Talk:Hamas/Archive 11

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

What school bombing claim did UNRWA make that they backed down from?

We know from the BBCNews report that UN officials at the school said missiles landed just outside the school. Here's the BBCNews summary that is in bold at the top of their Jan. 7, 2009 story:

At least 40 people were killed and 55 injured when Israeli artillery shells landed outside a United Nations-run school in Gaza, UN officials have said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7814054.stm

Did the UNRWA ever claim the Israeli missiles that killed the 42 people at the school had landed inside the school grounds?Haberstr (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is further information, from 'The Humanitarian Monitor: Occupied Palestinian Territories' (No. 33, Jan. 2009), UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Occupied Palestinian Territory:

On 6 January, an IDF force fired several mortar shells • that landed outside an UNRWA school in Jabalia RC, which served as an emergency shelter for over 1,300 civilians. According to UNRWA, over 40 people, including some of those who took refuge at the shelter, were killed while staying just outside the school yard.

(PDF file) http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_humanitarian_monitor_2009_01_15_english.pdf

So, both the UN and BBC stated, prior to the Globe and Mail 'revelation', that mortars/missiles landed _outside_ the school. When and where did the UN or any of its agencies say that Israeli missiles or mortars landed inside school grounds?Haberstr (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For example here, and here. Please stop removing claims sourced to reliable sources, based on your original research. NoCal100 (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please continue to accurately relay that the UN said the statement was a clarification and not a "backing down" or however it was characterized in the press. Also, the article should note that the IDF itself stated that it had fired at school premises in early reports on the matter, for example here, and your own BBCNews citation states that Israel had first stated that its mortars had caused "carnage _at_ Fakhura school" (emphasis added). Obviously the UN Secretary General was responding to Israel's own "admissions," so the early confusion was understandable.Haberstr (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing well sourced content which quotes, verbatim, what reliable sources report. If the Globe and Mailed described the UN actions as "backing down" - we can report that. Also, please refrain from original research, such as the speculations a that the UN Secretary General was "obviously" respondign to ISraeli claims,vs. to hi sown organization's claims. NoCal100 (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Our job in this _encyclopedia_ is to write in the most objective manner possible. Don't you think using the UN's own words rather a news source's characterization of those words is in that spirit?Haberstr (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

More evidence of initial confusion on the part of the IDF as well as the UN and others, a January 7 quote from Haaretz:

The IDF bombed the UNRWA school, Fakhura, on Tuesday after militants fired mortars at troops from inside the school, according to the IDF Spokesman's Office. The bodies of militants were found inside, it added.

Haberstr (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, NoCal100 has clearly provided the reliable sources to back up up the section about UNRWA backing down..Wacko Jack O 05:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Also see: UN Backtracks on claim that IDF strike hit Gaza school Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

We'd hardly quote from the media of the nation widely accused of war-crimes, who kept the media out and have told us they'll not cooperate with investigations. PR^talk 19:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying Israeli media can't be quoted on Wikipedia? Is this some new policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuvGoldStar (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? The Haaretz is a reputable source, it's more pro palestinian than most israeli newspapers, has been called antizionist by some people. The media is independent from the government, I don't see why there would be any problem in using them. -Solid Reign (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is exactly what i am saying —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuvGoldStar (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah, sorry my reply was to him, not to you, i've tabbed correctly now

Haaretz is definitely reputable as a source to use on Wikipedia.Wacko Jack O 04:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Islam.org a WP:RS?

Has anyone on WP ever addressed the question of whether Islam.org is a WP:RS?

I would think that if MEMRI is a WP:RS, Islam.org would also bee a WP:RS. I can't think of any valid argument you could make for or against Islam.org being a WP:RS that you couldn't also make for MEMRI. Nbauman (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nbauman, you probably mean IslamonLine.net (my misleading edit summary is to blame). And no, it probably is not a reliable source. Besides, the "source" is just the transcript of a question and answer session in which Atef Adwan related the story, so the real question is whether Adwan is a reliable source (of course not). Finally, contentious and hard to believe claims have a higher standard. There's no reason to believe that a person who spent his life trying to kill Israeli civilians would go out of his way to help one. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't seem like a reliable source.WackoJacko (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just my 2c. I'm gonna have to agree that it's not very reilable. Good news is it seems to be a repository for articles that may be reliable. So not everything you find there is necessarily unreliable, I'm guessing. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC) IOW: it's potentially a resource for finding other references

Why exactly is the claim "contentious and hard to believe"? In an interview with the BBC, one of the Hamas founders in the early 1990's said that Hamas was created not to oppose Jews but to oppose the occupation. So it is in keeping with Hamas beliefs and I can't see a reason to disbelieve Adwan. Wayne (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The way they go about "opposing the occupation" is by killing as many Israeli civilians as possible (see List of Hamas suicide attacks). It would be hard to accept that they turned down such a good opportunity to add another notch on their belt.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Eep. That'll teach me to read what's been said and not just the header :-p Still think it's better to play this one safe, but again that's just my 2 cents. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to know why IslamOnline is not a WP:RS.

And if IslamOnline.net is not a WP:RS, why couldn't you use the same argument to say that MEMRI is not a WP:RS? Nbauman (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me islamonline.net is a reliable source. It is not a reliable _news_ source, but the copied item is not a news report and doesn't pretend to be. It is an anecdote relayed by Atef Adwan. Does anyone seriously contend he didn't say what islamonline.net contends that he said? The real question is whether Atef Adwan is a reliable source on what Sheikh Yassin said or did. For that the answer is no, but I still think the item tells us about both Adwan's and Hamas's public perspective on Israelis, which is relevant in the accusations of anti-semitism section. But it's not that big of a deal and I'm okay leaving this particular anecdote out.Haberstr (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

brewcrewer, when you say, "It would be hard to accept that they turned down such a good opportunity to add another notch on their belt," what you mean is, "It would be hard for me to accept it." Other people might accept it, right? Nbauman (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.IslamonLine.net doesn't obviously exclude itself from being an RS (judging by the Home Page) though I'm not sure what we'd want to use it for. Can you see hatred or falsification in there? MEMRI is more problematical since it's not just POV, but overly close (by staff and content) to being an arm of one participant in the conflict. And MEMRI is not just rigidly selective, there are (a few) concerns about it mis-translating. PR^talk 21:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel's 'hide among civilians' accusations in 2006 relevant to same accusations in 2008

That's fairly obvious, just like a history or pattern of lies, misbehavior or criminal behavior by Hamas would be relevant when they seemed to state a similar lie in 2008 or were accused of similar misbehavior or criminal behavior in 2008 or 2009. But my reference in the "Proximity to Civilians..." section to the Salon article about Hezbollah -- "the same accusation was rejected when it was made during Israel's 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.[184]" -- has been repeatedly removed here without explanation. Please, let's assume good will and discuss this matter here. Perhaps some minor wording changes would improve the clause, but not wholesale removal.Haberstr (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been explained to you more than once. The Salon reference is not about Hamas, but about Hezbollah in Lebanon. It is not relevant to this article. NoCal100 (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the argument above at all. No one has. Again, the section title is "close proximity to civilians," a charge by Israel against Hamas, and Israel made precisely the same charge against Hezbollah.Haberstr (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Haberstr, A source needs to address the specific subject you are using it for.Wacko Jack O 02:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference directly addresses the charge by Israel that Hamas deliberately puts its militia in close proximity to civilians. See title of section. One way the other side of that argument makes its case is to point to Israel making exactly the same charge against Hezbollah and showing how that was received/resolved.Haberstr (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You've not provided the reference for what you're adding and what others are removing. However, judging by the above, the Salon article is about Hamas and the ripost does belong in our WP article. PR^talk 20:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the Salon article was about Israel making the 'deliberate close proximity to civilians' charge against Hezbollah during the Israel-Lebanon conflict in 2006.Haberstr (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is Hamas. Kindly restrict your editing to material about Hamas, and stop editorializing about Hezbollah. NoCal100 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Kindly answer the argument that precisely the same charge, deliberate proximity to civilians during warfare, was made against Hezbollah by Israel and was rejected; how does that NOT very importantly relate to the deliberate proximity to civilians during warfare charge against Hamas?Haberstr (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already addressed that argument, several times: Putting aside the veracity of the claim that the charge was "rejected" in the Hezbollah case (it was not), it is irrelevant editorializing to imply that what was claimed in one different instance (different time, different place, different organization) is also the case in this instance. It is a violation of WP:SYNTH, as well as a logical fallacy known as poisoning the well. NoCal100 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no SYNTH, as the reference is to Israel making precisely the same charge made against another paramilitary group. I'm open to modifying the wording, as I've said. Please note that poisoning the well must precede a statement by an adverse party, and is done to poison anything that party says. The reference to exactly the same charge by Israel against Hezbollah as currently against Hamas occurs at the end of the section.Haberstr (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You can add that factoid to the Hezbollah article. Here, it is textbook well-poisoning. NoCal100 (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree but have removed it.Haberstr (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. You have, however, again removed the well-sourced statement that the UN backed down form a previous claim, and replaced it with you original research. Please remove that as well, per the discussion in the previous section. NoCal100 (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As you know, I've included the UN's own characterization of its remarks and not The Australian newspaper's characterization. There is no original research. All RS, including the one you've added, are included in the version I've published.Haberstr (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Al Hayat, the Khaled Mishaal Interview

This is quite a wide-ranging interview, and an excellent source for Mishaal's and Hamas's perspective on things. I've had a hard time penetrating Al Hayat's defenses and getting all 7 of the parts, but here are parts 1, 2, and 3. Haberstr (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

When did 2005 ceasefire end?

/* End of 2008 Ceasefire */ beginning of this section and end of previous section are disorderly and confused; when did Hamas's unilateral 2/05 ceasefire end, according to Hamas? So that the 6/08 'sort of negotiated' ceasefire became necessary?Haberstr (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

2/21 re-ordering and re-titling 'Politics' as 'Goals'

Hope the re-ordering makes sense and meets approval. Please fine tune though! I changed politics to 'goals' because that seems to be what all the 'politics' paragraphs are about. 'Politics' seems to me to imply discussing the inner workings of the organization and its relations with other organizations and states, and none of that is in the section.Haberstr (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

HAMAS(Islamic Resistance Movement)

Upon the article "HAMAS(Islamic Resistance Movement)" [[1]] ,There are some nations such as Iran, Syria and Lebanon which belieave that Hamas is a "resistant movement", it is necessary to notice this fact in "Hamas" article.

