Jump to content

Talk:Hamas/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Why not write that "Hamas is responsible for suicide attacks" instead of Hamas is "best known" for this?

Some time ago I suggested making this change. Many reliable Western sources write from a certain perspective and you cannot always take vague statements too literally. So, why not just focus on the acts themselves which are undisputable? Count Iblis (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --GHcool (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Delad (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
What a strange suggestion; a dozen reliable sources specifically use the phrase "best known"; why would you have the article say something the sources do not? I'm restoring the wording that satisfies WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. Just because Rolling Stone may call Pearl Jam "the greatest band in the world" doesn't' mean that we report that at fact. You have been wrong on this point in the past, and you are just as wrong now. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Okay\u2026 so twelve rock solid sources aren\u2019t enough to define the organization? Tough crowd. The arguments for including that phrase are overwhelming, arguments against consist solely of \u201cYes, I know there are twelve excellent sources supporting the idea that Hamas is best known for suicide bombings, but what if those twelve sources did not use methodology I approve of? What then?\u201d I\u2019d love to see this in the evolution article. \u201cYes, I know virtually every reputable scientist on the planet believes in evolution, but I personally have a problem with their methodology.\u201d Actually, I think this very thing has happened, and eventually those people get laughed off the article (though it takes far too long for that to happen, IMO).
I recognize that there are grey areas, especially in I-P articles. This is not only not one of them, it is extraordinarily, mind-numbingly obvious, from a WP policy point of view, that Hamas is best-known for suicide bombings. Is it literally \u201ctrue?\u201d I think it is, but could be wrong. My opinion doesn\u2019t matter; all that matters are sources that meet WP:RS. And please spare me the \u201cBut Syrians don\u2019t think they\u2019re best known for that\u201d line. Statistically insignificant (and also unproven, AFAIK) exceptions to most people\u2019s overriding perception of Hamas as a group that engages in suicide bombings is irrelevant.
Oh, and Tarc, to your point about why we don\u2019t quote Rolling Stone saying that \u201cPearl Jam is the greatest band in the world.\u201d It\u2019s because they haven\u2019t said so, because Pearl Jam aren\u2019t. But if they, for example, referred to some other, random, band, say\u2026 The Beatles, in glowing terms, the article might reflect it, saying something like \u201cThey are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed bands in the history of popular music.\u201d
This one is game, set and match for including the phrase. IronDuke 23:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The point sailed completely over your head, I'm afraid. Whether or not a source says "best known for" doesn't actually mean that they ARE "best known for". Just as in the valid Peal Jam analogy, which you also fail to get. Tarc (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to say \u201cWow\u201d again. I write this whole disquisition, not realizing that you could reduce my arguments to a pile of rubble merely by writing, \u201cDude, you are so wrong.\u201d I don\u2019t know what else to say. I stand humbled by your rigorous logic. Was there anything else? IronDuke 23:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what the footnote says:

  • "Among the various organizations that emerged during the intifada were two that continue to challenge the dominance of the PLO over the Palestinian national movement: the Islamic Resistance Movement (better known by its acronym, Hamas) and its counterpart, Islamic Jihad. These organizations are best known for having injected a new lethality into the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians - the tactic of suicide bombings." (James L. Gelvin, The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 221 ISBN 0521852897)
  • "Best known for the violence it launched against Israel through suicide bombings and rocket attacks... " (Murphy, John. "Hamas aims for political might", The Baltimore Sun, January 22, 2006)
  • "To the outside world, Hamas is 'best-known \u2014 infamous \u2014 for its reliance on suicide bombers." (Palestinian territories:Inside Hamas,PBS FRONTLINE:World, May 9, 2006)
  • "Defined as a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S. and the European Union because of its suicide attacks on Israeli civilians..." (Karon, Tony., "Hamas Explained", Time Magazine, December 11, 2001)
  • "Hamas is best known abroad for the scores of suicide bombings it has carried out and its commitment to the destruction of Israel." (Barzak, Ibrahim. "Israel blames Iran, Syria for bombings", ABC News, January 20, 2006, p. 2)
  • "...the militant organization, best known abroad for its attacks against Israeli civilians..." (Musharbash, Yassin. "Could Victory be Undoing of Hamas", Der Spiegel, January 27, 2006)
  • "Although Hamas is best known for its suicide attacks..." ("Palestinian Political Organizations", PBS FRONTLINE, April 4, 2002)
  • "...is perhaps best known for its suicide bombings against Israeli targets." (Lynfield, Ben. Hamas gains grassroots edge, Christian Science Monitor, December 27, 2004)
  • "...it was best known in Israel and abroad for the suicide attacks it used..." ("After the Hamas earthquake", The Guardian, January 27, 2006).
