted down secular Palestinian Liberation Organization factions..." Mentioning the 1967 war is History Writing 101. Mentioning Fatah here is redundant: it is mentioned in the following paragraph.
  • Deleted the following from the pre-September 15 version
  • Deleted the following from the post-September 15 version: "When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel, unlike Fatah, which was responsible for hijackings, bombings, and other violence against Israelis." As I've said a short distance up this page, when you state one interested party's take on why it has done something, then for NPOV balance you must also state the other interested party's take on the matter; also, out of respect for WP:RS, would need to add the RS take on the matter. Such delving into the 'why' is best done on the History of Hamas page, in my opinion.
  • In place of the entire "Claims of Mossad Involvement" subsection (199 words), which is redundant to paragraphs one through five of the "Early Islamic ..." subsection, the following sentence has been restored, immediately after the sentence in which the Israeli official states Cohen's warnings were ignored out of neglect: "In contrast, French investigative newspaper Le Canard enchaîné writes that Shin Bet also supported Hamas as an attempt to give "a religious slant" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to make the West believe that it was essentially between Jews and Muslims.[1]" (62 words). Note the contrast in WP:BALANCE between my way and the post-September 15 edit. In addition, the word "claim" is a WP:WordsToAvoid and it is particularly egregious to use that word as the title of an entirely superfluous and redundant subsection.
"it is basic etiquette, for those considering a simple revert of my changes, to instead incorporate my non-controversial changes into your revert" ? Interesting statement when coming from you. Marokwitz (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Your response (and Wikifan12345's below) are 100% unresponsive to the substance of the changes I have made. Since they have not been defended here, I will again removed most of the post-September 15 changes. However, I will continue to wait patiently and I will frequently review this talk page; and if you defend your changes in an effective and rational way, I will incorporate those into our consensus version. By the way, your tone indicates you may need to review WP:Assume good faith. Remarks indicating otherwise are not helpful to the cooperative editing proces; instead, let's work together collegially and make a great Hamas entry!Haberstr (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
You have absolutely no consensus for your mass reverts. That's not collegiality . Regarding "when you state one interested party's take on why it has done something, then for NPOV balance you must also state the other interested party's take on the matter;" - that's true. What is the other interested party's take on the matter (based on reliable sources)? Marokwitz (talk)
You have absolutely no consensus for your mass reverts. That's not collegiality . Regarding "when you state one interested party's take on why it has done something, then for NPOV balance you must also state the other interested party's take on the matter;" - thank you for agree that it's true, but you apparently haven't understood its implications for your editing behavior. If you feel that providing the various parties' takes on the matter under discussion here is important in the brief Hamas history section (I do not), then it is your job as an NPOV Wikipedia to provide both sides' opinions on that matter, in addition to of course inserting RS sources' 'takes', which should have priority over either sides' opinions.Haberstr (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of mass reverts again? Where did you see me doing any reverts? You reverted my work, and not vice versa. Marokwitz (talk)

More of the same

"massive number of what I consider strong anti-Hamas POV." Cool story bro. Really, we've had this discussion numerous times. The material is supported by reliable sources. Deleting entire paragraphs and claiming "POV" is not a very challenging argument. The quote by Olmert is fine, I don't know why you are bent on deleting it. Here you removed not 1, not 2, not 3...but 6 sections of material. How are official statements from Israeli officials "POV?" Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've discussed your ideas in my entry above and you are making no directly responsive comments. For example, as I stated above, WP:Balance also is important and not just "everything that has a reliable source." This point hasn't been responded to by you in any way. Also, the quote by Olmert is not fine, but, as I have stated above, only (1) if it is in the appropriate sub-section of the history, which appears to be impossible, since Olmert does not indicate _when_ he is stating that Iran's support for Hamas began. And only (2) if it is balanced by a responsive statement from the opposing side in the conflict. Better yet, interested parties non-expert, non-RS theorizing should be excluded in preference to RS. You have not responded to any of the preceding. Let's work together; one of the best ways to do that is for you and Marokvitz to explain and defend on this talk page the large number of changes made post-September 15 to the Hamas entry. Neither of you has done that.Haberstr (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, completely. You keep edit warring here when you have absolutely no consensus or support on this talk page. You are crazy if you think you can keep deleting all this sourced information. This is not how wikipedia encyclopedia works and if it is necessary maybe we have to take this issue to administrator attention so they can teach you that you are editing against the rules of this website. LibiBamizrach (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I am defending the long-term stable version of this page against (I'm sure unconscious) anti-Hamas POV push. I heartily agree with all efforts to contact administrators about the post-September 15 push.Haberstr (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Assassination of Hamas activists/officials

I'm unable to get an immediate grasp on the structure of this article with respect to where would be the appropriate place to include a mention of the most recent assassination (admittedly Israel says he was shot resisting arrest) of a high-ranking Hamas official, Iyad As'ad Shelbaya[1]. Can someone give me a hint? __meco (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this belongs in the article History of Hamas. Marokwitz (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
When very important officials of one government are being targeted for assassination by another government, that is relevant to many of Hamas actions that are currently unexplained in this entry (for example, why it is a secret who Hamas's leader is) and deserves brief insertion into the history here. By the way, although this information may portray Israeli in a negative light, since assassination of government officials is illegal under international law, that should not influence our inclusion/exclusion decisions here.Haberstr (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you have sources to back the assertion that he was a very important government official? The sources I saw said he was a Hamas military operative. If he was indeed a very important government official then I agree . According to Reuters "The Islamist Hamas group named the dead man as Iyad Shilbayeh, saying he was a local commander of their armed wing and vowed to carry on fighting." Marokwitz (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Note the general nature of the statement. Khaled Mashaal was a very important Hamas official when Israel attempted to assassinate him in 1997. That information should probably be in the 1990s section.Haberstr (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

  • Oppose. Repeated mass reverting to an old version against consensus and despite the edits being in discussion on this page constitutes edit warring. Individual topics in dispute can be edited freely given policy based reasoning, however there is no consensus for mass reverting the entire article. There are many reliably sourced, quality additions to the article since September 15 which should not be reverted. The present lead is much better and well organized than the previous one, which included factual errors and glaring omissions. Reverts were rationalized by "I don't like it" arguments rather than Wikipedia policies and well crafted arguments reliable sources. The editor is running amok with no regard for the opinions of other editors, and is falsely claiming there is "no response" on the talk page while discussion is very much in progress. Marokwitz (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Stability" of an article is no indication of anything (except maybe certain editors scaring off their opponents). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.99.40 (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The reasoning of the revert claim is simply too sweeping and not sufficiently supported by the facts and sources on the issues and themes. To revert would be a great error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResidentRevenant (talk • contribs) 09:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only one reason that the new version is unstable, because one editor continues to edit war and deleted reference information because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The new version is perfectly fine, according to wikipedia rules, referenced, relevant, etc. LibiBamizrach (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree The new editors have decided to enhance the already 'case against Hamas' nature of this article rather than striving to make it a balanced encyclopedia article referenced against world rather than unconsciously (I assume) 'Western' or right-wing Israeli attitudes toward Hamas. (It may be admirable to feel strongly anti-Hamas, it is just that a Wikipedia encyclopedia article should not read that way.) As can be seen in the detailed explanations here of every one of edits of the initial section and the first two history sections, generally back toward the pre-September 15 version but incorporating sensible edits of the unconsciously anti-Hamas editors.Haberstr (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. Guidelines such as WP:BRD encourage editors seeking to change existing material who are reverted to come to the talk page and discuss before reinstating those changes. What I see above is a lot of words but little real discussion regarding the actual content being introduced by those seeking change. Where there is detailed discussion, compromise has been possible, which is encouraging. Until there is consensus on the changes being introduced, the old version should remain in place to reduce the likelihood of edit warring. Tiamuttalk 18:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, seek changes - don't make unilateral edits against consensus, and inserting unsubstantiated content and confusing basic wikipedia guidelines with POV. Habe continues to change the lead statement from "Islamist" to "Islamic" even though he has been told half a dozen times it is not POV to say Hamas is an Islamist organization. He did the same at Hezbollah. I can't believe he isn't blocked yet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan, can you clarify, what is your !vote ? Marokwitz (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan12345, the changes introduced beginning September 15, for example the 68 edit entries made by Marokwitz during a 22-hour span between Sept 15 and Sept 16, were not explained at all on this Talk page. Reversing most of those changes back to the long-term stable version, but incorporating a few excellent ideas among the mass of anti-Hamas POV changes therein, is what I did. Marokwitz decided without discussion (we discussed exactly these issues roughly a year ago on this Talk page) to replace the Talk page consensus 'Islamic' with both 'Islamist' and 'fundamentalist', which are more controversial labels for Hamas (and therefore require in-text attribution and which (as the earlier consensus Talk page opinion discussed) add little or nothing to our understanding of Hamas and will confuse many readers understanding of the group.Haberstr (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I wonder how using the same words used by New York Times, Washington Post, books by historians, and peer-reviewed academic publications, can be considered controversial. Marokwitz (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
See Straw Poll 3: "From Wikipedia's Islamism entry: 'Many of those described as 'Islamists' oppose the use of the term, and claim that their political beliefs and goals are simply an expression of Islamic religious belief.' And yet Markowitz claims it is uncontroversial to label Hamas with that term."Haberstr (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
brewcrewer, your statement is contradicted by the facts of the editing process extensively discussed above. I have incorporated several edits introduced by Marokwitz. On the other hand, Marokwitz has incorporated none of my edits; every revert of my changes has been wholesale, including reverting simple spelling and grammar fixes.Haberstr (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey, Lets stick to the truth, Haberstr, I didn't undo your changes. You must be confusing me with other editors. I was the one who actually reinstated some of your changes which were reverted, such as deleting the silly sentence about "studying Quran". Marokwitz (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I have written the truth: "every revert of my changes has been wholesale, including reverting simple spelling and grammar fixes." I am sorry you have misinterpreted what I said, and then based on that misinterpretation inflamed our previously courteous discussion with the accusation that I am not sticking to the truth.Haberstr (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
You wrote "Marokwitz has incorporated none of my edits" which is plainly false, you must admit, I did actively redo at least one of your edits. You also wrote to me "You have absolutely no consensus for your mass reverts" which is clearly a false accusation. Unlike you who actively undid most of my changes, I didn't undo ANY of your changes, so complaining that I didn't "incorporate your changes" is quite a bizarre complaint, however you try to spin it. Marokwitz (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
And yet the facts remain, my edits are reverted wholesale, which is very un-collegial, while in contrast I do not do that in regard to your edits. Instead, I incorporate the NPOV ideas in your edits.Haberstr (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
So complain to those whoever was un-collegial rather than attempting to blame me. And you should apologize for accusing me "You have absolutely no consensus for your mass reverts" when I actually wasn't the editor behind the reverts. Marokwitz (talk)