You're right.Haberstr (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

These are the same terror states which publicly string up people for speaking or living their convictions and commit other atrocities not seen since the dark middle ages. If they consider Hamas as a resitance movement, they surely must consider the SS as benevolent charity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.251.21 (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

footnote 200

the quote given is wrong and intentionally misleading. the quote references the wrong source, again intentionally. so what happened? the quote given on a blog? cites haaretz as quoting Hamas as describing its activities as "terror". yes that translation is highly credible. this is why wikipedia is known as a pretend, Joke encyclopedia.

I agree, I'll try to fix it. I'm not sure what to do other than more accurately ascribe it, though. I don't know whether it is authentic or not, and Haaretz seems not to allow access to 2003 articles.Haberstr (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation no. 28

Citation is wrong but this can be used > http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/03/29/ottawa-hamas060329.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.62.121 (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro & first 3 sections fairly NPOV

I'm very happy with how the first sections of the article look now, roughly 3 or 4 months after I and many others started working to improve writing quality and remove POV. Much less anti-Hamas POV, and where there is negative information this is balanced when RS support doing so. On the other hand, the sections further down, after the history section, are still somewhat poorly edited and written, and continue to have POV problems. Finally, and btw and in accordance with WP:TERRORISM, should the subsection title "terrorism and political violence" (in the Issues section) be changed, to "accusations of terrorism and political violence" "accusations of terrorism" or just "political violence"?Haberstr (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably not really necessary. The subtopic title is simply a descriptor regarding the content of the section, it isn't making a declaration that Hamas is committing terrorism and political violence. We had a similar discussion over at the Israeli apartheid article recently. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are we hated so much?

I could not add here but I hope you can see that I try to post thoughts and it is just my opinion but there are many opinons to listen and to think about

sincerly Sonja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.236.103.185 (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The prevailing opinion of Hamas among laypersons is that the group has a vested interest in "Killing All of the Jews", in part due to the fact that the US and EU have declared it a terrorist group. This page is here to provide an unbiased look into the group's activities and philosophies, so we'll see if that changes. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 15:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that and the fact that they say it in their charter:

[T]he Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

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

-Solid Reign (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, there's that, too. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC).

I think that this part of the charter should be posted; it is relevant to Hamas and the sympathizers who ask "why are we so hated" should not deny it, considering it is an Hamas ideal.67.194.181.60 (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that this part of the Charter is definitely relevant to both Hamas and to the article. I think it should be posted. We shouldn't "whitewash" the article just because some things may be controversial. Their charter is an established fact(by their own admission).Wacko Jack O 12:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I was attempting to answer what appeared to be a genuine question from a first-time poster without making incendiary remarks, not "whitewashing" anything. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 13:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Charter is not the Koran, it does not dictate every action of Hamas, and several officials have started as much over the years. This discussion has been had here numerous times, scroll back through the archives. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also a clear section on that in the article. I don't think anyone's trying to whitewash anything. -Solid Reign (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are mis-understanding me, I was not claiming you were trying to whitewash anything. I was speaking of the article in in general, and was not directing that comment at any specific editor in any way.Wacko Jack O 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments indented one level from a comment above them are almost universally interpreted as being direct replies. If you don't mean to reply to a particular editor, do not indent your comment. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 18:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, I apologize. I will keep that in mind when commenting in the future.Wacko Jack O 07:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

IED links to the wrong place

In the beginning where it says "Hamas has also been responsible for Israel-targeted rocket attacks, IED attacks, and shootings, but reduced most of those operations in 2005 and 2006", the IED links to a disambiguation page. Could someone change this into the correct on, which i think is the "Improvised explosive device" page. I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to comment this kind of error, and please show me the right place if it is.

Arve 93 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

this article needs way more images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.114 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Addendeum et errata

Although new material was not added, reading the original source material, especially those in the footnote of the original article allowed for re-wording in which clarification via additional terms may be superficially misconstrued as addition of new material. NO new sources are required as the existing sources as deemd sufficent, so as new sources to be rendered thus redundantStarstylers (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were very POV, like trying to claim that Hamas is only "alleged to have" sent suicide bombers, in contrast to facts and sources. okedem (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term "Ethnic Cleansing"

Ethnic cleansing is exactly what Hamas wants to do to Jews. Their overt hatred and incessant rocket attacks should be classified as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.43.111.1 (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPV; please create new headings at the bottom of the page. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 13:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit rationale

I have edited the page for better neutrality and readability, No new material was added, nor data deleted. Hyperbole and claims worded as proven fact have been restructured to highlight the allegation nature of the contending claims. I argue my edits are a marked improvement over the former rather polemic in neutrality and readability and thus should remain.Starstylers (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Verily, I concur; marked improvements indeed. Why are we talking like this? --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Separation of funds

Under Funding it states, "In Hamas, there is a strict separation of funds used for military operations and those used for political, social or other activities." This is the first and only source I have seen that states that funding remains separate. All others such as Council on Foreign Relations and the U.S. Department of Justice state the opposite; that funding does not remain separate. I followed the relevant link in the reference section to find a very weak source. It stated, "According to authoritative sources, however, there is a strict separation in Hamas between funds used for military operations and those used for political, social or other activities." It did not list who these authoritative sources are. I recommend this section be corrected or removed.69.62.163.56 (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism is not subjective

Hamas engages in it, period. Rockets are launched on civilian populations.

Move this to a prominent part of the introduction. One should not have to read the entire introduction only to hear that they are "considered" to be terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.43.111.1 (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization, but terrorism IS subjective. Firing weapons on civilians is seen as terrorism to some, and righteous killings to others (and hopefully unforgivable war crimes to all). Hamas considers itself to be fighting for the freedom of its people. Beyond all that, it's simply against WP policy to refer to any individual or group as Terrorists, Extremists, or Freedom Fighters (and this isn't the place to argue it). WP:TERRORIST --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 13:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed discussion which was veering badly off topic and into troll-land. Do not replace these comments: I will remove and block for disruption if necessary. I have zero interest in this topic, but I have a great deal of interest in ensuring this page does not degenerate into a USENET style mudfest. Keep your posts focused on suggestions to improve the article, and do not post on the subject. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Hamas targets civilians? The firing of rockets seems to me to be a desperate measure to resist an ongoing occupation that has imposed a blockade with catastrophic consequences for the Palestinian people.Kupredu (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Two words - suicide bombers. okedem (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerning suicide bombings, they cannot be solely attributed Hamas. Scholars assert that suicide bombings are largely unplanned and spontaneous acts of resistance against the ongoing Israeli occupation. If it's terrorism you want to talk about, then consider how the Israeli military deliberately carried out mass killings against women and children in Gaza this past winter. You and the regime you support cannot have it both ways: you cannot occupy and kill people on foreign lands and then accuse resisters of "terorrism". Kupredu (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hamas never hid its involvement in planning and executing suicide bombings. They're proud of it, in fact.

Israel did everything possible to avoid civilian casualties, but it can't be 100% accurate when fighting against terrorists hiding among the civilian population. The low number of civilians killed is a testament to Israel's morality - in the recent war there were hundreds of aircraft bombings, massive artillery and infantry forces, and yet only several hundreds civilians were killed. If Israel was trying to kill civilians, each aircraft attack could kill hundreds. Hamas is actively and openly trying to kill civilians. That's their policy. okedem (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Israel dropped bombs on civilian areas in one of the most densely populated regions of the world is overwhelming evidence that the intent was to kill civilians. If Israel were sincerely concerned about peace and minimizing civilian casualties, it would end the siege in Gaza and negotiate with the Palestinian resistance.Kupredu (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you can't discuss facts that you don't like, so I'll end this discussion. Tell me when you stop talking in catchphrases, and start addressing the actual events. One final note, though - there's nothing special about the population density of the Gaza strip, which is similar to (and actually lower than many) other urban areas in the world. okedem (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Gaza population density is 4118/km2 which is ranked the 2nd densest urban area in the world. Rank 3 is 1177/km2. Wayne (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source for that claim? My data seem to disagree with that - see, for example, here, page 77 - Gaza is ranked 36th, and that's counting the Gaza city area, not the entire strip, yielding a much higher density of 16,450/km2. If you treat the entire strip as an urban area (a very reasonable thing to do), it would rank about 513th on that list. If you count Gaza as a state, it truly is one of the densest, but we're talking urban areas here. Compared to other cities and urban areas around the world, there's nothing special about Gaza. okedem (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hamas flag deleted for copyright issues

Hamas flag deleted for copyright issues, claiming copyright belongs to the organization. Kasaalan (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Terrorism" details in intro