  • "But his organization, Hamas, is of course dedicated to the destruction of an entire country and infamous for its suicide attacks." (Mann, Jonathan. "Reaction to Killing of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin", CNN, March 22, 2004.
  • "This dismal place was (and remains) a breeding ground for Hamas, the fundamentalist group now infamous for their suicide bombings." (Andersen, Mark. All the Power: Revolution Without Illusion, Punk Planet Books, 2004, ISBN 1888451726, p. 178)
  • "Hamas, an organisation best known for its suicide bombings but which also runs social services, capitalised on widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo of economic, political and security instability to gain a stunning 76 seats out of the 132-member parliament." (Lynfield, Ben. "Shock result prompts calls to end policy of violence", The Scotsman, January 27, 2006.
  • "But the group is best known for its suicide bombing attacks." (Levitt, Matthew. Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, Yale University Press, 2006, ISBN 0300122586, p. 17.)
  • "Best known for its suicide attacks, Hamas has won over the Palestinian public in its first run for the legislature by focusing on domestic concerns, halting government corruption and restoring law and order to the chaotic West Bank and Gaza Strip." ("Israeli leaders brace for Hamas dominating Palestinian elections", Associated Press, January 22, 2006.)
  • "The armed faction, best known for sending suicide bombers to attack Israelis..." Verma, Sonia. ("Hamas win puts Mideast on edge", Newsday, January 27, 2006.
  • "And Hamas, infamous for suicide bombings and other attacks that killed more than 250 Israelis in recent years, rejected Abbas' appeal for peace with Israel, and threatened to continue its campaign of violence." (Tiebel, Amy. "Analysis: Tough Mideast Bargaining Ahead", Associated Press, November 27, 2007.)

That pretty much clinches it; best known or infamous for suicide bombings, as confirmed by over a dozen reliable sources. I'm restoring the wording per WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above, Jayjg, I'm not sure sourcing is generally the best way to choose specific phrasing. The problem is that the sentence reads like an editorial. The question about sourcing, I think, would be whether this should later be introduced as an additional point of its own, but using this kind of phrasing to introduce the idea doesn't come across as neutral. Mackan79 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not understanding your point. When over a dozen reliable sources, including highly respected historians, make this specific statement, why is it an "editorial" or not "neutral" to point this out? Over 64,000 Wikipedia articles use the phrase "best known"; why do we shrink from stating this obvious, cited, and informative fact about Hamas? Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure you've shown it to be the most common way to cover this issue. Even so, I think a comparison to other encyclopedias might make for the more useful analogy. I suspect on contentious or loaded issues like this, you would generally find something more straight forward and factual, leaving the superlatives to later in an article where they can be attributed. It actually sounds informal in this context, to be honest, which I think is partly why people are taking issue. Mackan79 (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Most western sources say "best known" so it should stay but for accuracy the sentence should be editted to read "In many countries Hamas is is best known for.......". Especially since there has been only one or two attacks in the last 3 years it needs the qualifier to avoid undue weight. I also suggest deleting the sources that say "infamous" instead of "best known" as they do not have the same definition and some would see their use as POV pushing. Wayne (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That would read as more descriptive, and would be an improvement. It still seems hard to know whether most Western sources describe the issue in this way, however; if I search books for references to Hamas and suicide bombings, I doubt the most common sentence will be that they are best known for this. I have no problem with adding this as a fact having to do with broad perception, as I said, but only with making it the introduction to say in effect that this is its primary feature. Some people will read it as straight forward, but I think many will also read it as editorializing. Mackan79 (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Wayne and Mackan, I appreciate your points and I would go on to say I suspect that you are correct; there are some parts of the world where Hamas is probably better known for something other than suicide bombings. Unfortunately, however true that may be, there are no sources to support it that I can see. If y'all can rustle some up, I'm sure we could work into the article the idea that not every every country in the world feels that Hamas is best known for bombings in some way, though it will probably end up as a fringe opinion, as the sources quoted above are pretty overwhelming. IronDuke 22:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There are several problems with the phrasing and the methodology being used to support it, some of which have been covered above -