Now a much more severe and 151,000 byte 'case against Hamas'

This is sad, and I hope the (I'm sure unconsciously) biased editors have a change of perspective.Haberstr (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you list the new edits which you perceive to be biased? Marokwitz (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I have already done that for the introduction section and the first two history sections. As I proceed through the entire article and review the hundreds of edits quickly introduced since September 15, I will continue to inform all in detail of the new (and old) anti-Hamas POV in each subsection.Haberstr (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Clarification, what I was asking about is the new edits which caused you to declare this is now a "Now a much more severe case against Hamas" . Do you want to discuss them or is this just a general rant ? Marokwitz (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Note please that you should have discussed all your potentially POV changes to this long-time stable article prior to making them. Since you are the person making most of the changes to the stable pre-September 15 Hamas entry, would you like to make a start, and explain mebbe just one of the 97 edits you have made since September 15?Haberstr (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Why are you refusing my simple request ? I want to understand which new edits you are concerned about. If there are too many, please specify the top few and we will discuss them here one by one. Regarding my edits, all are explained in the edit summaries, if you want to ask about a specific edit, please ask and I promise to explain. If you want some explanations, my edits involved adding more academic citations, turning quotes into readable prose, repairing WP:V issues where some sentences that did not match what the cited sources said, reordered historical sections chronologically, removed words to avoid WP:AVOID such as WP:CLAIMED, corrected WP:HOWEVER and WP:WEASEL, changed the levels of section headings, reordered sections for more clarity, converted bulleted lists into better flowing paragraphs, fixed WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYSTEMIC issues in the lead, and of course corrected the glaring omission of "Islamist fundamentalist" in the lead which is currently under discussion. I don't think I did anything controversial despite your unfair attempts to discredit my work and portray me as a POV monster. It was mainly simple copy editing and source verification. Anyone caring to review my edits one by one would see that I'm saying the truth, and that all my edits without exception were based on Wikipedia policies and NPOV. Now, please be a sport, and help me understand your complaint by specifying which recent edits you consider "potentially POV" by "unconsciously biased editors". Marokwitz (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Your exceptionally vast request is being answered on a sub-section by sub-section basis. This seems the most helpful way to stay specific and collegially get the job done of producing an NPOV Hamas article. As you can see above, I have provided extremely detailed justifications for the contrast between (essentially) my and your versions of three sub-sections so far. A fourth is forthcoming. Please respond in the appropriate talk subsection.Haberstr (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

New changes add much more to "the case against Hamas" feel of Hamas entry.

A few of the mass of recent and completely un-discussed changes by Markovitz are appropriate, but the vast majority have a consistent, anti-Hamas POV, adding significantly to the already strong "the case against Hamas" flavor that I have criticized above (without receiving any response on that from any of the editors changing things in the 'anti-Hamas' direction). It would be useful for editors to review WP:UNDUE. Also, please note and consider imitating my methodology, of proposing changes on the talk page, allowing reasonable time for discussion/response, and only after that implementing changes to the article.Haberstr (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-Hamas POV." What does this mean? Is there is an on-going campaign to vilify a registered terrorist organization that I am unaware of? I haven't looked over Markovitz edits, but if you think they violate policy please cite them and refer to the policy you believe is most important. BTW, as far as I know there is no WP:ANTIHAMAS policy/guideline created......yet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
First of all, while you complained about my edits, you secretly went and reverted changes by many other contributors at once, making it appear as if I made them all. Please behave. Regarding my edits. There is absolutely no POV involved, I categorically deny it. I corrected factual errors based on academic, reliable sources, and removed an issue where the lead focused on recent events in violation of WP:RECENTISM. I added some information about the meaning of the word Hamas. This and all the other additions are cited to reliable sources. Additionally my edits included adding a more reliable source citation to one fact, and removing another citation which failed WP:V. For convenience of other editors, I broke my edits into many small changes and gave a clear explanation to each. So please show likewise courtesy and if you have any issue with any of my changes based on Wikipedia policy, discuss them here individually. Blanket reverts of positive contributions since you don't like them, are unacceptable. And your edit description "after refusal to talk about changes" is ludicrous, who refused to talk? Am I required to be online 24 hours a day? Marokwitz (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand what is going, it is a major anti-Hamas POV effort, featuring 40-50 hurried edits in a row to create 'facts on the ground' that are nearly impossible to review one by one. This POV effort damages the encyclopedia-like quality of this entry. What we need is a rescue from an administrator.Haberstr (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
You violate constantly WP:AGF over and over again and show that you refuse to collaborate with editor in appropriate way. Maybe we do need rescue from an administrator. LibiBamizrach (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for violating WP:AGF. However, I continue to be baffled as to why Marokwitz has decided to make an enormous number of editing changes to a long-time very stable Hamas page, without discussing any of his/her changes here on the talk page. Frankly, he has inserted a great deal of ESL English into the entry, and a great deal of glaring anti-Hamas POV. I would like to check and repair the mistakes he may have made, but the sheer number and speed with which he has made them make that very difficult. What was the rush!? The fact that he has done this in 68 edits between " 14:19, 15 September 2010" and "12:14, 16 September 2010," not one discussed on this talk page, made me suspicious of his/her motives.Haberstr (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. I've seen that editor do similar things on other articles. Makes 20 edits with only 1 or 2 having POV issues. Slightly dubious practice. NickCT (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I never made any POV edits. All my edits are strictly based on reliable sources, and I try to use academic ones rather than news sources whenever possible. You must be mistaken. As I explained earlier I always make improvements to articles in many small edits in order to make it easier for you to follow my edits, and this enables me to give clear explanations for every change in the edit summaries. Wikipedia policy encourages bold edits and there is absolutely no rule saying I need to discuss every change. I will not tolerate personal attacks. If you continue violating AGF and attacking me personally, I will take this to the administrators. Marokwitz (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Why do you come to a long time stable article and, without discussing any of them on the talk page, make 68 edits within the span of 22 hours?Haberstr (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not ? There is no rule against edits to long time stable articles, and no rule saying I should discuss every edit before I do it. Marokwitz (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The now NPOV "1990s" section

The following is a piece of the earlier version, which reported as fact this info about Arafat and the Palestinian Authority and suicide and other attacks on civilians: "Although such attacks were against the Oslo accords signed by Yasir Arafat, Arafat tacitly approved these attacks and refused to disarm Hamas.[2][3] The Palestinian Authority followed suit and did nothing to stop the Hamas practice of targeting and killing innocent civilians.[4]" I hope it is obvious to all that the preceding are allegations and should be treated as such in an encyclopedia article. Also, much of the space between the formation of the al-Qassam Brigades and the 1999 expulsion from Jordan is filled in with important incidents.Haberstr (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this is a documented fact. Palestinian officials haven't even tried to deny it. There are hundreds of official PNA documents with Yasser Arafat's signature. Anyways, I'm becoming quite tired by your edit-warring. Can you stop restoring your obviously edits until a compromise/consensus is made here? You could potentially get blocked very easily if you keep this up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
To most RS, it is an accusation by partisan Israeli sources. Anywy, please attempt to document the accusation from RS sources. If we are going to put the information in without citation, then it has to be the strong consensus of all RS.Haberstr (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Documented and well cited. I'm restoring. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Second Straw Poll