It is inappropriate to meticulously describe the position of those countries calling Hamas a terorrist organization. Opinion of 6 countries and 1 IO should not have disproportionate emphasis in the intro. Also should be listed opinions to the contrary, such as President Putin's remarks.Kupredu (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits. Don't try to bury the facts here. Hamas is an organization that happily sends people to blow themselves up in the middle of buses and crowded restaurants. These are terrorists, by definition. okedem (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making inflammatory accusations such as "burying the facts." None of my edits sought to "bury the facts." To the contrary, I preserved all the facts present in the previous versions and added additional facts such as President Putin's remarks as well as the article published on Harvard's website about the perceptions of people in Arab countries. Kupredu (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you're clearly trying to bury the information about their terrorist activities; your claims above make it even more obvious. Using terrorist tactics is one of the most important things (if not the most) about Hamas, and the information about it needs to be presented early on, and in full. By the way, the EU represents all of its member countries; that means some 33 countries consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization, not six. okedem (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In the intro, it is proper to list the POV of those who regard Hamas as terrorist and those who do not (such as Russia + China) as well as the perception of people in the Middle East. Kupredu (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't list people's, or countries', POVs. We list them, and let the reader decide what to make of it. Anyway, what is not even in dispute is the fact that it employs terrorist tactics, which is much more important than the labels it is given by countries (terrorist / resistance fighter). okedem (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, in detail. Why is there a push for a mention of it as well in the first paragraph? Seems redundant and a bit pointy, IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've explained this below. The reader doesn't need to wait until the end of the (quite long) lead to learn that these people happily murder children in buses. okedem (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And the Israeli army doesn't "happily" murder civilians? should we put this in the lead of the IDF article? Imad marie (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. If the IDF had any wish of killing civilians, the death toll in the Gaza War would have been hundreds of thousands. Asking something sarcastically doesn't strengthen your position. okedem (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The claim that the death toll in Gaza did not reach its maximum potential does not mean that Israel did not target civilians.Professor Falk, for example, makes it abundantly clear that Israel used collective punishment and targeted civilians. Your argument would be similar to saying that Ignacy Hryniewiecki was not an assassin because he had the ability to assassinate many more people. Kupredu (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's sort of hard for successful suicide bombers to carry out multiple attacks. Just saying.radek (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Falk has no idea what he's talking about, and has proven that on multiple occasions. okedem (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was making a point with my question: this is a conflict, and it takes two sides (or more) to create a conflict, so saying that "Hamas employed terrorism tactics" or that they "happily killed children" and putting it in the first lines of the lead is just telling one side of the story. Imad marie (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about Hamas here, not IDF, and the fact that Hamas actively and accurately target civilians, without even claiming they're going for a military target. If you can't see the difference... okedem (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, concerning suicide bombers, if Hamas was behind all of the attacks, they could send thousands of their members and sympathizers to carry out attacks against Israel and the occupation in Palestine. But as I showed above, suicide attacks are primarily spontaneous, random acts carried out by desperate people for which Hamas is not responsible. Kupredu (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying something isn't equal to showing it. You've provided no evidence for your claims (and you really couldn't - they're false). Not all suicide bombings are Hamas (some are Al-Aqsa brigades, Islamic Jihad, etc), but Hamas sent many suicide bombers. Unlike some other forms of terror attacks (shootings, the several tractor attacks in Jerusalem, etc), suicide bombings are basically never carried out by individuals, but by organizations, which provide the training, the explosives, and the transportation. No one is hiding that - after every suicide bombing the relevant organization takes responsibility, and they pride themselves on their actions. The number of suicide bombers has nothing to do with low motivation, but with abilities - Israel's security forces manage to stop them before they manage to get into Israel (and sometimes within it). One of the reasons the security fence is so important. okedem (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

stop edit warring

you both need to compromise.

i propose:

1. remove the first mention in the lead that it is considered a terrorist org (you can put "becasue of such tactics as suicide bombing, hamas is considered terrorist by ..." at the bottom of the lead with the list of countries.)

2. leave the list at the bottom of the lead with "Other countries, including Russia, China, and most of the Arab world, do not ..." at the end

3. Include the sources and statements from Russia, China, and Arab countries in the international section. untwirl(talk) 19:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with 2 and 3. 1 is a problem. As I've said before - one of the most important things about Hamas, the thing that defines it in the minds of so many people, is the use of terrorist tactics. We need to "call a spade - a spade". The information about terrorist activities doesn't need to be buried under all of "socio-political" claims and history lessons. Hamas is an organization that doesn't believe in separating civilians from combatants (except for their own civilians, which they consider sacred, unless they need to jeopardize them, in which case it's fine). It's an organization that believes in total war - that's it's perfectly justified to kill children, if they're Israeli, because they think it will advance their cause. They don't aim for combatants, and accidentally hurt civilians. They fully intend to kill civilians, to put pressure on the population - the very definition of terrorism. This view, which separates Hamas from most countries, and most of the population, is the most salient thing about it, and needs to be made clear very early. The previous mention of suicide bombings is low-key and gets hidden in the other details. My addition is already a compromise position - I would have placed the terrorism issue as the very first sentence in the article. okedem (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

fine, then leave the sentence in the lead, with "however, other countries see them as democratically elected whatever" and remove the list from the bottom of the lead. no need for redundancy, or the details of which countries say what. that can be explained later in the article. untwirl(talk) 20:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC) btw - pls tone down the rhetoric so we can all work collaboratively. thanks untwirl(talk) 20:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Democratically elected or not has nothing to do with their actions in this matter. I believe they were democratically elected - they still try to murder children. One does not exclude the other. The list at the bottom it important, and cannot be removed from the lead. If anything, it should be promoted to earlier on in the lead.

My rhetoric is as it should be. okedem (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

well, it doesn't appear to be finding any support here. please tell me how that sentence ("Employing terrorism tactics, such as suicide bombings of civilian targets, Hamas is considered wholly, or in part, a terrorist organization by certain countries and supranational organizations") isn't redundant by itself, much less with another sentence several paragraphs later listing those countries. untwirl(talk) 20:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No redundancies in that sentence. The last sentence elaborates on the first point, to keep from overloading the first few sentences. okedem (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

isn't "elaborating" what the rest of the article is there for? untwirl(talk) 21:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's another level. Like with a person's bio - "X (1923-1989) was an American biologist... X discovered the cellular proteins...". In the first few sentences you say the most important things, and then you elaborate on them later. okedem (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

unless people are willing to compromise or discuss compromising i suppose an rfc should be filed. now 6js7 comes here to revert without being posting on talk? that's nice. untwirl(talk) 02:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My position was already here: I agree with Okedem. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure the arguement is for against including the information that they are considered terrorists by some countries. It mostly seems to be based upon the idea that it is explained in more detail elsewhere, but that is what the purpose of an opening paragraph is, it gives you a general description of the topic at hand. Having a truely NPOV introduction is impossible because it is by it is by its nature what people consider to be the salient, important points. I think that describing it both as a socio-politiical-paramilitary group, which is defined by certan countries (whole or in part) is both accurate, and minimizes (but as noted above does not eliminate) bias.

I also think that all the talk about (via discussion) about whether they are good, bad, kill children, what israel etc is is well, partisan political debate and wont really convince people one way or another. (Madrone (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

That they are designated a terrorist organisation is already covered in detail in the lead. If you want to make it more prominent move the paragraph higher. As for the part you ignore in your support for the edit, it is innapropriate to mention suicide bombings in the same sentence as they are also covered elsewhere in the lead and are not connected to why they are now designated a terrorist organisation. The designation has been renewed since the bombings ended and Hamas condemned them. The edit is POV pushing. Wayne (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

umm, it is not covered anywhere else in the opening paragraph. To help settle this issue I would not be opposed to including that they are designed t as aterrorist org by certain countries, while excluding that suicide bombings (Madrone (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

I support the sentence in question, which is both important and elegantly written, as do okedem, 6SJ7 and Madrone. The only real argument that has been made against its inclusion is the idea that it's redundant, but that was refuted by okedem several days ago. So I don't see what the problem is here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

there have been several arguments against its inclusion, redundancy and undue are two of them. As long as we are listing names, WLRoss, Ohnoitsjamie, Eleland, Tarc, Imad marie, Kupredu, and I have all disagreed with this edit. if you need to, file an rfc. untwirl(talk) 05:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid WP:UNDUE has not even been mentioned in this discussion. If this comment is how you justify your recent, repeated reverts, you will have to do better than that. We're left only the redundancy argument, which was refuted by okedem six days ago without its proponent/s elaborating on it since. The point is that you can't keep someone from editing an article, especially not when his edit is supported by multiple editors, without actually engaging in a real discussion and explaining why you object. That's the principle that allows Wikipedia to work. An RfC could be helpful - it would be nice to have some extra eyes on this article - but I think it's meant for situations where an actual debate has taken place and stalemated, which is not the case here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

you are mistaken. both tarc and wlross explicitly cited WP:UNDUE in their edit summaries and arguments. you should review the history before making false statements such as that. for someone so concerned with my reverting twice (the same number of times as you) you have certainly maintained your silence regarding okedem's 6 reverts. your "multiple editors" are fewer than the ones who oppose, so i don't see how that argument stands. untwirl(talk) 15:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Check this discussion - no mention of WP:UNDUE. Check the article history - I reverted once (after seeing that the person I was reverting had ignored the arguments against him). I wasn't following the article closely when okedem made his reverts, and in any case he adequately explained himself, unlike you. Now let's get back to the actual issue. Since you ignored what I said, I'll just repeat myself. The point is that you can't keep someone from editing an article, especially not when his edit is supported by multiple editors, without actually engaging in a real discussion and explaining why you object. That's the principle that allows Wikipedia to work. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

you had not engaged in discussion before yesterday but felt free to revert twice in the week before so please don't lecture me about "engaging in a real discussion." obviously you have forgotten about your first revert a week ago. you certainly didn't join this discussion until yesterday, but your first revert was here, and your second was the day before yesterday that. but you are correct that you weren't involved in this article before reverting. your emphasized point is hypocritical and would certainly apply more strenuously to my position because multiple editors support my edit, in fact, many more than those who support the version you and madrone are reverting. when you look at the diffs of your reverts you will see that the edit summary of one of them explicity cites undue weight as a reason. you agree with okedem, fine. the rest of us don't, so try to gain consensus instead of misrepresenting the situation and your involvement. untwirl(talk) 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, one last time, but that's it. In Wikipedia, you can't just say "I don't like it, I exist, therefore it shouldn't be". You have to actually engage in discussion and explain why you don't like it. An edit summary, when the person you oppose has explained his position in great detail on the discussion page, isn't "engaging in discussion". Nobody should have to do your work for you and refute arguments that were never presented, as Madrone does below. As for your bringing in a revert I made on a separate issue in an attempt to defend a misleading accusation that was never relevant to begin with - how classy. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

this is the most hypocritical statement i have heard in a while. you have commented exactly three times here - your first comment (yesterday) was basically WP:ILIKEIT -"I support the sentence in question, which is both important and elegantly written," - and that was a day after you reverted. i, on the other hand, have stated policy reasons for excluding it in this discussion- redundancy of a pov in the lead equals undue weight - as have others, both in edit summaries and talk page posts. let me repeat you have no right to chastise people who are actually discussing things when you feel free revert without discussion. as for my "classiness" in bringing up your first revert (without posting on talk), i was simply pointing out that for someone who feels so strongly about "engaging in discussion" you have repeatedly neglected to do so in this article. i started this very section with a compromise proposal and have been discussing this for a week. it seems madrone (who also started reverting 6 days ago but only joined the discussion yesterday) is unaware that there is another mention in the lead of countries that consider them terrorist; his arguments are for inclusion of this fact once, and he seems to agree below that the suicide bombing statement appears to be WP:SYN. take the time to read both the article history and the talk page before making unsubstantiated claims. untwirl(talk) 13:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the idea that including hamas as a terrorist orgaganization is "WP:UNDUE" is that hamas is considered whole, or in part (eg either the whole organization, or its military wing) by many of the countries or supranational organization that designate groups as terrorists. If you look at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_organization" hamas is listed whole or in part by all the listed parties except Russia" If all but one of main countries/supra orgs that wikipedia looks for designation of terrorist organization consider hamas to be a terrorist organization there is sufficent weight to include that fact (that certain countries consider whole or in part a terrorist org). When I started editing this article the suicide bombing part was already there, if there isn't sufficent evidence that suicide bombings what caused it to be listed as a terrorist organization than [mentioning suicide bombings] should not be in the same sentence (if at all) as being designated terrorist organization as it implies a causal relationship (Madrone (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