  • Oppose for the following reasons:
    1. This is how Hamas is universally categorized by reliable and academic sources. At least six reliable sources were given.
    2. Hamas is part of the Islamist movement, a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system, and that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically.
    3. By the way this article includes the "Islamism" template and is part of a Wikipedia series of articles on the topic of Islamism.
    4. Hamas also clearly ascribes to the movement of Islamic fundamentalism (Arabic: usul, the "fundamentals"), which is a term used to describe religious ideologies seen as advocating a return to the "fundamentals" of Islam: the Quran and the Sunnah.
    5. Per WP:V the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
    6. In my extensive research I didn't see any scholar disputing that Hamas is a member of the Islamist and fundamentalist movements.
    7. Sadly there are attempts to censor and whitewash these words based on "I don't like it". I feel that this is partially due to misinterpretation of the terms "Islamist" and "fundamentalist" as a derogatory (which they are not).
    8. Anyone claiming that these words are "disputed" when applied to Hamas should back his words by reliable evidence instead of wasting our time with pointless reverts.
    9. Even if the words are "controversial" as the editor claimed, this is even a stronger version for inclusion in the lead, since WP:LEDE clearly states the lead SHOULD "include mention of notable criticism or controversies" Marokwitz (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Both these terms are laden w/ POV issues. There are only two circumstances under which using these terms might be acceptable, 1) self despcription (i.e. Hamas calls itself Islamist/fundementalist), 2) perponderance of mainstream RS uses the terms (i.e. New York Times, Washington Post, not Ynet). I don't think either of these conditions are satisfied in this case.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NickCT (talk • contribs)
These are the terms used by mainstream RS. For example NY Times - Hamas Fights Over Gaza’s Islamist Identity This was the first arrest of a foreigner by the Islamist group Hamas Hamas a fundamentalist Sunni organization, Washington Post - Death of Islamist Hamas commander in Dubai prompts hunt for killers. ruling Fatah party is to compete directly with the fundamentalist Hamas movement. You may want to revise your !vote. Marokwitz (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
(chuckle) - Touche Marokwitz. I'll strike my support.... NickCT (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It takes a great man to admit he is wrong. Thanks for keeping an open mind. Marokwitz (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
In all honesty I simply hadn't looked for RS using the terms in question. That being the case, I was probably a little hasty in saying "I don't think ... this case". You've certainly demonstrated mainstream RS using the terminology. I think the ball is now in the other court for why these words should be excluded. NickCT (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Third Straw Poll

  • Oppose for the following reasons:
    1. The word Islamic more or less covers the meanings Islamist and fundamentalist, and the latter two labels are not universally applied to Hamas.
    2. The "Islamist movement" is virtually impossible to define and is a controversial label, with many negative connoations in English-speaking readers minds. User:Marokwitz has described 'Islamism' as "a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system, and that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically," but this would just as easily describe many moderate political organizations such as the ruling party in Turkey, in addition to describing groups such as Hamas.
    3. Though the article includes the "Islamism" template and is part of a Wikipedia series of articles on the topic of Islamism, that does not mean labeling Hamas is not controversial. Many groups, for example, are listed in the 'history of terrorism' article, but that does not mean labeling such groups as 'terrorist' is not controversial.
    4. Hamas does not clearly ascribe to the movement of Islamic fundamentalism, since that phrase is also undefined and controversial. Marokwitz has described Islamic fundamentalism as "religious ideologies seen as advocating a return to the "fundamentals" of Islam: the Quran and the Sunnah," but as with his proposed Islamist definition, it could be applied to many political parties, such as the ruling party in Turkey, which are not described in the first sentence of their Wikipedia entry as 'fundamentalist'.
    5. Per WP:V the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability: but that is irrelavant here. The labeling of Hamas as fundamentalist and Islamist in addition to Islamic is included in other sections of this Hamas entry, and should be. We are instead talking labeling Hamas with two controversial and negative connotation-laden terms in the encyclopedia entry's first sentence. And doing so as without any source attribution, as if it is a universal and uncontroversial thing to do.
    6. From Wikipedia's Islamism entry: "Many of those described as "Islamists" oppose the use of the term, and claim that their political beliefs and goals are simply an expression of Islamic religious belief." And yet Markowitz claims it is uncontroversial to label Hamas with that term.
    7. Sadly there are attempts to accuse other editors of bad faith (see WP:Assume Good Faith). This may be partially due to misinterpretation of the terms "Islamist" and "fundamentalist" as non-controversial, but that's obviously (see Wikipedia Islamism entry) a false belief.
    8. Anyone claiming that these words are "non-controversial" when applied to Hamas should back his or her words with reliable evidence instead of wasting our time with pointless reverts.
    9. I have claimed the words are "controversial," and Marokwitz may eventually come around to agreeing with me on this, if I can read between the lines. What to do, if we reach that consensus? WP:LEAD, which is about the lead _section_ and not the lead sentence, states that the lead section "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." I would suggest that these definitional labels are not a notable controversy. Hamas's history of suicide attacks may be, the systematic assassination by Israel of Hamas leaders may be, but whether to use 'Islamic' or 'Islamist'? I'd say no, not a notable controversy.Haberstr (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    10. This looks good and 'clean': ". . . Islamic . . ." This looks cluttered and ugly: ". . . Islamist[2][5] fundamentalist[6][7][8][9] . . ." Haberstr (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 4 adjectives is a little excessive and poor english. NickCT (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - See Khalid Mishal: The Making of a Palestinian Islamic Leader Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 37, no. 3 (Spring 2008), p. 59 and search for the term islamist. There's nothing controversial about it at all. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Straw Poll 3 provides voters a much more accurate picture of the contemplated changes to the pre-September 15 version of the Hamas first sentence than does Straw Poll 2.Haberstr (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Too clunky and wouldn't pass in an essay. How about "Hamas is a Palestinian Islamic socio-political organization with fundamentalist roots"? This is probably even more accurate.Wayne (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Wayne, your suggestion sounds good to me. It captures the notion that the current Hamas may (or may not) be different in character and real world outlook compared to the group formed in the late 1980s.Haberstr (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Which reliable sources would you use to back this? According to the reliable sources is fundamentalist today, and not only in origins. Marokwitz (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for the exact same reasons I wrote in the second straw poll . Saying that "The word Islamic more or less covers the meanings Islamist and fundamentalist" is a complete misunderstanding of the topic matter. The labels are used by all mainstream media and scholars, are totally non controversial and undisputed . Issues with style such as the one in #10 or the use of multiple consecutive adjectives are easy to resolve in ways other than censorship of sourced and crucial content. Regarding #4 see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Marokwitz (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I find it extremely curious that you chose to create a third straw poll which is basically identical to the second, but with slightly different wording, instead of replying to the second straw poll with your comments. This is very confusing behavior which will only make it harder to achieve consensus. Marokwitz (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The present poll provides a fuller and therefore far more NPOV and accurate view of the matter under dispute than does the Second Straw Poll.Haberstr (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - "Islamic" is different from "Islamist." It is important not to confuse the two. --GHcool (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment *smacks forehead*. This again? CAIR and the AMA are Islamic organizations. Hamas and Hezbollah are Islamist organizations. To characterize Hamas as Islamic is simply dishonest. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment What definitions did you or your RS use to help make that distinction? Certainty in this matter is impossible, since there are no universally agreed upon definitions of the terms 'Islamic' and 'Islamist', and RS disagree on their precise meaning and on who and what they properly label.Haberstr (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Abuse by Haberstr

Can someone please do some report about Haberstr continued abuse on this article? It's ridiculous how many time he keep deleting referenced information even though everyone on talk page disagree with him. I don't know exactly where right place to fill out report for something like this, but maybe someone else can do it? He even has nerve to go and delete the information in the middle of straw polls (THREE OF THEM) where basically everyone is voting against him. LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, he is doing the same in History of terrorism. I discussed this with an administrator, who said that even though this isn't a technically violation of 3RR, the right course of action is to warn the editor and then issue a complaint on the Edit warring noticeboard. Reverting in the middle of discussion is obviously not the way Wikipedia consensus building is done. Personally I'm still trying to address it in more friendly means, and trying not to get emotionally involved even though Haberstr is systematically attacking my integrity, but given the recurring mass reverts I think my attempts are futile. If you give up, take this to Edit warring noticeboard. Marokwitz (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
What administrator did you discuss 'this' with, I would be very happy to discuss our disagreements with him/her too! I'm sure we can work this out and get back to improving this potentially wonderful and unbiased resource.Haberstr (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Abuse by LibiBamizrach and Marokwitz

Can someone please do some report about LibiBamizrach and Marokwitz continued abuse on this article? It's ridiculous how many times they keep deleting referenced information even though they have not discussed any of their 100s of changes post-September 15 on this talk page. I don't know exactly where the right place to fill out report for something like this, but maybe someone else can do it? LibiBamizrach even has the nerve to accuse without any evidence (we can all look at the history of this page and find I haven't deleted anything from this talk page) Haberstr of "go and delete the information in the middle of straw polls (THREE OF THEM) where basically everyone is voting against him." By the way, Marokwitz is doing the same in History of terrorism. I discussed all this with several administrators, who said that even though this isn't a technically violation of 3RR, the right course of action is to warn the editor and then issue a complaint on the Edit warring noticeboard. Reverting in the middle of discussion is obviously not the way Wikipedia consensus building is done. Personally I'm still trying to address it in more friendly means, and trying not to get emotionally involved even though Marokwitz is systematically attacking my integrity, but given the recurring mass reverts I think my attempts are futile. If you give up, take this to Edit warring noticeboard.Haberstr (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Habert, you are the one edit-warring and removing information against consensus. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. And Haberstr should apologize for having the nerve to accuse without any evidence that I have deleted information in the middle of straw polls in History of terrorism. Marokwitz (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Marokwitz should apologize for having the nerve to say I accused him of deleting "information in the middle of straw polls in History of terrorism. Here is what I wrote: "LibiBamizrach even has the nerve to accuse without any evidence (we can all look at the history of this page and find I haven't deleted anything from this talk page) Haberstr of 'go and delete the information in the middle of straw polls (THREE OF THEM) where basically everyone is voting against him.' By the way, Marokwitz is doing the same in History of terrorism." Let's all stay factual, collegial, and NPOV, and keep trying our best to improve this potentially wonderful and unbiased encyclopedia.Haberstr (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
why someone doesn't file some report about this so he will stop with that behaviour? LibiBamizrach (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean you are not going to apologize for writing that I "go and delete the information in the middle of straw polls (THREE OF THEM) where basically everyone is voting against him." Surely you agree that this is a false accusation, and I will very happily and collegially accept your apology.Haberstr (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing information information information

An editor continues to remove cited information from Hamas in spite of discussions in talk. His massive edits have been reversed a colossal number of times.

What is most troubling is meddling with the establishment section, removing Olmert statements and rewriting the history section.. The original version included precise information about the evolution of Hamas and how it morphed into a political movement into a violent organization. But the current version is abridged for kids and dubiously includes factoids like "In December of 1992 Israel responded to the killing of a border police officer by deporting 415 leading figures of Hamas and Islamic Jihad to Lebanon, which provoked international condemnation and a unanimous UN Security Council resolution condemning the action."

It's as if Hamas leaders wrote the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the contention that it is "as if Hamas leaders wrote the article." I assume all NPOV readers of my version would disagree. Hmm, this may indicate you have a strong POV on this topic and likely should not be editing the Hamas article. This sentence -- "In December of 1992 Israel responded to the killing of a border police officer by deporting 415 leading figures of Hamas and Islamic Jihad to Lebanon, which provoked international condemnation and a unanimous UN Security Council resolution condemning the action." -- is not controversial and is supported by many references. I included one of the prominent ones.Haberstr (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Support returning to the original version. Marokwitz (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Support returning to the original pre 'September 15 POV invasion' version.Haberstr (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Do you guys ever wonder whether a group of Israelis are going to edit an article about a sworn enemy of Israel w/ a NPOV? Answer seems obvious to me. Let's not have any of these silly "astroturf" RfCs. NickCT (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh I am Israeli? Guess you are Palestinian, then, Nick. It makes you look very much foolish to make assumptions like this. But you keep on and keep on doing it again. LibiBamizrach (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Nick, most editors familiar with the rules don't contribute with summaries like "Deleting anti-Israeli Defense Forces POV." You see what I did there? :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
@Wikifan12345 - You're right. Edit summaries like that aren't helpful, but frankly I can sympathize with that editor's exasperation.
@LibiBamizrach - Out of curiousity, who were you editting as before you started your current account? NickCT (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
You can sympathize with the editor's exasperation? Inferring there is a conspiracy to smear the humanitarian organization known as Hamas? Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
As it appears to be "sarcasm hour", let me thank Wikifan12345 for another constructive comment. NickCT (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. If you oppose discussion then what do you suggest? Continued massive reverts with no discussion ? The right course of action is to discuss the matter in question and try to reach consensus. The question raised here is whether to re-introduce precise information about the evolution of Hamas and how it morphed from a political movement into a violent organization. Let's ignore name callings and accusations and focus on this question. Marokwitz (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What?!

"Between 1,166 and 1,400 Palestinians and 13 were killed in the conflict."

13 what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.7.131 (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Wunderpants, 2 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} "Between 1,166 and 1,400 Palestinians and 13 were killed in the conflict.[21][22]"

In the introduction should read:

"Between 1,166 and 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed in the conflict.[21][22]"

This is based on the sources. Wunderpants (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done well spotted. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Leaders in the infobox

Please review the leadership representation in the infobox sorted this way: User:ElComandanteChe/Sandbox --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Already in the article, thanks Agada. Sandbox content removed. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hamas and tsunami

I want to add an information. When tsunami happened in Aceh, Hamas has helped Aceh by sending money $ 100,000. See this: Hamas Bantu Tsunami Aceh. -- Tapail (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest to search for more reliable sources of information for that. Please take a look at identifying reliable sources guideline and verifiability policy. You don't have to read them completely, just the first paragraphs. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of vague language in the lead: "three other countries"

"the United States, and three other countries classify Hamas as a terrorist organization". I see this as unnecessarily vague. Furthermore considering the US as more important to list than other countries is a form of systemic bias. I propose to replace the vague words "three other countries" with the actual names of countries, as it was at the beginning of September. Do other editors support or oppose my proposal? Marokwitz (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to avoid undue weight. Listing the other three countries adds undue weight to the terrorism designation. It would also be undue weight to list the 180 countries that do not list Hamas as a terrorist organization?Haberstr (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it's about time we restore the article to a version prior to Hab's problematic edits. Any worthwhile contributions of his can then be worked in through consensus. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan, the language Marokwitz is concerned with has been there for a year or so.Haberstr (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan, I think it is better not to blame individual editors. Due to the tone of your response, I'm afraid that my attempt of consensus building will deteriorate to an unnecessary war guided by emotion rather than logic. I think my proposal is small and reasonable enough for everyone to agree on. Lets keep discussion friendly. I would appreciate if you give arguments in favor or against my specific small proposal. Marokwitz (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If the number of countries was a laundry list then stating how many would be appropriate but as it would take only a small amount of text there can be no problem with naming them.Wayne (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, since there appears to be agreement, I will proceed with the change the sentence to a version similar to the one at the beginning of September. Still open for discussion, if there are any comments / reservations please raise them here for discussion. Marokwitz (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Compare weight of "the United States and three other countries classify Hamas as a terrorist organization" with "the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and Canada classify Hamas as a terrorist organization."Haberstr (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The WP:UNDUE argument is convincing. What's the point of listing them but to try and belabor the point? NickCT (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't the statement/selection/weighting need to be based on something, a secondary source ? It can't be based on beer being considerably cheaper in Portland, Oregon than it is in Tokyo which may or may not be the criteria for picking the US but not Japan...it's hard to tell what the criteria is from the sources cited. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, there was just one source cited, before Haberstr reverted my edit: [2] which says the following: Hamas ... is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, the United Kingdon and the European Union and is banned in Jordan. Doesn't this qualify as a secondary source? Marokwitz (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
All of the original sources were cited before Marokwitz deleted them and introduced the Foxnews.com source.Haberstr (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we have to say what secondary sources like that say or else I'll be tempted to start arguing that Japan has better vending machines than the US and should therefore take precedence. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
As usual FOX is reporting its standard line of propaganda. Hamas is not listed as a terrorist organization by Australia or the United Kingdon.Wayne (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The military wing of Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by both. I agree that in the lead sentence the distinction should be made clear. Marokwitz (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Making the distinction clear makes the undue weight even worse. That is the reason we compromised a year ago on 'the united states and three other countries'.Haberstr (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

I lost interest in Hamas due to serious edit-warring and ownership issues. Now that the discussions have become less heated, I've taken a good look at the article and am baffled by the blatant neutrality issues.

Old: 22 September 2010

New: 7 October 2010

Okay, let's examine the differences.

Old lead:

Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement") is a Palestinian Islamist[2] fundamentalist[3] socio-political organization with an associated paramilitary force, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.[4] The Hamas, or it's Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, are classified as a terrorist organization by the United States, European Union,[5] Israel,[6] Canada,[7][8] Germany,[9] Japan,[10][11] the United Kingdom[12] and Australia.[13] It is outlawed by Jordan.[14]

New lead:

Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement") is a Palestinian socio-political organization that governs the Gaza Strip. The group, which was established in 1987 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood movement[5] and has an affiliated military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades,[6] is described by many analysts as Islamist[3] and fundamentalist.[4] In part because of its association till 2005 with suicide attacks against Israel, Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and three other countries.[7][8][9][10] In addition, the European Union subjects Hamas to restrictive measures applied in order to combat terrorism.[11]

Am I the only one that sees problems with this? The current lead refers to Hamas as a "socio-political organization." This is hardly the mainstream consensus. I've never seen a serious RS refer to Hamas as anything but a militant/islamist/terrorist organization. Socio-political is an ambiguous and dubious term to describe Hamas. Technically, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are socio-political organizations. Hamas is not simply "described as an Islamist and fundamentalist" organization, it is an Islamist and fundamentalist organization. Hamas founders describe themselves as Islamists, and their political philosophy is universally-accepted as fundamentalist.

How the heck did editors manage to push this?

Old Fatah-hamas conflict section.

New Hamas-fatah conflict section.

See the differences? 3 paragraphs of cited material, specifically about Hamas' abuses against other Palestinians and Fatah rivals, has been gutted and removed entirely. Why?