None of us have said that mentioning Hamas as a terrorist organization is "WP:UNDUE" and this information is already detailed in the lead. Our arguement is that your adding an extra redundant mention to the lead is "WP:UNDUE". Wayne (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

i agree completely. it should be included, once, and the "suicide bombings" statement should be removed from the lead - unless there is a source explicitly says that this is the reason they are considered terrorist. i think the best way to do this is to leave the first instance of "they are considered a terrorist org" (perhaps moved down, but still in the lead) and remove the final sentence that lists the countries. they are listed in the international perceptions section and it is unnecessary to have it in the lead as well. untwirl(talk) 13:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you define how you are using "lead"? Lead to me is the introductory paragraph. I think you may be using it for everything before the "Contents". (which is apparently also a legitimate use of the word, but I guess I use it in a more restrictive sense). The first paragraph to me should include that they are considered a terrorist organization by "certain states and supranational organizations" as terrorist organization is a description of their organization which is held by many (but as noted by inclusion of "some countries" - not all) (and personally I do believe they are one, putting my own biases on the table). Removing the part in the first paragraph about sucidie bombings is ok with me because it is about their actions, not a description of the organization. Generally I think that the paragraphs before the contents is a little unwieldy, and should but consolidated and cut down, but barring that happening However I don't think having that it is designated by a terrorist organization in the first paragraph, than later further explaining in more detail is incorrect or WP:UNDUE. Nearly everything in the intro paragraphs are going into further detail of the first paragraph. (Personally I think it would be best to try to cut down the pre-contents section to 4-5 paragraphs, perhaps one section could be on their violent tactics (such as suicide bombings), and their designation of a terrorist org. As it stands the pre-contents area is a hodgepodge. (Madrone (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Lead section. Although the lead does appear to be too detailed per WP:Lead, due to the subject matter it does conform to the requirement that The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article which should trump a more limited summary. The first sentence/paragraph also conforms with "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?". This paragraph needs to be unambiguous which precludes the suicide bombing edit as it is ambiguous being neither current nor accurate due to lack of context and thus WP:UNDUE, redundant and WP:POV. I agree that seven paragraphs for the lead is too long. Five paragraphs is plenty and paragraphs five and six should be deleted as the claims in both are disputed and thus more appropriately argued in the body. The links in those two should be used in the article body rather than discarded. Wayne (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

this sounds good. untwirl(talk) 18:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

i think that edit was supported

by the post article. wp doesn't belong, obviously, but this quote shows that this isn't OR: "The election results stunned U.S. and Israeli officials, who have repeatedly stated that they would not work with a Palestinian Authority that included Hamas, which both countries and the European Union have designated as a terrorist organization. In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that a party could not "have one foot in politics and the other in terror. Our position on Hamas has therefore not changed."

Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, said in a statement that the Palestinian people had "voted democratically and peacefully." But, he added, "these results may confront us with an entirely new situation which will need to be analyzed" at a meeting of European foreign ministers next week." untwirl(talk) 17:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The quotes simply express the practical difficulty for diplomats in relating to a group that they consider both a terrorist organization and the winner of a democratic election. They do not imply what the sentence in question is intended to imply, namely that Hamas's winning a democratic election would be a reason not to consider it a terrorist organization. The idea that being elected somehow diminishes a group's "terrorist-ness", while popular among Hamas supporters, has no basis in reality or in reliable sources, including this one. please self-revert. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I made the edit, I guess I would be the most knowledgeable in describing what the sentence was "...intended to imply." I added what I did because I think it's only fair that if a person comes across this page and in the first paragraph reads that Hamas is a "terrorsit organization", it's only fair to ALSO show that they have much support (as a political party) from the people whom they represent and claim to "fight for". I described this reasoning in my "explanation" of my edit. If the words "terrorist organization" were more appropriately located under a section, for example, about how other countries have labeled Hamas, or their "international perception" or "claims of international governments" or "criticism", etc., then it would not seem so heavily biased in trying to show the opinion of a small minority of people on this planet. EVERY person I've ever talked to in my life who has done any type of research on "Hamas" (instead of relying on the media/government's claims) has concluded that although there is a need to criticize Hamas for certain things, the legitimacy of it's existence as a "governing body" and "freedom fighting force" CANNOT be denied, and it is ridiculous to try to do so. What government/army in the world has not done something bad? I would like references if you respond telling me that "Hamas is the worst" or some other statement along those lines. My addition that the party was democratically elected (with reference) was meant to balance the obvious fallacy of the "terrorist" statement.

every rebellion in history has been labeled a "terrorist" entity. People like Nelson Mandela prove that even in "modern" history, governments use propaganda in order to sway public opinion in their favor, regardless of the truth. To include "puppet" statements and positions created by false governments (I say false governments because I dare you to prove that any government body in the world today represents its people's wishes, i.e. acts in a democratic fashion) is NOT the way to educate people on a subject. The "scientific method" is the only way to get as close to the truth as you can. The way Hamas/Palestinians are treated/regarded in pop culture fails when upheld to scientific scrutiny. Numbers and actions don't lie. People do.

also, I'd just like to point out that I could have very well tried to just delete the "terrorist" statement.....instead, I tried to add balance to a piece of work that no doubt will be looked at by many people in an educational manner. My own opinions were left out of my edit of the page, and I dare anyone to explain how this piece of information should not be expressed in the first paragraph of the "Hamas" page. What other elected government's wiki page would not state in the first paragraph that they were the elected party of a particular country/group/state/people??Shakur420 (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1. It looks to me like you're drifting deep into WP:OR and WP:POINT territory, but hopefully we can leave that aside for now. 2. So, do you agree that it should not be implied that winning an election is a reason not to be considered a terrorist organization? 3. I have no problem with Hamas's winning an election being in the first paragraph. Indeed, my compromise edit, which was reverted by untwirl, included that issue. Why don't you take a look at it? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

the quotes above show that the words "although" and "still" as used in shakur's edit are warranted. Rice says, they cannot "have one foot in politics and the other in terror. Our position on Hamas has therefore not changed." and the eu foreign policy chief says, ""these results may confront us with an entirely new situation which will need to be analyzed."

do you interpret these remark differently than we do? it seems apparent that, when confronted with the results of the election, there was an expectation that there might be acknowledgment of and negotiation with the democratically elected leaders of gaza. these entities made statements regarding that expectation - rice "position hasn't changed", solana "needs to be analyzed." untwirl(talk) 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have explained how I understand the quotes, but I cannot say whether I understand them the same way as you and/or Shakur do, since neither of you have bothered to explain how you understand them. The question is, do you and Shakur think the first paragraph should imply that winning an election is a reason not to be considered a terrorist organization? If not, my compromise version, which is supported by okedem and which you reverted, should be satisfactory. If yes, one of you will have to come up with a reliable source supporting that idea. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

perhaps you missed it, but i did explain how i understand it. as i said above, it seems apparent that, when confronted with the results of the election, there was an expectation that there might be acknowledgment of and negotiation with the democratically elected leaders of gaza. these entities made statements regarding that expectation - rice "position hasn't changed", solana "needs to be analyzed." why would rice say "our position hasn't changed" due to the election if their wasn't an expectation that it might? why would solana say it "needs to be analyzed" if they weren't reconsidering their position due to this event? whether shakur and i think it should matter is irrelevant; the source makes those statements, and they should be reflected in the article. Perhaps you would prefer a different wording, such as, "The democratic election of Hamas didn't change their status as a terrorist organization according to some countries and supranational . . ." untwirl(talk) 17:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

@Jalapenos......my apologies for not responding to your question earlier. My point is NOT that being elected or being a "governing body" nullifies ANY ONE'S actions, be they be murder, rape, unnecessary violence, theft.....or..... "....trying to achieve a political goal by causing terror (in the civilian population)....", etc.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism...........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism#United_Nations (notice "4. Academic Consensus Definition"). If you look at the U.S. (law) definition of "terrorism" it has very conveniently left out "states/countries" as possible perpetrators of this "act", and therefore gives itself a free pass (http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htm) to commit acts of war which undoubtedly cause terror in the civilian populations across the planet (no reference needed as a simple check for the word "anti-Americanism" will show thousands of people citing "acts of terror" as a reason they "hate" the U.S. government)

So now that hopefully that is clear, hear is my point about the Hamas page. The United States and israel have, beyond question (ask for references if you would like), committed multiple acts that fit into any number of definitions of "terrorism". Not only that, but a big population of the world agrees with this view, so whether it's true or not is irrelevant as this IS THE VIEW that many people have.......just like Hamas. If this is true, then if you (or anyone else) thinks it's appropriate to mention (in the FIRST PARAGRAPH) of the "Hamas" wiki page this notion/view/fact/theory/etc. that they have committed acts of terrorism, should not all other governing bodies on the planet also be treated equally?....and have these accusations/facts/views described in the FRIST PARAGRAPH of THEIR wiki pages?? My point is that I feel it would be more appropriate in a different section on the page. The fact that they were elected to govern a group of people CANNOT be argued to not be included in the first paragraph of the "Hamas" wiki page. That argument just doesn't hold any weight, since everything surrounding their existence is to govern Palestinians. Now that they do....it just seems logical to include it in the intial summary of the organization. If we were talking about "Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades" wiki page, I could see the logic in describing the tactics of the military department of the Hamas political party and government in the first/initial description. That would be logical.