There is no reason to mention the Gaza War in the lead or the casualties, any less than there is a reason to include the 4 other operations conducted against Hamas during the second intifada. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The new lead is definitely better than the old although I'd prefer the "three other countries" to be listed. You appear to have missed that both leads say "socio-political organization". As for the Hamas-Fatah conflict section, it is covered in detail in two separate articles so has no need to have as much detail as the old version had. Are there any specific POV problems you think we need to look at apart from not liking the changes?Wayne (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The original lead says socio-political after Islamist and Fundamentalist. The new lead dubiously questions these labels with weasel language as if the claim that Hamas being an Islamist and fundamentalist militant group is being actively questioned by relevant sources.
P.S: They aren't. I could provide further examples comparing how great the article was and how pretty horrible it is now. Ross, the previous version for Fatah-Hamas conflict was very precise and dealt seriously with Hamas' institutionalized policies towards rivals and collaborators. That was simply gutted and removed arbitrarily. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S: They are. Based on their own statements and actions they are no longer strictly Islamist and fundamentalist even if most of their followers are and this is supported by the sources given. Some sources say Hamas is no longer Islamic fundamentalist but should more correctly be called an Islamic nationalist or a political Islamist organisation. For example Hamas is largly more modernist today, whereas it was closer to true Islamic fundamentalism in the past. The problem today is that those organisations with a preconcieved view dont accept that the change makes a difference. I agree the lead could be changed to say "most" instead of "many" analysts. As the Fatah-Hamas conflict is covered by two articles separate from Hamas it only requires a summary here. If you need more information here you should request those other articles be merged with Hamas.Wayne (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Stating without attribution that Hamas is "Islamist" is misleading. However, at this point we state "is described by many analysts" which I think is not an unreasonable compromise.Haberstr (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikifan, the POV in your response to the lead paragraph speaks for itself. Yes, Hamas is a socio-political organization. Yes, this is somewhat bland and NPOV, which is preferred over POV characterization. And the Gaza war should not be mentioned at all in the entire lead section? On the other hand, I agree that paragraph 2 material could be shortened, but then you enter into thorny POV issues regarding what to cut.Haberstr (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The relevant 'old lead' I often mention is the September 14 one:

Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement") is a Palestinian Islamic socio-political organization with an associated paramilitary force, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.[2][3][5][6] Since June 2007 Hamas has governed the Gaza portion of the Palestinian Territories, after it won a large majority in the Palestinian Parliament in January 2006 and then defeated rival Palestinian party Fatah in a series of violent clashes.[7] The European Union, the United States, and three other countries classify Hamas as a terrorist organization.[8][9][10][11][12]

Haberstr (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I think the new version is better than the old, but I'd be interested to here what specific changes Wikifan12345 would propose.
Thinking back to a previous debate, I thought we had agreed to include "fundementalist" in the lede. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It's in the second sentence, attributed to "many analysts" as it should (NPOV) be. The lead was clumsy, simply packing far too many adjectives.Haberstr (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The pro HAMAS lead should be removed and the more neutral wording restored. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an extreme charge: what are your specific reasons for calling the 'new' lead "pro Hamas"? Haberstr (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Still waiting for any specificity.Haberstr (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Finally someone with common sense. It doesn't take a genius to see the obvious flaws in the lead. Hab, it's been difficult to take your editing seriously when you summarize contributions with rationales like "Removing anti-Hamas POV." And then you say your lead meets NPOV standards? What? Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I realize we are not connecting, but I think we both should should listen carefully and take each other seriously. As I said, I agree with you that the lead's paragraph 2 is too long and somewhat out of date.Haberstr (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I never said it is too long and out of date. I said it the lead is terribly biased and far from NPOV. If I included rationales like "Removing anti-Israel propaganda" on my edits I doubt editors would take my complaints seriously. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Like Wayne, I would appreciate any specificity on what is POV.Haberstr (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I will ask again, what specifically do you have problems with so that we can address it? The lead appears to be cold facts with neither a pro-Hamas or pro-Israel slant. In the past there has been both anti-Hamas and anti-Israel propaganda. I would prefer the edit comment to say why something was removed rather than just saying it was, but I would still take edits seriously that tried in good faith to correct that bias. I dont agree with all Haberstr's edits but most of his work is in good faith and appears to be NPOV. Wayne (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Ross, I am being very, very specific. More specific than Hab ever has been with his ambiguous summaries for deleting paragraphs of cited material. Tell me, what is anti-Hamas propaganda? It is like anti-Taliban propaganda? Or anti-IRA propaganda? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Saying "the lead is terribly biased and far from NPOV" is not helpful. I can't see obvious bias in the current lead myself so need to know specifically what you have a problem with.Wayne (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence simply says " a Palestinian socio-political organization" and you wonder why some of us think its pro HAMAS? A clear majority of editors above stated it should include Islamist fundamentalist socio-political organization. Why has that proposal not been added to the article? "socio-political" tells us absolutely nothing. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"Socio-political organization" is NPOV, and the "islamist" and "fundamentalist" adjectives aare in sentence 2, with the NPOV statement that many apply those adjectives to Hamas. For reasons of style every descriptive adjective cannot be in sentence one, and for NPOV adjectives can't be applied to organizations without attribution, when there is RS disputing that characterization.Haberstr (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been very specific and even pasted the paragraphs that have issues. If editors don't see the problems than they have failed to incorporate basic wikipedia neutrality rules into their contributions here. The universal standard is Hamas = fundamentalist and Islamist militant movement. Not a "socio-political organization" with allegations of Islamism/fundamentalism. Haber has a long history of edit warring and has demonstrated serious POV issues based on the rationales I linked above. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not see any problems with new version of introductory remarks. It is much more neutral than the previous one. I am fine with new version as long as "fundamentalist" and "islamist" words are in there.-- Jim Fitzgerald post 12:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not have any history of edit warring. Please review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars.Haberstr (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The article does not allege anything, it says Hamas is "described by most analysts as Islamist[3] and fundamentalist[4]" which is more specific than an allegation and more in line with reality. Editors failing to see your POV does not mean that they are violating neutrality. Accusing an editor who has some consensus for his edits of "serious POV issues" because he doesn't agree with you is a violation of WP:GF. If you dont like something, you put out there for a civil discussion.Wayne (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing POV about facts. Harsh facts, no matter how vulgar, are still facts. Hamas is an Islamist and fundamentalist organization, period. Not a socio-political movement that some people "describe" as fundamentalist and Islamist. That is POV and patently false. Hab's edit summaries are suspect and dubious at best. The way the intro is crafted is simply gaming semantics. Good Faith does not mean ignoring battleground mentality and habitual edit-warring. One of the reasons I left this discussion because some users continued to take their opinions of Hamas out on the article rather than trying to acquire a consensus for huge rewrites. None of you have yet to answer for the paragraphs of cited information that were arbitrarily removed by an editor numerous times. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The article does not say "some", it says "most" which is a significant difference. Per sources the current description is accurate and also has a limited consensus, "patently false" is a POV accusation. Hamas is now an elected government and, apart from four countries politically committed to a POV, the rest of the world treats them as a socio-political movement. Times change as do organisations. Twice you have been told why the cited information has been removed. If you dont want to address the reason given then what do you want us to do?Wayne (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The original lead was sourced just fine. Let's look at the sources used to support the "described by many analysts" semantics:

As the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brothers, Hamas belongs to the "political Islamism" rather than the jihadi category and shares the Brothers' broadly "Islamic-modernist" worldview

As such, Hamas does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state. Its founding charter commits the group to the destruction of Israel, the replacement of the PA with an Islamist state on the West Bank and Gaza, and to raising "the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine."

Hamas, the Islamist movement that rules the Gaza Strip, took a significant step towards reconciliation with the Palestinian President yesterday, saying that its rule of the tiny coastal territory was only “temporary”

These aren't "many analysts." This is the consensus. Foreign Policy journal published a comprehensive examination of the Islamist organization known as Hamas.

So, "per source" the current introduction is POV and inconsistent with what reliable sources tell us. Hamas being the elected government of Gaza has nothing to do with its political philosophy. Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist movement that has a strong representation in the Egyptian parliament. Hezbollah is another Islamist movement that practically runs Lebanon. I have yet to see any serious source refer to Hamas as anything but an Islamist movement. Hamas founders themselves openly profess their ideology as Islamist. The burden of proof rests against editors who refuse to incorporate these facts into the article. The intro remained relatively untouched for many years until an editor decided to remove "anti-Hamas POV."

No serious rationale has been provided excusing the whole-sale removal of cited paragraphs (plural) of information. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and their change has clearly made the article bias and fails to explain the organisation in the introduction in the way it should. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, apart from the first couple of sentences, I think the last stable, and long standing, version of the lead is more neutral than the current one. The new lead which incorporates many of Wikifan12345's edits actually makes it more POV than that earlier version. Why dont we go back to that original lead and just take it from there?Wayne (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I reverted to version pointed by Wayne. I guess more tweaks are needed, especially in the beginning. Please discuss. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I modified the lead to incorporate the main changes in the first few sentences that had been implemented earlier which better reflected what Hamas is now. I deleted the Ynet reference because, as has been stated by Hamas, the founding charter is not policy, ie: does not commit the group to anything so to say it does is POV. I added Islamist but not fundamentalist as the word is basically redundant[3] and is covered in the infobox anyway as a separate concept. I hope this is a better starting point that we can work from.Wayne (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Why do the elections and Gaza takeover bits need to be repeated twice in the lead? I propose that the "history" part of the article will be summarized in the second paragraph, and keeping chronological order. Marokwitz (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Better but still inferior to the original intro. Hamas may govern the Gaza Strip but we don't state that fact in the lead. Hamas has no legal sovereignty over the Gaza Strip and many nations and organizations consider Israel as the occupying and controlling power.

Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement") is an Islamist Palestinian socio-political organization that governs the Gaza Strip.[3] The group was established in 1987 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood movement[5] and has an affiliated military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades[6][7][8] After winning a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament in the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections,[9] and defeating rival Palestinian party Fatah in a series of violent clashes, since June 2007 Hamas has governed the Gaza portion of the Palestinian Territories. The European Union,[10] Israel,[11] Canada,[12] and the United States[13] classify Hamas as a terrorist organization.