I will be making another change. Before you ask me to explain, I will try to do that here first. It is only logical, as per the reasons stated above, that the fact (it is a fact, not a theory/view/etc.) that they are democratically elected governing body of the Palestinian people (the fact that they have been "segregated" by the un-elected Fatah party is irrelevant, as it is not a democratic decision) is to be described FIRST......BEFORE their alleged/proven actions/tactics. This only makes sense, as this is the method used on the wiki pages of other governing bodies (I didn't set the precedent, I'm just following it). If people insist on placing the "terrorism" information in the first/initial description of Hamas, then it is only fair (in order to maintain a fair and balanced text of unbiased information) that their whole reason for existing be described first - leading/governing the people of Palestine. As for my wording, I can see how writing "...although.....they are still considered...." could lead you (or others) to feel as though this "election" nullifies them from being described as "terrorists". Because I have not seen ANY proof of their so-called "terrorism" (and I've looked....), or, shall I say......not more terrorism than any other government, therefore not deserving of the label more than say.....China, or Russia, etc......I did not think of this perspective......What it was supposed to imply was what was implied in the article I referenced......that although they have been elected, they are not (nor will they likely be...) treated as an elected government in the international community of politicians. They will still be seen as a "stateless" group who is committing acts of war, instead of a state/governing body that is engaged in a war (which no doubt will be your rebuttal when I reference the Afghan and Iraqi wars and israel's war with the Palestinians as proof of "acts of terror on civilian populations for the purpose of a political goal".....that israel and the U.S. are "states engaged in war......Hamas is a group committing acts of war for which they have no justification)

I know I've written a alot and will be happy to explain anything that is not clear to you. As for my pending edit, I will try word it in a way that does not seem to imply nullification of wrong actions (because I DO NOT hold that view)Shakur420 (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Populist?

Is it possible to call Hamas a populist party. They are known for their financial assistance to the poor in Gaza.

The thing is though that t is hard to guage their popularity in Gaza as they exercise a totalitarean and autocractic regime, and everyone is fearful of talking about who they support for fear of reprisals. I remember seeing BBC footage of palestinians in gaza, after the 2008/9 offensive, when asked whether they still supported hamas, they said "here, you cannot say this kind of thing"

Hamas do indeed build schools and mosques and other infrastructure in gaza, but they get their money from foriegn aid and iran. As was shown in the recent attack on gaza, hamas use these buildings to store weapons. There is plenty of footage of stockpiles of mortars found in mosques. On account of this, and many instances of use of human shields, i would actually hazard that most gazans are severely against Hamas, only have not been able to raise a voice against the regime.

Honestly, if someone stored a bomb in your house and used your son as a human shield, no matter for what cause, would you really still like that person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.220.226 (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The first person's response neither provides a source for the quote nor addresses the question. The second response, stating that money is given from outside, can be a valid point, however, the rest is merely opinion. The third response is also not an actual response to the issue, and seems to be a stance that contradicts most of the article (Civilians were warned to leave buildings with weapons hidden in them, yet few actually fled). As for the actual matter at hand, while I agree there are populist tendencies to the party's policy, I feel the similarities are far too few to qualify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.108.245 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Employing terrorist tactics

The WP:TERRORIST policy is clear, nevertheless, okedem decides on May 14 to make a unilateral change and add the statement "employing terrorist tactics". There is no need for this statement whatsoever, there is no need to make it look like that the innocent Israelis are the victims in this conflict. Imad marie (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "Hamas is a terrorist organization" (though it is), but that it employs clear-cut terrorist tactics, which is 100% true and accurate, and not open to interpretation. As I've explained, their method of willful, intentional killing of civilians is the most salient and important detail about them.They choose to pursue their cause by murdering civilians, with no military use. Instead of choosing military targets, they target civilians, in order to terrorize the population to get what they want. Your last comment simply shows your POV, being a Hamas apologist. Don't try to hide the facts of what they do. okedem (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For your information, I object to many of Hamas's politics and tactics, including their use of the suicide attacks. And I am not a Hamas apologist.

But when it comes to the I/P conflict, I know that their are other sides of in the conflict that take their responsibility in this cycle of killings. It makes no difference if you are flying a jet fighter or wearing an explosive belt as long as your intentions are to kill civilians to create political gains.

Now who started this cycle of violence? This is the endless debate between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and my point is let's not jump into conclusions in the first lines of the lead. Imad marie (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No one said anything about starting the violence. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

It has never been shown that Israel tried to kill civilians. At most, one can claim it isn't careful enough when attacking military targets. But that, also, is beside the point. Hamas's agenda is to kill civilians. While Israel maintains that civilians are never the target (even if you don't believe them), Hamas employs a completely different value system, in which killing civilians is perfectly justified. Old men, women, children. Not collateral damage, but the intended targets. This is an extremely important piece of information, that needs to be made clear to the readers. okedem (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you haven't viewed the latest UN report that asserts that Israeli soldiers deliberately attacked civilian targets in Gaza war. And even if those soldiers did not act upon supervisors' instructions (which I doubt); those soldiers were not tried or punished to prevent similar incidents in the future. But again, this is all irrelevant to our dispute here.

The point is here, WP:TERRORIST policy is clear, because usually there is in the story more than "someone is a terrorist". And I don't see difference between calling someone a terrorist or saying that he uses terrorist tactics. It is already mentioned in the lead that many countries consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization and no one has objected to that, I don't understand why you are pushing now for this statement in the first lines of the article. Imad marie (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The UN report is a joke, sorry to say. They can't get their facts straight. Throughout the war they were making false claims, and when they were proven wrong they only sometimes agreed to correct their claims, with a lot less fanfare than the original claims. Falk is especially not trustworthy.

Our job here is to explain what the topic of the article is, what it does. Suicide bombing of buses is a terrorist act, and there's no dispute that Hamas is doing that - meaning that Hamas employs terrorist tactics. If you don't want to call them "a terrorist organization", that's fine. But we should spell out, clearly, what it is that these people do. Forget your interpretation of WP:TERRORIST for a moment - is the sentence factually false? Is suicide bombing not a terrorist tactic? Is Hamas not doing them? And let me make something clear - regardless of who's interpretation of that page is more accurate, it's not policy, but a guideline, meaning it is only there to give advice, and is not a hard-set rule.

That said, in the interest of moving forward, I propose another phrasing - "Employing tactics such as suicide bombings of civilian targets, Hamas is considered wholly, or in part, a terrorist organization by certain countries and supranational organizations." Same facts, just without the "terrorism" label you so strongly oppose. okedem (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How can you claim that the UN report is a joke when we all saw with our own eyes the IDF bombing UNRWA schools with white phosphorus? And even if militants used the schools as Israel claims (which is a doubt) that is still not an excuse to bomb the schools.

Hamas did bomb civilian targets, which is a terrorist tactic. But the thing is, if we put this in the lead, it will not stop. We will put this line in Hezbollah, PLO, and any other power that opposes Israel. That's why I objected to the sentence not because I like bombing civilians.

Lastly, I do not object to the wording you have suggested in your last comment. Have a nice day. Imad marie (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you're mentioning a school - for a great demonstration of the UN's commitment to accuracy and truth, read about Al-Fakhura school incident. They claimed for many days that IDF bombed the school, and when they were proven wrong - the bombing was outside the school - they claimed that's what they said all along, which is a complete and utter lie. The UN's initial claims caused worldwide outrage, condemnation of Israel, fighting and rioting, and they were right in the middle of it, with even Secretary Ban condemning Israel for something it didn't do.

Of course, some UN or other civilian installations were hit, some with good reason (any military use cancels the place's protection according to the Geneva Conventions); some were hit by error - nothing and no-one is 100% accurate, and when people send rockets from the middle of the city, innocents are bound to get hurt. But as clearly evidenced by the casualty figures, Israel makes extreme efforts to avoid killing civilians, while Hamas states that is their goal.

Terrorist tactics have nothing to do with "opposing Israel". Any organization or group that uses such tactics should be acknowledged as such. That includes the PLO, Hezbollah and several others in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but many, many other organizations throughout the world (like Tamil Tigers, IRA, Japanese Red Army, and others whose names I don't know).

I'll insert the sentence now. Thanks. okedem (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If Hamas' goal is to kill civilians they are extraordinarily bad at it. After 20 years of effort they have managed 500 if we only count terrorist attacks. Don't you think it would be easier to get results by working with editors instead of editing solely to your own POV? It's taken a lot of work by a lot of editors to get the article to where it is now. Please discuss rather than tell. Wayne (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet they try, try again. Gotta admire their spirit. While Israel's security forces have managed to stop most of their attacks, they've had plenty of successes. But success rates have nothing to do with it. Are you trying to claim they don't try to kill civilians? Then you'd have to argue with Hamas directly.

I made no serious change to the article. Beside one small change, which I discussed (admittedly, after some reverts), I only touched the article now to defend it from POV-pushers, trying to radically change the lead to fit their views, like User:Kupredu. Anyways, that's over now. okedem (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

i see nothing wrong with including mention of the nations which dispute the "terrorist" label, in fact i think it is required. you kept reverting that out. i don't think any of this argument is necessary - obviously one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as WP:TERRORIST says. no one here will be convinced to change their mind over a talk page post. so let's just discuss which content belongs and where. does anyone else have a comment on the compromise i mentioned in the "stop edit warring" section? i think okedem has agreed on most of it. untwirl(talk) 20:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As the countries which designate Hamas a terrorist organization are specifically named, there no need to point out which countries don't. The reader understands that countries beyond that list don't label Hamas as such. okedem (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

the russia and china positions (and syria, iran, etc) should go in the intl section at least, and if certain countries have labeled them something else, then that should be given as well. untwirl(talk) 23:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also add, if it hasn't been said, that WP:TERRORIST isn't a policy, it's a style guideline, and one that allows exceptions. IronDuke 20:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

so....you claim that israel's agenda is not to kill civilians, and then when someone references just that, you waive it aside as if it doesn't count? how about this for a reference..... http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/789876.html ...or this... http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1150885985413 ...warning people that you are going to bomb/attack and telling them to leave their neighborhoods, and then going ahead with the attack regardless of whether they leave or not is by definition "targeting civilians".......arguing over semantics is going to leave you running in circles......when you KNOW your actions will result in civilian deaths....in the real world, that's called "targeting civilians".......oh....by the way.......where is it that you reference from when you claim that Hamas "targets civilians"? because from their mouth, I don't see anything that says that......but I may be wrong.......p.s. targeting what you consider "enemy combatants/forces" is by definition NOT civilians....here's where I reference what Hamas claims...... http://www.alqassam.ps/english/?action=aboutus Shakur420 (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