  • The main problem with the intro is the obscene recentism. Hamas history as a violent militant organization and activist movement, as well as its relationship with international bodies and foreign nations, takes precedence over power-grabs within the last year. Information about elections or violence belongs in the second or third paragraph. Expansive history belongs in the body. I'm referring to the original intro because it is meets the requirements of general wikipedia editing policy opposed to ugly mutated version that has replaced it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree completely, currently there is no obvious order to the lead. Everything related to Hamas history and it's rule of Gaza should be written only once, in the second paragraph, in chronological order. Marokwitz (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to see that the recent editing appears to be on a collaborative and constructive track . Let's hope it continues. Marokwitz (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the addition of "Islamist" and mention of the Muslim brotherhood the lead is now almost identical with the lead that was stable for more than six months before the major editing began (except for a lot of financial data that was moved to the body with consensus). I will point out that the original intro Wikifan12345 mentions, is the version after his own editing altered the long standing stable intro. I do intend to incorporate some those Wikifans edits into the lead though but will do that when I have more time.Wayne (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Wayne, one thing that I am still concerned about is entire lack of mention of Hamas activities in the 1990 in the lead. This is a recentism problem. The article covers these things in detail, yet the lead fails to summarize this period, and instead focuses only on the events of the four years 2006-2010 and leaves the events of the 19 previous years 1987-2006 completely blank. Do you agree that one sentence should be added regarding the 1990s? I mean, we dedicate a sentence to saying that that on November 4 2007 an Israeli incursion into Gaza killed seven Hamas militants. Is this really more important than mentioning all the events of those 19 years? Marokwitz (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
While this is being discussed, I am tagging the lead for not properly summarizing the article and not giving due weight. Hope you don't mind. Marokwitz (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I had actually added some text about 1990-2000 activities earlier but had an edit conflict with your edit. I want to add it again, but having looked at my intended edit I will need to rework it a bit to make it flow better.Wayne (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, reworked and added. See what you think and I'll leave it to you to decide if the tags need to stay or not.Wayne (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Much better. I removed the tags. Some editors like you are a pleasure to work with. Marokwitz (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove 'recentism in lead' tag

After the following revision -- [4] -- I think the recentism charge should be removed. Yes, the lead sentence mentions the most salient fact about Hamas, that it currently rules Gaza, but I hope that is not a basis for charging recentism; and, the following three paragraphs are purely chronological and give adequate background (for a lead section) on the group's origins and early history.Haberstr (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest lead paragraph discussion

Here is how I've just today revised the lead paragraph:

Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement") is the Palestinian socio-political organization that governs the Gaza Strip. Maintaining an affiliated military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades,[5][6][7] and described by many analysts as Islamist,[3] the group was established in 1987 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood movement.[8] Canada,[9] Israel,[10] and the United States[11] classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, and the European Union subjects it to restrictive measures applied in order to combat terrorism.[12]

Are there any complaints about the above, preferably the specific type? I'll summarize several things I said in the comment lines about these changes: stating the salient operative fact about an organization in the first sentence is simple common sense (Hamas governs the gaza strip); sentence two states "many analysts" rather than "most analysts" because "most analysts" is OR; The EU does not classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, so I've revised (my revision reflecting very precisely the actual language of the relevant EU measure) so we don't lie to our readers; sentence 2 continues to be somewhat awkward, but not as awkward as any reasonable alternative. Hopefully we'll have some productive and collegial discussion, and perhaps it will be demonstrated that the previously stated positions are inaccurate or otherwise improperly held.Haberstr (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a few comments. Let's start with the following since I don't want to discuss too many things at once.

  1. "described by many analysts" is a weasel word. Do you have a reliable source saying it was "described by many analysts"? No. Since "Islamist" is an undisputed fact about Hamas which all reliable sources use without exception. I have already demonstrated earlier that this word is used extensively by mainstream media and scholars when referring to Hamas. There are no "analysts" disputing this simple fact. There is no reason to use this awkward wording that implies it is an opinion rather than a verifiable fact.
  2. The EU does classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, as all reliable secondary sources attest. "subjects it to restrictive measures applied in order to combat terrorism" is just awkward wording that you copied from a primary source, no secondary reliable source actually calls it that. For example see "the European Union put the whole of Hamas (rather than just its military wing) on its ‘terrorism’ black list", or this- Hegemonic Securitisations of Terrorism and the Legitimacy of Palestinian Government, BB Coskun - Political Perspectives, 2007: "Hamas was blacklisted as a terrorist group by the United Sates and eventually by the EU as well" etc. etc. There are literally hundreds of reliable and scholarly sources saying that Hamas is on the EU terrorism list. Absolutely no need to use this original and awkward wording.

Marokwitz (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Hamas is frequently described as an Islamic group rather than as an Islamist one.

"This is particularly the case in view of the scholarly debate on the compatibility of Islam and democracy but even more so in view of Hamas's self-definition as an Islamic national liberation movement."

The Palestinian Hamas: vision, violence, and coexistence, by Shaul Mishal & Avraham Sela, 2006, p. xxviii [5] "In this way the PA has been able to control the economic activities of its political adversaries, including the Hamas and other Islamic opposition groups." Investment in peace: politics of economic cooperation between Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority, by Shaul Mishal, Ranan D. Kuperman, David Boas, 2001, p. 85 [6] "Hamas is a radical Islamic fundamentalist organization that has stated that its highest priority is a Jihad (holy war) for the liberation of Palestine ..." Peace and war: the Arab-Israeli military balance enters the 21st century, by Anthony H. Cordesman, 2002, p. 243 [7] "One of the secrets behind the success of Hamas is that it is an Islamic and national movement at one and the same time ..." 'Hamas: Palestinian Identity, Islam, and National Sovereignty', by Meir Litvak, in Challenges to the cohesion of the Arabic State, by Asher Susser, 2008, p. 153. [8] "Hamas is an Islamic fundamentalist movement founded in 1987..." Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues, by Gus Martin, 2009, p. 153

[9]

Haberstr (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Of course it is Islamic, the lead says clearly it is the "Islamic resistance movement". Having sources describe it as Islamic is in no way a contradiction to it being an Islamist group. 20:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
2. It is simply false to state that the EU classifies Hamas as a terrorist group. Yes, the unquestioned primary source states things almost exactly as I have worded the matter. It is completely nonsensical to prefer secondary over primary sources.Haberstr (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
2. It is simply false to say that the EU does not classify Hamas as a terrorist group. Wikipedia policy is clearly that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and not on primary source. You may consider this counter intuitive, but this is the policy, and for a good reason. Secondary sources are there to guide us in interpreting the primary source. 20:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I modified the lead to meet wikipedia standards and tweaked weasel words. any mention of the flotilla or hyperbolic evaluation of the event, as well as the economic blockade, does not belong in the lead. And I should probably mention the grammar and syntax is way off:

Formed during the First Intifada, an uprising opposing Israel's occupation of the Palestinian Territories, the Hamas-affiliated Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades has conducted numerous attacks directed against Israeli civilian and military targets. Between 1993 and 2005 the attacks included suicide bombings,[13] and after 2005 rocket attacks continued against Israeli targets

How many times do we need to say attacks? How can rocket attacks continued if their is no mention of their use prior to 2005? And what about mortars? grenades? firebombs? Israeli civilian and military targets is far too narrow. Just as many Palestinians, in fact probably more have been killed by Hamas than Israelis. And Hamas first started targeting Fatah before Israel. And the absence of suicide bombings in post 2005 was not a unilateral decision made by Hamas leaders, but forced as a result of Israel's security barrier (or wall). Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you start listing all weapons used we end up with a laundry list. Only "unusual" weapons require naming. Whatever effect we think Israel's security barrier had is irrelevant. This is addressed in the references where Hamas admits it had an effect but claim did not influence the decision to stop the attacks which was made on political grounds. Hamas changed their policies to increase their chances of election and suicide attacks were already opposed by many in Hamas anyway.Wayne (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Not a matter of usual weapons. Basic syntax. Whoever crafted the lead has minimal understanding of applying general grammar rules and wikipedia policy to edits. We can't say rockets continued in 2005 if no mention of rocket attacks is listed before. Far better to be concise and simply refer to suicide bombings and rockets in general. I see no source that says Hamas' decision to stop suicide bombings outside of the erection of the security fence. In fact in the violence section a source confirms Hamas' suspending suicide campaigns was the result of their ineffectiveness because of israel's defenses, not some humane-desire to end suicide bombings which without context your sentence infers. I removed your edit about "opposition with hamas" because I'm not aware of any and cannot find any serious scholarship that supports a measurable moderate element within Hamas. Hamas is a tradionally hardline movement and not towing the line can easily result in accusations of collaboration. Any slight suggestion of moderacy gives credence to the illusion that Hamas is some sort of conflicted, fractured movement like Fatah. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Again the current edit is still unfair and out of context. The policy is stated by one legislator, Yihiyeh Musa, and doesn't seem to be confirmed or denied by any Hamas leader or member of the military wing. Far more sources say Hamas stopped their suicide bombing as a result of the fence, which the major construction happened to take place in 2005. So anyways, the quote is unnecessary and not right for the lead. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