@ "Okedem" I apologize for inserting my comment in the middle of the discussion. I'm new to this and did not the proper way to do it. Thank you for moving my comment.....as for the discussion, if you agree that the wiki page for "United States" should state in the first paragraph that it is considered by millions of people around the world as the biggest terrorist state, then I see no problem in doing this with Hamas' wiki page. Before they were elected, maybe it would have seemed logical to include this type of view in the first paragraph, but not now, since the main subject surrounding the group (for the people it represents i.e. the Palestinians) pertains to it's legal standing as a minority government. No one here is opposing the idea of including the (false) labels that people want to attribute to Hamas, we are just asking for the same treatment as is given to other governing bodies on wikipedia. For example, would you agree that in the first paragraph of the "israel" wiki page, it would state that the majority of the Palestinian population and millions of other people around the world regard israel as one of the biggest terrorist states?? if your answer is yes, I await your edit to the page (as I see you have done much editing to it, and will leave it to you) and will not argue about having this information described in the first paragraph of the "Hamas" page. If your answer is no, then please do not hinder me (or anyone else) from contributing legitimate facts of truth to balance the obvious bias that is trying to be imposed on a legally elected governing body in order to shift readers to a specific viewpoint. Why don't you just let the facts be told, and let people make up their own minds as to what conclusions to make.Shakur420 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is you who is trying to shift focus away from Hamas's use of terrorist tactics, openly and actively trying to murder civilians to advance their political goals. If you don't believe Hamas is trying to kill civilians - go read this very article, and learn some of the facts of this matter. The words "suicide bombing" and "bus" or "restaurant" ought to give you a hint where to read.

Hamas's terrorist designation has nothing to do with elections and democracy, but with its tactics. Its tactics have not changed, and it is still actively trying to kill civilians, with no claims of military value. Your edit create a false connection.

If you do not understand the difference between Hamas and Israel/US, I can only recommend you re-read some of my comments. You don't seem to grasp the meaning of "targeting", or "intentionally", vs. accidental or collateral. You may choose to reject the differentiation, but it is a valid one, used by all sovereign states, and serves as the basis for modern laws of war (Geneva Conventions, etc). okedem (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

@ "Okedem" I'm sorry....I must have missed the part in your response where you refuted my legal connection between the governing bodies of the U.S./israel/Hamas - They are all democratically elected (by international standards) governing bodies and are currently in states of war and are ALL committing legitimate and illegitimate actions, and therefore. should be treated equally. Therefore, I repeat again, can you tell me why it is fair, balanced and logical to include the "terrorist" comment on the "Hamas" wiki page (in the initial description) whereas it is apparently not on the "U.S." and "israel" wiki page?

Could you please give me the unequivocal proof that Hamas "targets" civilians?? You claim that suicide bombing a bus is "targeting" civilians whereas.....dropping bombs on civilian infrastructure and areas (israel - Lebenon/Palestinian Territories; U.S. - Iraq/Afghanistan....to a name a few recent incidents) is not?? Could you please explain your reasoning that logically leads you to make this claim? (and please don't refer me to the comments made by U.S. and israeli politicians claiming that the FAR greater civilian deaths caused by their governments are "by accident"......because we're not supposed to believe Hamas' claims.....but we're supposed to believe U.S./israeli claims??? are you really that naive, or do you have ulterior motives for trying to paint Hamas as a "terrorist organization"? My position is to NOT BELIEVE ANY OF THEM -U.S., israel, Hamas, PLO, South Africa, Canada, etc. It's not a secret that politicians lie.....My position is to state the facts...........and let people decide for themselves.....

I have just recently tried to make another edit, in the interest of trying to keep the page as unbiased as possible - in EITHER direction. Would you do me a favor and let me know what you think.........oh.....and don't forget to actually respond to my points this time, please.....instead of just dismissing them. I am trying to explain WHY I have come to the conclusion I have......please show me the same respect and try to do that as well.......instead of......lol.....saying I don't understand the difference between "intentional" and "accidental".....because I have addressed that earlier as well:

telling the population of a civilian area that you are going to bomb/attack and then going ahead with your attack whether the civilian population leaves or not.....is INTENTIONALLY TARGETING CIVILIANS since:

1.You are FULLY AWARE of the civilian presence.

2.You ATTACK in an area where you are aware of a civilian presence.

3.You CONTINUE to use this method of attack for decades, and therefore CANNOT claim that over and over again it "...was an accident"

The term "collateral damage" makes no distinction between intentions in the eyes of the victims, and therefore is irrelevant in the REAL WORLD, the world of "people".......in other words....NOT the world of "politics"........Shakur420 (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The verb "targeting" means there's a "target" - so the question becomes - what is the target. If a bomb is dropped on Hamas rocket launchers, even if some civilians get hurt, it is still a military target. This is why the Geneva Conventions clearly state that any use of a "protected" place for military purposes strips it of those protections, and the presence of "protected persons", i.e civilians, does not prevent a legal attack. Your "reasoning" regarding this issue is your own fringe opinion, contradicting the accepted rules of warfare. Hamas makes no pretense of targeting the military - blowing up in a bus or restaurant in the middle of a city has no military purpose, just a civilian purpose. Even if civilian get hurt in both cases, the military value of the target is the question. Even if you don't accept the distinction, the rest of the world does. okedem (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

lol........really??.......you serious??.........you're going to take that position??........"definition" or not.........(Geneva Conventions were created by Politicians)......you're going to justify dropping bombs on city centers and in the middle of civilian populations by saying they're "military targets"???....this position may be accepted by international POLITICS........NOT the average person............to find the references for that.........ASK PEOPLE WHAT THEY THINK........

anyways........I know this section is about defining "terrorist tactics"........you obviously would like to use "international political definitions" when it suits your position (as you just stated) but will ignore these same references when your position is refuted (as stated above with the U.N. report)..........would you like to attempt to approach my argument of having Hamas' democratically elected status recognized on the wiki page in the first paragraph?.......like I said before, I'm not trying to remove the "terrorist comment".........that's the whole point of wiki.........but can you please explain why your are atttempting to prevent their legal status as a governing body from being stated in the initial description of the organization?? This time, if you don't respond, I will stop communicating with you on this subject (that their legal status should be displayed), as I have given you more than a few chances to refute my arguments/position.Shakur420 (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Before replying, please take the time to actually read what I say. I have no objection to mentioning their election in the lead. In fact, I support it. Your edit, however, made it seem as though after their election their designation as terrorist should change. That is your opinion, not a fact. Their designation had nothing to do with elections status or democracy in the PA, and so should not change due to the elections.

"you're going to justify dropping bombs on city centers and in the middle of civilian populations by saying they're "military targets"???" Don't twist my words. I never said the "civilian populations" are "military targets". But attacking a military target that was placed in the civilian population is allowed, even if civilian are hurt. The criteria for legality is the military value of the target of the attack, and that the force used is needed to achieve the objective of the attack. Placing a military target within civilian areas does not grant it any protection. That is the position of the Geneva Conventions, signed and ratified by the vast majority of nations in the world, and widely used as the criteria for lawfulness in wars. Don't like it? Tough. okedem (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

@Okedem

1.I did NOT intentionally try to imply that being elected nullifies anybody's previous actions....because that is NOT my position.....nor is it my opinion.....I explained this in a response to to someone else's question (see the last topic on this page, if you don't want to, let me know, I'll copy/paste it in this section)........I did also, in that response, acknowledge that the wording of my edit may have seemed to portray that position.....and have subsequently tried to word it differently.

2.Your next point:

"Their designation had nothing to do with elections status.......should not change due to the elections"

Actually, if you check the U.S. law defining "terrorism" (http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htm), you will notice that groups considered to be "states" or "countries" are left out of the definition, implying that "countries/states" are not capable of "terrorism". The law includes only "subnational groups or clandestine agents". Now, logical assessment will lead you to conclude that this is just semantics and that countries committing the same acts as "terrorists" would also fall into the category of "terrorism"........it's just that the U.S. definition of "terrorism" has been worded as such as to exclude itself from prosecution/responsibility. This, however flawed, is the position of U.S. law.

Now, on May 15 1948, the League of Arab Nations sent a cablegram to the U.N. stating the existence of a Palestinian state - http://untreaty.un.org/cod/repertory/art39/english/rep_orig_vol2-art39_e.pdf (look under section C, 39)....as agreed upon by the leaders of Palestine and the British leaders of the time.....if you don't accept THAT proof.....there's always the declaration on Nov. 15 1988 - http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27a/099.html .....This proves, beyond the possibility of argument, that Palestine IS a state, and therefore under U.S. law, cannot be included under the definition of "terrorism". Since Hamas is now the legal, governing political party of the state/country of Palestine, they can no longer be considered as a "terrorist organization" (under U.S. law). Now, I realize we are talking about a global situation, and not just one that relates to the U.S.. Would it not seem logical, then, to specifically state that the designation/label/view of Hamas is a matter of debate/discussion/confussion within international community standards?

Their existence as the governing body of the Palestinian state/country/territories is NOT a matter of debate/discussion/confussion. It is a fact. So that fact cannot be argued to be included in the leading/initial description of the "Hamas" wiki page. I appreciate you pointing out that you agree with that, and hope that you understand it was NOT my intention to imply that because of their status today, Hamas' previous (or present) actions are to be define in a different way. I am opposed to indiscriminate killing, whether by person, state, or anyone in between. I hope you understand that my edit was NOT meant to imply that. I believe Hamas actions have NEVER been more "terroristic" than ANY other group involved in the war.....israeli or Palestinian groups......and therefore, I am simply advocating for FAIR AND BALANCED behavior and descriptions of ALL parties involved. It does not seem logical to deem Hamas "terrorist" and not israel at the same time. Having this statement in the initial/leading description of the "Hamas" wiki page implies that Hamas is more deserving of this label/view than their opposition (israel), as this is not the method used in writing the "israel" wiki page. If you wish to see proof of the extent of all parties "terrorism" actions/consequences, check the statistics section on this website...http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp....To claim that Hamas is the cause of MORE "terrorism" activities/targeting is simply against the facts and numbers. In fact, if we want to define "terrorism activities" according to the Geneva Conventions, the government of israel is CLEARLY responsible for the majority of attacks/civilain deaths and injuries in the conflict, and there continued actions causing (the majority of) civilian casualties over the years is clear proof of THEIR vioaltion of Geneva Convention article 57.