At present [10], we have the hilarious situation in which the lead section states nowhere that Hamas governs the Gaza Strip. I will have to repair that.Haberstr (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What can I say, after reviewing the recent changes. Haberstr is back. Marokwitz (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I am still hoping that one day this article may have a more neutral introduction instead of the Pro HAMAS one. Sigh. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure Marokwitz joins me in asking you, BritishWatcher, what precisely is 'pro-Hamas' in the lead as I have edited it. I and others have requested this of you several times, and it violates Wikipedian collegiality norms and rules to make an incendiary charge without ever supporting it.Haberstr (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. Habestr basically reverts all my edits unilaterally in spite of the on-going talk discussion. I'm restoring my edits for now until Hab wants to join the discussion. Perhaps a dispute resolution or even arbitration is next up? The edit standards for Israel/Palestine articles is significantly more strict than other subjects on wikipedia. It seems many editors have habitually inserted erroneous material unchallenged and without administrator warning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been researching the EU terrorism list and to support the current version of the lead and defuse arguements we should know that the list is not considered reliable and in April 2010 a question was even put to the EU parliament to abolish the list on the grounds it was "arbitrary". Where the lead says restrictive measures applied in order to combat terrorism interestingly that is pretty much the official title of the list except the title says "with a view" instead of "in order". We should also know how the list works. People and entities are added to the list at the request of individual member states without oversight, meaning some subjects on the list do not have a connection with terrorism. The lists function is to restrict assetts and travel movements if required and is not actually designated a terrorist list. Once listed, subjects remain listed even if no longer considered torrorist, for example a court overuled the EU and ordered the removal of the People's Mujahedin of Iran in 2005 but the EU refused (and declined to give a reason) and it was not actually removed from the list until 2009. Wayne (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What? You have been doing your own research? Congrats. Whether the EU parliament or other bodies tried to abolish the list is irrelevant. Is Hamas on the list or not? It is? Okay then we say Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the EU. The poor and imperfect bureaucracy of the EU is not our concern. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You missed the point. The list is not a list of terrorist organizations, it is a paper named specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism that lists names that may or may not be involved in terrorist activities. This is why it is heavily critisized, some organisations want it abolished and replaced with a list of terrorist organizations.Wayne (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The cited sources say clearly that Hamas is on the EU list of terrorist organizations. Your original research is simply irrelevant. The secondary sources guide us in the interpretation of the primary sources, plain and simple. Marokwitz (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Wayne this is simply semantics. All nations that consider Hamas a terrorist organization place restrictions on the group. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Wayne, see for example:

What happened to the principle of using secondary sources? Where is the secondary source saying otherwise? Marokwitz (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line on secondary source interpretations that go beyond what the original document claims? Those on the EU list are subjected to specific personal sanctions not general sanctions applying to the group as a whole. For example, the sanctions do not apply where they affect the general membership and only apply to certain members not Hamas as a whole.Wayne (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
And how do you know exactly which documents the secondary sources actually used as a base to their claims? We have multiple, independent, verifiable sources, vs. one EU document which I'm not sure is the right one, and doesn't contradict those sources in any way. EU has declared all wings of the militant Palestinian group Hamas (search) a terrorist organization and frozen its assets.

Are all these sources , and hundreds other, wrong? Where are the sources saying that Hamas is not on the terror list? There are none. It's clearly and completely a verifiable fact. Marokwitz (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Show me where Wikipedia says secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. Here we have a primary source stating very clearly what it is doing and what the list means. We're supposed to ignore that? Yes, of course the secondary sources are wrong when/if they state that the EU has classified Hamas as a terrorist organization. That directly contradicts what the primary source says.Haberstr (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Haberstr, there is trade off between primary and secondary sources. Since Wiki is a tertiary source, secondary sources are usually better: their reflection means notability, phrasing used is usually more neutral, style is summarizing. Primary sources are usually more radical and go to extreme, though with that factually more exact. I personally do not see any contradiction between sources provided and agree that secondary sources reflection on EU policies, especially in summarizing lede is better. Primary sources might be useful for the in body sections. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You're misinterpreting that section of Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary_and_secondary_sources. The only advice regarding primary sources is that (emphasis added) "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." That is definitely the case here, where the wording is clear and my paraphrase is virtually identical to the primary source. The ensuing discussion of secondary sources -- (emphasis added) "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves" -- involves opinion, which paraphrasing virtually identical to a quote of the primary source wording is not. If it would settle the conflict here, I'm fine if we simply quote the primary source directly, removing all possibiltiy of interpretation in a paraphrase.Haberstr (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If you are insisting on basing the article on primary sources, in complete defiance of Wikipedia accepted norms, then at least read the primary sources properly. The original EU resolution from 2001 states: "This Common Position applies in accordance with the provisions of the following Articles to persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts and listed in the Annex. " The annex lists "Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem (terrorist wing of Hamas)" [16]. In 2003 Council Common Position 2003/651/CFSP of 12 September 2003 replaced the original annex with the following one: [17] which replaces "Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem" with "Hamas (including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem)". Now you can see that the primary sources are in complete agreement with the secondary sources. Marokwitz (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
On the misinterpretation of the primary/secondary source matter, please see response to AgadaUrbanit above. As is readily apparent, the paraphrase is of the EU position from the most recent primary source, the 2005 document ([18]), not the 2001 or 2003 ones.Haberstr (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
So are you claiming that in 2003 Hamas was indeed on the EU Terrorist blacklist, and in 2005 the EU suddenly cancelled the terrorist blacklist and turned it into something else !? Where is your source for that? Here is a later source from 2006 saying the same as the 2003 one, and still listing Hamas in full. This is later than your 2005 source, isn't it? [19] Marokwitz (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Funding

Wikifan12345 has added some text to the funding section that is sourced to the TaxPayers' Alliance. I taged the edit requesting verification as the pdf would not open for me which Wikifan12345 removed on the grounds that he verified the source. I also question the reliability of the source (TaxPayers' Alliance) as it is commenting on an area outside it's area of interest and is heavily criticised for alleged corruption. I also deleted part of the edit: the The Heritage Foundation published a report claiming European aid to Gaza has freed up resources for Hamas and enables to smuggle weapons and enhance its military capabilities for several reasons. Firstly the report is by the TaxPayers' Alliance, not the Heritage Foundation as it implies. While the report may actually say this, the claim can not be verified and is supposition only. For example the secondary source itself, which from reading its rhetoric is extremely POV, gives no evidence that this is happening, quotes several RS that say it doesn't and states only that it may happen and saying that the EU should Tighten restrictions on the disbursement of aid to ensure that the aid will not be diverted for hostile purposes. Wikifan12345 also reverted this with the comment enough removing cited material under "NPOV". As he was the editor he can not verify his own edit. Wayne (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Using organizations with clear agendas/biases (i.e. TaxPayers' Alliance, The Heritage Foundation) as references is a really dispicable practice. It essentially equates to WP:SOAPBOXing by proxy. Some editors are frustrated that they can't use WP to push thier own, unabridged view points, so they track down some misc web page sharing their ideals that just might pertend to be RS.
Unfortunately, on WP you can put lipstick on a pig and it becomes a verified fact. Alas, the practice only serves to degrade the integrity of the project.
I'd be for simply eliminating any information sourced to either TaxPayers' Alliance or The Heritage Foundation, but this will likely be objected to by a slew of pov-pushers. NickCT (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Now that Marokwitz has found another reference I see that the edit was reworded from the original which is what had me confused, ie: Wikifan12345 substituted "Palestinians" where the source says Palestinian National Authority and he also separated the freeing up of funds from the school books which made it look as if it was not related. Apparently the TaxPayers' Alliance is claiming that aid to the Palestinian National Authority is being used to pay for some school textbooks that encourage children to "revere suicide bombers" and also for essential services such as water and power etc and that this is freeing up money for Hamas to use on weapons etc. I dont see the connection as the PA has actually been printing these books and paying for these services long before Hamas became involved and it does not free up anything for Hamas anyway as any money "freed up" just goes to other PA projects, not Hamas. Hamas has stated that it is strict policy not to use aid for militant purposes as this could be used as an excuse to cancel the aid (this used to be explained in the Funding section but was deleted). That aid is not used for weapons etc is confirmed by the U.S. State Dept. From what I can see the source is basically claiming that if the PA received no aid then Hamas would be forced to pay the PA budget leaving no money for it's own agenda which is what it means by "freeing up resources". While this may be so, a whatif scenario has no place in the article. Wayne (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol. TaxPayers' Alliance is a mainstream watchdog organization in Britain that is taken very seriously. The British government provided a clear response to the report which included damning photos and textbook examples. The Heritage Foundation is another partisan, mainstream organization. So what? We attribute the claims to the specific sources. Nothing POV about it. The Heritage link is mostly a regurgitation of the taxpayer profile along with extra commentary (still notable).
So, I don't know what you guys are getting all mad about. Accusing sources of SOAPing is quite amusing. Talk about projection. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Now it appears that the PDF download works again, after temporary downtime yesterday. The claims do seem to be verifiable. I agree that the aid payments by the British government and European Commission to fund the Hamas education system do seem to be relevant to the topic, and the cited organizations seems to be respectable, and not "dedicated anti-Hamas" groups. Overall I think that, pending some tweaks to the text, and possibly shortening, Wikifan's contribution should be kept.