3.My statement about "dropping bombs on civilian centers of population and infrastructure". I DID NOT "twist your words". You claimed that U.S./israeli actions are "military" whereas Hamas' actions are "targeting civilians"......and now are citing the Geneva Conventions....ok....let's take a look at them (http://www.scottishfriendsofisrael.org/geneva_conventions.htm). Notice under article 57, section 2.a.iii:

refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

and section 2.b:

an attack shall be canceled or suspended if it becomes apparent....that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of cvilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof...

...so the Geneva Conventions DON'T support your argument that Hamas' actions differ from those of U.S./israel.

No doubt you will bring attention to the statement:

"...would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated"

...in order to argue that U.S./israeli actions are "necessary" and achieve a (relatively) successful military goal and that, in turn, justify the actions making them allowable by the standards of the convention. Please......when you DO make this argument........remember to include all of the evidence that israeli "military action" has been successful in advancing israel's war against the Palestinians/Lebonese (gaining military advantages anticipated). Here's MY evidence that this is NOT true:

http://a.abcnews.com/m/screen?id=6760726&pid=76

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/palestinian-attacks-signal-failure-of-military-offensive-652232.html

http://origin.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244139,00.html

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article692233.ece

4.You claim that if I "...don't like it? Tough."......I'm not claiming to "not like" the Geneva Conventions.....my opinion is not what I'm trying to convey....just facts......and the facts are that if you interpret Hamas' actions as "terrorist" you can only interpret U.S./israeli actions as such as well.....but I don't see a "terrorist" comment on the initial/leading descriptions of the wiki pages of THOSE governments. How can you justify doing this for the "Hamas" wiki page? Is this not an example of inconsistency?

Shakur420 (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I'll say is this - your opinion regarding the designation of Hamas as terrorist is irrelevant. Don't create a causal relationship between elections and the designation, and we'll be fine.

Regarding the difference between Hamas and Israel - I'm sick of this. You flatly refuse to understand what I'm saying, and I won't repeat myself a third time. okedem (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

...no points and no references = no argument. I think it's clear who's citing their "opinion"......lol....Shakur420 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

p.s. you can't cite your previous "points" and "reference" since I used YOUR reference (Geneva Conventions) to invalidate your points.....Shakur420 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You failed to invalidate anything, as you inserted your personal opinions regarding "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated". I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone who claims Hamas isn't targeting civilians when they send suicide bombers to a bus in Tel Aviv. okedem (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

...lol....so....the 5 links from diverse news/information sources are.....my "opinion"???.....lol.....maybe I need to clarify my position, as you don't seem to be able to understand....this section is a discussion about whether using the term "employing terrorist tactics" is an appropriate term to use when writing on the "Hamas" wiki page. If you refer to my argument, you see that I wrote this:

so the Geneva Conventions DON'T support your argument that Hamas' actions differ from those of U.S./israel.

If you think this implies that my postion is that "....Hamas isn't targeting civilians....", then maybe a course in English would be a logical step for you BEFORE engaging in disscuasions in that particular language. As my statement (and supporting references of the Geneva Convention articles and news sources) clearly show that I DO believe Hamas targets civlians.......I only add that the U.S., israel and almost every other country that has waged war in history, targets civlians AS WELL (as per the definitions of the Geneva Conventions), so it is only fair to use the term "employing terrorist tactics" on the "Hamas" wiki page ONLY if the same standards are used on the wiki pages of other governing bodies who have been shown to "employ" the same "tactics". How is it that I'm saying Hamas "...isn't targeting cvilians"????Shakur420 (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is what you wrote: "oh....by the way.......where is it that you reference from when you claim that Hamas "targets civilians"? because from their mouth, I don't see anything that says that......". okedem (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

They don't specifically state that their intention is to target civilians......whether you or I believe them is irrelevant.http://www.alqassam.ps/english/index.php?action=aboutus. Now, since neither U.S./israel claim that thier intention is to target civilian populations, we cannot choose to believe one, while dismissing the other. Your reference to the Geneva conventions supports my point that adding "terrorist tactics" on the wiki pages of U.S./israel is logical, if this methodology (for stating "facts") is used on the "Hamas" wiki page:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5182564.stm

http://www.nlg.org/news/index.php?entry=entry090402-082738

http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/Israel-Lebanon-Israeli,2170

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/opinion/03iht-edbouck.2378653.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055241.html

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article21992.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/world/middleeast/19assess.html?_r=1

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77507

http://www.btselem.org/english/Firearms/20060613_Gaza.asp

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3660668,00.html

...did you want more referencing israel's "terrorist tactics"??......my point.........israel and Hamas are THE SAME......as far as their "tactics" are concerned.....israel, actually, WORSE if you take into account the NUMBER of civilian casualties......so when I add to the "israel" wiki page, referenced statements about the international claims of it's "terrorist tactics", I shouldn't expect any opposition from you, right? I realize I will have to support my edit to others, but seeing the extent of your contributions to the "israel" wiki page, I don't want to have this discussion with you all over again in another place. I would just like the articles to be free of bias connotations. If I were to move the "...considered in part, or wholly.......a terrorist organisation...." statement to a more appropriate section in the article and don't get any opposition from you, then it would be more in line with the method used on the "israel" wiki page. Will you oppose/undo this type of edit on the "Hamas" wiki page?.....to be clear.....I don't feel it should be removed, quite the contrary, there is quite the evidence and references that this is a common view held by international politics about Hamas, and therefore should be included in the "Hamas" page....I even like the wording used right now......but....in comparing it to the "israel" wiki page, it just makes sense to have it positioned in a different area.....will you oppose this?Shakur420 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I oppose this. You plainly don't understand the meaning of "terrorism", or the rules of legal warfare, including the Geneva Conventions. You interpret the texts according to your personal opinion, regardless of their actual meaning. The bevy of links you provide only serve to prove that. okedem (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

lol.....ok then......let's take a different approach......why don't you explain to me what "terrorism" means.......with references to dictionaries, laws, reports, articles, etc.........Shakur420 (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tried. okedem (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edits

So...the page is locked now because of this endless debate? What if the world "parliament" was misspelled in the opening paragraph, how would one go about fixing that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horsefeather McBean (talk • contribs) 16:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The page isn't locked, but "semi-protected", meaning it cannot be edited by anonymous users (unregistered) and users who registered less than 4 days ago. It has been this way for months now, due to problems with vandalism.

I've fixed that misspelling, thanks for noticing. okedem (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For the Issues- Accusations of Anti-Semitism section

The quote from Khaled Meshaal, the chief of Hamas's political bureau, states that they are not against all Jews, but merely the Israeli people that, according to Hamas, act as oppressors. I don't oppose most of what is said, but this statement does not seem to reflect Anti-Semiticm so much as political anger. This statement could have certain anti-semetic sentiments, but I do not feel that it is consistent with the rest of the examples provided. I am suggesting that this point be taken out, as the statement by itself does not reflect overt discrimination like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the faith that every Jew harbors in his heart" or "Jews are a people who cannot be trusted". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.108.245 (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Israeli attacks on Gaza

the article refers to an attack by Israel on a UN school in Gaza during the conflict. this has proved to be a fabrication, and the death toll is comprised of a few genuine terrorist deaths and a load of invented dead civilians. Necrobius (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

External References/Links

The link for Hamas' official website to its "News" page it dead. Can someone with editing power please change it to the homepage or the new news page. I.e. change http://www.pmo.gov.ps/news.php to http://www.pmo.gov.ps so that people can actually get to the page.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjt5 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

reference to former US president Jimmy Carter, saying Palestinians treated"like animals."[19]

Reference to Jimmy Carter suggests bias. Carter is a known antisemite and bigot, who accepts donations from known antisemetic organizations.

E.G. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up, a major donor,and think-tank funded by Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and run by his son, has called Jews "the enemies of all nations," attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States' own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a "fable." (They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) Harvard U has turned money back from this org. Carter has not.

"Money, particularly large amounts of money, has a way of persuading people to a particular position. It would not surprise me if Carter, having received so much Arab money, is now honestly committed to their cause. But his failure to disclose the extent of his financial dependence on Arab money, and the absence of any self reflection on whether the receipt of this money has unduly influenced his views, is a form of deception bordering on corruption."

^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.180.126.121 (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't talk about how "...large amounts of money has a way of persuading people to a particular position." unless your going to include the effects of money used to buy, and blackmail votes in the U.S. congress by "special interest groups".....such as AIPAC........you will clearly lose this debate as the influence that money, from pro-israeli groups in the U.S. has had, is undeniably present. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/cost2.html Shakur420 (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

Some recent edits tried to add details to the lead, and delete a quote in a ref.

First of all, this article is about Hamas, not about Israel's actions, or about the Gaza Strip. This means detail of Israel's actions, or of the condition in the strip, should be kept to a minimum. This article shouldn't become yet another place to discuss how evil Israel is. Second, the intro is already too long, and cannot accommodate any more information. Third, the quote that was removed was inside the ref for some ADL source. Even if you don't like the source, the quote is inside the footnote to explain the terminology used, and not in the body of the article. Fourth, one of the edits claimed that Israel's actions created a humanitarian crisis, and that led to the break-down of the cease fire - that's just an opinion, not fact. We don't know the exact motivation behind either side's actions, and there are a variety of reasons for why the cease-fire was not extended (the cease fire didn't "break down", but just expired and not renewed).

The intro is built by consensus. Please discuss any proposed changes, instead of just pushing them in. okedem (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hamas claims to be a political party and governing body. It's charter clearly states that it's existence and actions are a direct result of what it, and others, perceive to be zionist actions/aggression in the land of Palestine. http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html Not only is it prudent to include information about israel's (i.e. zionist) actions when documenting Hamas' REACTIONS, it is the only logical thing to do.

Your claiming that the wiki page of the 'LTTE' should not contain extensive information about the actions (with regards to the LTTE or Tamil people) of the Sri Lankan Government......or......that the wiki page of the 'American Revolution' should not go into detail about the actions of the British Empire with regards to the revolution. How do you advocate documenting reactionary incidents, yet wish to censor the actions that are claimed to have incited them? (claimed by the Hamas.....and others.....don't bother trying to discount those claims).

Neutrality is the objective here. All (recognized) citable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Sources information is relevant in order for readers to gain an informed understanding on any given topic. Not what you or I, or anyone else deems to be "the truth"......your right, this is not a venue for opinions about israel, but attempts to block information cannot be tolerated.Shakur420 (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, don't twist my words. My concern is the level of detail, not the very mention of Israel's actions. Naturally they must be mentioned to some degree, but one must remember that this article is about Hamas, with Hamas's actions being the main topic, and other entities's actions being the background. As the intro is way too long already, we should keep to an outline, not go into details. okedem (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Islamist?

should we have islamist here? I think the term is controversial, and some people deny Islamic exists. OTOH, some people deny the moon landing happened.

Islam does indeed appear to be real, and I think members of Hamas would qualify as practitioners of that faith (whatever their manner is of doing so).—Aaagmnr (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

04:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)User:Seeright While I do believe that it is true that there are many people who happen to commit terrorism in the name of Islam, the term "Islamic" in the context of terrorism is inappropriate. It is also a little bit anti-semantic towards Islam as a whole. According to many interviews on CNN or other American news agencies, it seems as if many of the terrorists simply use Islam as an excuse to commit terrorism. Just because these people call evil in the name of Islam, it does not mean that Islam is bad. That's exactly what Hitler and the Nazi Party did with the Swastika. Before it became a pictographic symbol of pure evil and cruelty, many Eastern cultures as well as many of the American desert Southwest native tribes used the Swastika as a symbol of peace and prosperity. If a Buddhist has a picture of a Swatiska in his or her home, no matter how good that person is, often times an American visitor would assume that the person is antisemantic against Jews and that the person is evil. That is not sound thinking.

Considering the fact that some Hamas supporters may be editors of Wikiepdia as well, I still don't think the westernized society fully understands terrorists beyond the idea of evil.

On the note of whether or not we should even have this page up, I feel it should be kept up. If we were to censor out every highly sensitive topic, then Wikipedia would be transformed from a world class encyclopedia to a low-grade middle school textbook. By ignoring the truth that there is conflict and controversy out there, in my opinion children become blinded and cannot deal with the anger and conflict innate within others or possibly even themselves.

It just needs a bit of touch up, that's all. ~Seeright (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Seeright

See antisemitism and semantics—Aaagmnr (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Believed by Some...

"Nonetheless, the Hamas Charter and statements by Hamas leaders are believed by some to be influenced by antisemitic conspiracy theories.[28] " Should the 'some' just be listed in fact? "Believed by some" looks rather blog-ish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.12.102 (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia: Avoid weasel words—Aaagmnr (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism Activities

As this is a major part of what Hamas does it should be eralier on. Such as Hmas armed bridgader engages in major terrorist activitiesTannim1 (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization by several nations is brought up at the end of the first paragraph. Angling for anything earlier than that, e.g. a line that straight-out says "Hamas is a terrorist organization" will not fly per words to avoid guidelines. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I read the words to avoid and it also states if there is a good reasonto consider using it can be discussed. Hams actions makes them terrorists or at least it shld be more prominent. A rough analogy would be Al Capone operated Soup Kitchens in the 1930 some people considered him a gangsterTannim1 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What the article does is describe the organization neutrally, and explains who considers them a terrorist organization and why. "Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by..." is far more neutral and even then a declarative "Hamas is a terrorist organization...". If you are here to push the latter, then you're going to be in for some sore disappointment around here since the Wikipedia project is not to be used as a battle field. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tannim1, I understand how you feel, and I happen to agree with you on this point, but take it from someone who's been here a while - this is the way it is, and this is the way it's going to stay. It's a point so strongly entrenched in Wikipedia customs by now, that you're wasting your breath trying to argue against it.

In any case, remember - it's always better to describe facts, and let the reader decide. Thus, we describe what Hamas does that led so many governments to consider it a terrorist organization - suicide bombing, etc, and let the reader form his opinion. okedem (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Okedem Thank you for your comment, I guess I find it hard to understand why Wikiepedia editors are more concerned about PC than facts.Tannim1 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The attempt by certain editors in this article to marginalize Hamas violence against civilians does not seem to stem from a concern for political correctness, but from a desire to portray Hamas in a positive light. But you can look through the history and decide for yourself. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That isnt fair or accurate. It is not "so many" governments that consider Hamas a terrorist organization, in fact many, many more do not consider it a terrorist organization. There is also much more on this page dealing with violent activities compared to their social programs. For as many users who want to portray Hamas in a "good light" there are many more users who want to try and portray them in a "bad light", and too few who just want to say who they are and what they do and not put their own spin on it. nableezy - 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hamas habitually engages in terrorist activites, as explicitly noted by the entries in both the Britannica and Encarta encyclopedias, which are linked to from the article. If a company makes sprockets, it doesn't need to be recognized as a sprocket company by any government in order for an encyclopedia to say that it makes sprockets. It would be nice if we could just copy the article on Hamas from a real encyclopedia and paste it here. Sure, it would be plagiarism, but it would make a better article and allow many of us to avoid spending our precious time on this earth in Wikipedia battles. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to think of it in terms of "many, many more [governments] do not consider [Hamas] a terrorist organization." A lot of governments -- possibly most governments -- simply aren't interested in making any such distinction or pronouncement, whatever their "real" feelings on the matter. I think, in terms of RS's, that there'd be wide agreement on this point. Can people point to sources that say "Hamas is not a terrorist organization?" IronDuke 22:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure can, Hamas has a socio-political wing and a military wing, Historically, Hamas has sponsored an extensive social service network. The group has also operated a terrorist wing. Responsible sources dont focus on just the military wing of Hamas, which has admittedly carried out attacks classified as "terrorist". It is much more than this and pretending that it can be called, in its entirety, a "terrorist organization" is nonsense. It is much less clear cut than calling the Irgun a "terrorist organization", and we dont do that. nableezy - 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning it has a terrorist wing in the lead. Does that work for you? IronDuke 22:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We could also say, using one of your sources, "Hamas is believed to have killed more than five hundred people in more than 350 separate terrorist attacks since 1993." IronDuke 22:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There are also sources that call it a resistance organization that fights Israeli occupation. Would saying that work for you? I have a problem calling the organization terrorist, I dont have a problem saying that they have committed terrorist attacks. Terrorism is a tactic that can describe individual attacks without issue. But here is one source that calls it an "Islamic militant resistance organization". Here is another one that says "Hamas is first and foremost a resistance organization". I dont think you can call a group a terrorist organization in WP's narrative voice. I would not be opposed to saying they have a militant wing that has carried out terrorist attacks, but I would be opposed to calling that wing "terrorist". nableezy - 23:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(reply to last ID note) yes we could, I am not opposed to calling individual attacks terrorist. nableezy - 23:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I t think it can be both a "resistance movement" and a terrorist one. But you may be on the right track, in terms of emphasizing that there are, in a sense, two Hamas's (if I'm reading you right). Other people's thoughts on this, i.e., bifurcating acts from entire organizational structure? IronDuke 23:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I accept Nableezy's position that "carried out terrorist attacks" is more accurate than "terrorist organization" regarding Hamas, and so do Encarta and Britannica. Encarta has "Hamas has engaged in terrorist activities" and Britannica attributes a "campaign of terrorism" or "terrorist campaign" to Hamas' armed wing. I also agree with Ironduke that there is no contradiction betweeen resistance and terrorism. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for accepting that part of my position, but ID only answered half of the question asked. I specifically said "a resistance organization fighting Israeli occupation". I have a feeling that, as easily as it can be sourced, would not fly. My sentence, including the word terrorist would be as follows: "Hamas is a resistance organization that fights against Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. It has a military wing, the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, that has carried out terrorist attacks to further that resistance". But I doubt that would be accepted. Would you like to propose a sentence that we can take a look at? nableezy - 23:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think a problem there might be defining "Israeli occupation." It could easily, for example, be construed to mean Israel itself. No? IronDuke 23:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No. It has been used that way by some people, but that is a fringe view, sort of on the level of fringeyness as saying that E. Jerusalem is not occupied Palestinian territory. That term, "occupied Palestinian territory", has a very specific and well-defined meaning. It would be a bit like me saying there is a problem with defining "Israel", as some incredibly fringey publications are under the impression it includes the West Bank (including E. Jerusalem), Gaza and the Golan. It doesnt and the word means something specific. nableezy - 00:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't accept that sentence, among other reasons because Hamas is also fighting against the Israeli occupation of what we call Israel, which is not Palestinian land. I would propose just taking a sentence from Encarta or Britannica. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Some people" here would include Hamas, no? Who have called for the destruction of the state of Israel and the etsablismeent of (all of ) Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital? IronDuke 00:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

On occasion, yes Hamas has said that, though they also have said they would accept a state within the Green line in exchange for a long term truce. Im sure we could find a way to clarify the meaning of what it is they fight for. But that is discussion that is best kept separate from determining how, or whether, to include the word "terrorist". nableezy - 00:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

we need to stick to the guideline here. per wp:terrorist, the note on this very talkpage says that words like terrorist and freedom fighter are "inherently non-neutral, so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article. If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation." both views (terrorist and resistance) are notable but they need to be attributed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Untwirl (talk • contribs) 02:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

First Israel widthdrew from Gaza, so Hamas is lying about armed resistance. The only reason not to display what Hamas is known most for which is terrorism, is the anti-Isarael bias of some editors and administrators.Tannim1 (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The article already does adhere to WP:TERRORIST; what you are calling for runs afoul of said guideline, which is why some editors object to it. It would also be in your best interests not to characterize other users as "pro-", "anti-", etc... i.e. your "the anti-Isarael(sic) bias of some editors and administrators" line. Discuss the topic, not the participants. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

^ see: The Real Jimmy Carter By: Alan M. Dershowitz FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, April 30, 2007 http://frontpagemagazine.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26364

[1] see: The Real Jimmy Carter By: Alan M. Dershowitz FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, April 30, 2007 http://frontpagemagazine.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26364

[1]