What I propose, though, is that the contribution be moved to the section Criticism > Children, where it seems to fit more. Marokwitz (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345: Please read the Wikipedia article, the TaxPayers' Alliance is neither mainstream nor taken very seriously unless you are counting the accusations of their illegality and bias. I still cant get the pdf to open so until the source is INDEPENDANTLY verified the tag has to stay.
Marokwitz: The aid payments by the British government and European Commission DO NOT fund the Hamas education system. They fund the Palestinian education system which has nothing to do with Hamas. I never claimed that the cited organizations were "dedicated anti-Hamas" groups. I questioned their reliability and still do. I cant find any reliable sources confirming that Hamas is diverting money from the PA but plenty that say they are not. I'm being very restrained when I say that the edits are POV crap. I'm trying to work with you and have been leaving some questionable editing in the article to avoid conflicts but you guys are making it very difficult as I seem to be the only one willing to co-operate or compromise. Wayne (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wayne, what do you mean by "independently"? I managed to verify the citation, I'm not in any way affiliated with the uploader. I can easily provide quotes from the PDF document if you don't believe me. It consists of 28 pages. Are you suggesting I am somehow not an "independent" editor? Should I be insulted? Regarding POV - I agree it's POV. Actually, NPOV doesn't say that POV should be omitted, rather that all notable viewpoints should be mentioned and clearly attributed, and due weight given to each viewpoint. So, I see no problem in inserting the POV of Hamas supporters as well as the POV of Hamas haters. It's perfectly legitimate and in line with Wikipedia NPOV policy. Marokwitz (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I have been looking for a cached version of the report with no luck but I did find a Jerusalem Post article on the report. According to the JP the TaxPayers' Alliance report is about the PA not Hamas and more specifically the West Bank not Gaza, quote: the onus for battling [PA] incitement must shift from Hamas to Fatah. Other Israeli newspapers that report on the TaxPayers' Alliance report dont even mention Hamas at all. Wayne (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Now you are talking. This is indeed a good point. I changed my mind and now think the current text should be removed or at least significantly altered, since the current text appears to mix funding of the PA with funding of Hamas, which are not the same thing. Marokwitz (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I finally found a website that has a copy of the report pdf but unfortunately it wouldn’t load either. I was able to open it as HTML[20] which will be handy for other editors who can't open the pdf. Nowhere in the report does it hint at let alone mention, “weapons,” “military” or “smuggle” so that part of the edit is WP:OR. It barely mentions Hamas in passing and supports my earlier statements. If the OR is removed, it leaves the entire edit solely about the PA. To me it doesn't read as an investigation but as a "this can happen in the future if you don't listen to us" report. The conclusion (pg 22) is also a problem when you consider that Hamas is not mentioned in it at all. Wayne (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done some more research. Only one example of "freeing up resources" is given by the TaxPayers' Alliance report and this is that the PA uses EU aid to fund Al-Aqsa TV (pg 18-21), four pages for one example. The problem is that according to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center [21], Al-Aqsa TV is 100% funded by Hamas and gets nothing from the PA (the aid). This alone discredits the report as unreliable. I hope this finally puts the edit to bed. Wayne (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, let me get this straight: So a watchdog group run by British citizens is somehow less reliable than an intelligence site openly fronted by the IDF? We as editors don't get to whine about the neutrality or reliability of taxpayers alliance. It is very significant and influential movement within Britain? The weapons, military, or smuggle is not OR - it is from the heritage cite. Derp. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The heritage cite makes a claim citing the TaxPayers' Alliance report but that claim is not only not in the report but is discredited by the U.S. State Dept who say it doesn't happen. The report is not even about Hamas[22]. As I told you before...read the TaxPayers' Alliance article and you will see they are neither neutral, reliable or influential[23] and have now been discredited[24][25].

I have asked staff to avoid reporting stories which are generated solely by the Taxpayers Alliance and, where we do quote them, that we supply some context as to who they are.—BBC News UK Editor Pat Heery

Just because you find something marginally negative about Hamas doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. You seem to be unwilling to compromise to improve the article and your continual POV editing and refusal to back down when shown to be incorrect is disruptive and time consuming. Please reconsider your behaviour and try to work with, instead of against other editors.Wayne (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hold off on the personal attacks Ross. We aren't finished yet. : ) The Heritage cite confirms claims that the heavy subsidization of Palestinian services in Gaza (controlled by Hamas) enables the Islamist movement to smuggle weapons, increase military power, etc - all things you dismissed as original research. The Heritage claim is a commentary based off the following paragraphs in the taxpayers report:

International donors, through the Temporary International Mechanism, take responsibility for financing a number of services delivered by the Palestinian authorities:

Goods and services for health and education; Utilities such as electricity, water and sanitation; Allowances to public sector workers and the poorest Palestinians. These are services that otherwise the Palestinian authorities, either the Palestinian Authority itself in the West Bank or Hamas in Gaza, would be expected to provide. If these services are funded by the international community more of their budget is free for spending on propaganda and violence such as the fighting seen earlier this year between different Palestinian factions.

One particularly dismal example of how the Palestinian authorities spend their money is provided on the following pages (Exhibit 3.1 and Exhibit 3.2). Foreign aid should not be showered around without regard to its effects on the political situation in the Middle East. British taxpayers should not be called upon to do the job of the Palestinian government when it spends its own money on funding propaganda towards

children and internal and external violence.

The links you claim "discredit taxpayers alliance" don't mention taxpayers alliance report whatsoever. The crust of the argument isn't fringe and is generally accepted in the eyes of the Israeli government. I cannot confirm claims made by the state department but there is ample evidence that proves international aid has been siphoned off or stolen by Hamas, confirmed by the even UNRWA. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The thrust of the taxpayers alliance report is the PA not Hamas and even then it provided not one iota of proof for any of the claims it makes. The taxpayers alliance report states One particularly dismal example of how the Palestinian authorities spend their money is provided on the following pages (Exhibit 3.1 and Exhibit 3.2) which any basic research finds is an outright lie, likely because its the most emotionally charged example they could find and they assumed ignorant readers would accept it at face value. A Jerusalem Post article on the report (the only Israeli newspaper I could find that mentioned Hamas) states the onus for battling [PA] incitement must shift from Hamas to Fatah while other Israeli newspapers I've found discussing the report make no mention of Hamas at all. The Heritage Foundation is spinning the report using unsupported assumptions which are refuted by Britain, the EU and the U.S. State Dept. Stop flogging a dead horse. If you have ample evidence that proves international aid has been siphoned off or stolen by Hamas as you claim then provide the reliable sources instead of pushing the problematic ones. Wayne (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hamas is part of the Palestinian Authority and more than 40% of the PA budget is forwarded to the leadership in Gaza. Your commentary is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the claims made by taxpayers alliance and heritage. I don't see anything refuted by the EU, US State Department, or Britain. What exactly are they refuting? That free resources given to the Palestinian Authority doesn't enable the government to devote more time and resources to buy weapons? Uh? You need to provide reliable sources that talk about the taxpayers report, you have failed to do so and yet claim it has been discredited. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Financially Hamas is completely separate from the Palestinian Authority. The EU, US State Department and Britain have all stated that they make sure that aid meant for the Palestinian Authority is not used by Hamas and this is even mentioned in the refs you provided. The solution is extremely simple, support your position with the reliable sources you repeatedly claim exist (but never produce despite being asked), or move on to productive editing. Wayne (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. Almost half about the PNA budget is earmarked for services in Gaza. The Palestinian Authority continues to pay the salaries of employees working in Gaza, most of whom are members of Hamas. The EU, US, and Britain have not been able to disprove aid has tinkled and been siphoned off into banned-terrorist groups. The links you have shown provide absolutely zero reference to the taxpayers alliance or heritage. No mainstream organization has seriously refuted the findings of the taxpayers alliance. The only country that actually provided a response to the taxpayers report was Britain. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The Palestinian Authority paid the salaries of employees before Hamas took control regardless of whether they were Hamas or not. Claiming that being unable to prove something is not happening means that it is happening is POV pushing so please refrain. That the EU, US and Britain claim the aid does not reach Hamas is what counts. That no mainstream organization has seriously refuted the findings is because no mainstream organization takes them seriously. Even the Israeli sources reject the the Heritage Foundation's spin on the report. I ask one last time.....provide reliable sources that aid to the PA is being stolen by Hamas.Wayne (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


Now you're just ignoring the source. Hamas is part of the PA. Almost half of the PA budget goes towards services in Gaza, this never changed You have not provided any sources to back up claims that the taxpayers alliance report has been discredited. I've asked over and over again and yet you refuse. I suggest you take a peak at WP:V before accusing others of POV-pushing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit - No source is saying Hamas is stealing aid given to the Palestinian Authority. The original edit said nothing about theft. So, yes - let's move on, include verifiable edits. Claims of POV-pushing should be sent to WP:AGF and sources claiming to discredit reports published by taxpayers alliance/heritage should be included here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Les très secrètes 'relations' Israël-Hamas (The very secret Israel-Hamas 'relations'), Le Canard Enchaîné, February 1, 2006 (issue n°4449) (in French)
  2. ^ Sela, Avraham. "Hamas." The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002. pp. 335–342.
  3. ^ Karsh, Efraim. Islamic Imperialism: A History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. p. 182.
  4. ^ Karsh, Efraim. Arafat's War: The Man and His Battle for Israeli Conquest. New York: Grove Press, 2003. p. 216.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamas/Archive_13&oldid=1079504050"