  • Media sources which employ field journalists, fact-checkers and professional sub-editors, while in principle reliable for issues of fact or for reporting of quotes etc, are obviously less so for descriptive phrasings. Media outlets all have editorial stances, and individual journalists are of course prose writers, with their own opinions, as well as simply (supposed) recorders of facts and events. As a result journalists use adjectives and phrases, and suggest interpretations that shouldn't necessarily be simply carried across into a encyclopedia, even if they are used frequently. None of the articles above seem to involve a journalist reporting on an accredited poll of world opinion on the matter. Unfortunately this seems to happen quite a lot in Wikipedia - people seem to feel they have "proved" their own interpretation of an issue, or backed up their preferred phrasing, if they can find one or more journalists who have at some point used similar wording, however casually.
  • As noted above, these are all or mostly Western sources. And there are also 100s of Western sources and media reports which do not say Hamas "is best known" for suicide bombings, or indeed whether it is "best known" for anything in particular at all. Also I'm not sure we need to wait until we find non-Western sources which suggest Hamas is best known for something else before we qualify the statement; otherwise we're just extrapolating from several Western media articles and making assumptions about what the rest (and majority, as it happens) of the world thinks.
  • Also of course the context here is important. Most of the articles referred to are over a year old, and date back to the period around the Palestinian elections. What most of them are actually saying is that Hamas - which won political power in those elections - was "best known" for suicide bombings up until this point, ie they are saying that this is likely to change. Hence they don't actually support the assertion that's been put into the lead.
Saying that Hamas "was best known in the West and Israel for the suicide bombings carried out in Israel by its military wing" would probably be a fairer summary of the sources brought forward so far. And even that's pushing it. --Nickhh (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Despite the fact that these are mostly Western sources (that's what you usually find in English), it could hardly be said that these sources are in any way "anti-Palestinian". The fact that other sources do not specifically state what Hamas is best known for does not imply they disagree with the statement. And note, included among the sources are two books published by respected presses. The wording you have suggested is original research, which attempts to have the sources say what you think they should have said. Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You're calling it original research to say that Hamas is responsible for suicide bombings? I find it hard to believe, but even apart from this article I'm concerned this general approach is hurting WP:ENCYC. Mackan79 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It's original research when the actual sources say Best known for or Infamous for, and you change that explicit wording to something else. Regarding comparisons to other encyclopedias, Wikipedia has about a million articles that wouldn't be found in other encyclopedias, and I'm concerned that leaving out this simple fact (and well-sourced) fact about Hamas will be hurting WP:NPOV. NPOV is policy, by the way, unlike ENCYC, which is an essay. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't believe that's a correct understanding of WP:OR, unless you can point to the part that says we should directly copy from the sources that we choose. I don't disagree with the rest, but would suggest that a neutral introduction should describe Hamas' basic features before getting into public perception. Mackan79 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that's begging the question. According to the sources, suicide bombings are a basic feature of Hamas. IronDuke 13:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, I don't recall ever suggesting that English language sources wouldn't be mostly Western (although lots of non-Westerners do speak and write in English of course, they're good like that) or that any of the sources you have selected to back up your preferred phraseology were "anti-Palestinian". I'm not objecting to the "best known" phrasing due to any NPOV issues, I'm simply saying it's inaccurate and a pretty lazy assumption, based on no hard evidence whatsoever. For example, as I've already asked, what poll of world opinion have these journalists cited to back up their use of the phrase? And in any event, if we are going to go down the road of copy-pasting casual phrases from journalists and authors into Wikipedia leads as if they were uncontested fact, perhaps we should a) read the sources properly; and b) check to see if there are other sources that say something different. On point a) for example, the Guardian leader you cited specifically says "until now" Hamas "was" best known for suicide bombings (ie the direct opposite of the present tense phrasing you prefer); the PBS cite refers to "the outside world"; the ABC cite says "best known abroad" etc etc. On point b), see this, which qualifies with "in Israel"; or this, which claims it is better known for other things among Palestinians. It's not me conducting original research here and getting the sources to say more than they actually say. --Nickhh (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Nick, most of the sources used are from the 2004 on, they're hardly ancient. Two significantly post-date the elections, and although some qualify the term as "in the West" or "outside Israel", others do not. Perhaps it would be best just to use the term "infamous", which is true regardless of the time frame, and requires no qualifiers. Here's another source that uses the term: "Infamous for its reliance on suicide bombers in the Palestinian struggle for independence from Israel, Hamas continued to play an important role on the extreme right wing of Palestinian politics well into the twenty-first century." (Delanty, Gerard, and Krishan, Kumar. The Sage Handbook of Nations and Nationalism, Sage Publications Inc, 2006, ISBN 1412901014, p. 185.)Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Nick, with respect, you are falling into a trap many smart people fall into on WP, which is questioning whether the sources have done all they might to back up their assertions. The fact is, we don't and can't know, and it's not up to us to judge: if the sources meet WP:RS, then we cite what they say. We can't engage them intellectually, we can only use them or not use them. IronDuke 02:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:Reliable sources is a baseline, ID, but it doesn't resolve what should go in a lead paragraph, or how specific material should be used. I think both of Nick's points are important, in regard to where and when Hamas was best known for this; I would be very surprised if as many sources continue to say this, for instance, after its election victories. Among other things, increased prominence in this way means it's no longer necessary to start off by announcing what the group is known for.
For that matter, I think the entire lead actually leaves a fair amount to be desired in terms of giving people quick information on Hamas. The second paragraph already jumps into broad summaries, that probably should come toward the end of the lead where people will tend to look for these. Reorganizing the lead might be a more useful path toward improvement. Mackan79 (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Mackan79, to be honest, it has been extremely difficult to get simple facts into the lead of this article - every time one tries, they are reverted and then weighed down with a huge amount of "counter-views" that are, frankly, not at all suitable. For example, it's quite jarring that the second sentence of the article says In January 2006, Hamas was elected as the parliament of the Palestinian Authority. That's something that should go near the end of an introduction, not the beginning, once we've explained a little about what Hamas is, but some people feel its important to put all the "good stuff" first. For that matter, you can't imagine how difficult it has been to get the lead to note that Hamas's purpose is the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic State. In the end we were forced to move the information down, and say only that its charter calls for the destruction of Israel, because of all the mind-boggling apologetics about Hamas not really meaning what it said, and really just wanting to have a peaceful separate Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza. By contrast, Britannica has no trouble getting to the point, in its first sentence: "Hamas: militant Palestinian Islamic movement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state in Palestine."[1] There you go, straightforward, maximally informative, right to the point. The second sentence is quite straightforward too: Founded in 1987, Hamas opposed the 1993 peace accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Now try to get anything resembling that into the first sentences of this article. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the informative response. I don't mind the information as included; my problem was just with starting the sentence "Best known for," which for me suggests a sort of primer for a group that the reader is expected not to have heard of. I'd accept most other formulations to get rid of this, though I do think it tends to make sense to provide information on what the organization is before getting to what it is notorious for. Of course the notoriety, and its basis, is also very important for the reader. Mackan79 (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset) Well to be honest it's hardly a key issue for this article, and I - and others - have probably gone a little overboard on arguing the point as a matter of principle. However it was one of those phrases that jumps out at a casual reader; and when you then examine the supposed "rock solid" sourcing behind it you find that in fact all editors have done is trawl the online media and a couple of academic books, and picked up a very casual piece of phrasing which happens to appear in some of them (and which is contradicted or qualified in many others, as Jayjg acknowledges). I notice this kind of cherry-picking a lot here, and it's always excused by the simple "it was in an RS, so that's the end of the matter". Well fine, but as I've pointed out, very different statements are being made in equally valid sources - so where does that leave us? Wikipedia would be a very odd place if we extracted and inserted every assertion, comment and phrase that's written in a newspaper into the lead of articles and claimed them as incontrovertible fact. Not least because half the time they're going to contradict each other. --Nickhh (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Nick, it's not "contradicted" in any, and it's qualified in a minority. Most of the sources do not qualify it in any way. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see where the problem with the sourcing lies; are the academic sources bad? The well-respected news outlets? You write "Wikipedia would be a very odd place if we extracted and inserted every assertion, comment and phrase that's written in a newspaper into the lead of articles and claimed them as incontrovertible fact." But no one is suggesting we do this. IronDuke 12:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's enough reason for someone to slap a "worldwide view" tag on, if only sources external to the area where Hamas is best-known are used. Relata refero (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so at all. Unless you can demonstrate that a large portion of the world knows Hamas for something other than suicide bombings, which I think is likely not true--you'd have your work cut out for you to match the sources above. We don't "slap tags" on things just because we think maybe someday, maybe somewhere, a source will come along and justify it. IronDuke 12:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. All I have to demonstrate is that Hamas is better known in area X than area Y, yet almost all our quotes are from area Y, not area X; and bring one source to the table about the difference in perceptions in X and Y. That's all. See WP:BIAS. Relata refero (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Not at all the case. Hamas, for example, is most probably best known in the PA, but that doesn't mean Palestinians have to know it best for suicide bombings in order for the above quotes to be the commanding ones. The quotes we have are referencing a... worldwide... view. That's what "best known," in a general sense means. Not "best to known to every person in all places throughout the universe." You are setting the bar extraordinarily high for something already very well-sourced, and quite low for the contrary view. IronDuke 00:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, never mind. If you haven't noticed yet - quite apart from any debates about such a generous reading of WP:RS - that only 8 of the 16 sources cited above actually say "Hamas is best known for suicide bombings [no qualification as to where]" you're not going to anytime soon. The issue and the wording here really aren't that important, but you might have thought more generally that accurate reading of sources was. --Nickhh (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. If you don't feel you can respond to the substance of my points, you certainly are not obliged to. And since you don't think it important, you can always bow out if the discussion is frustrating you. IronDuke 00:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Nick, you seem to have left out the 5 sources that said it was infamous for suicide attacks. As I said before, I'm fine with changing the wording to "infamous". Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Infamous is a little sweeping, isn't it? I don't think a serious encyclopedia would use such a word. How about "notorious," would you accept that? <eleland/talkedits> 02:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, the sources don't use "notorious"; they use "best known for" and "infamous". Infamous is also likely the most accurate term of the three. And, for example, The Sage Handbook of Nations and Nationalism uses the term "infamous", and it seems like a reasonably serious source. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

May I suggest that most recent edits on this article have amounted to edit warring that does little to move the article forward. It would be a lot more productive to put in some work here on the talk page to see if you can find some consensus wordings for some of these matters, and don't worry if for a day or two the article says something you think is shaded incorrectly. - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Christians in Gaza

There are numerous news reports of Christians fleeing Gaza after the Hamas takeover. I have cited several of them in my edit of the sentence that states that "Although it should be noted that a sizable minority of Palestinians are Christian and live in peace with their Hamas neighbors." (this is also a phrase and not a sentence). Given that Hamas insists on Sharia law, in which case all infidels either are eliminated, or tolerated if they pay the Jizya tax, this should not be a surprising development. Drmikeh49 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources you gave don't support that interpretation. I quote from the sources: "We are not afraid of Hamas because as a government they are responsible for protecting people...We are afraid of those who are more extreme than Hamas" and "many Christians, frightened of the new extremist groups and desperate to escape the worsening economic situation in the Gaza Strip, are seeking to emigrate". As it is not Hamas or Sharia law forcing them out and the "worsening economic situation" is a result of the sanctions, the sentence is not relevant. Wayne (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
There are many sources which describe the tension and terror gaza chrstian population is under: [2],[3], [4], [5],[6],[7], [8],[9], [10] " Still, a number of Gaza's 3,000 Christians have privately expressed concern about Hamas' intentions."... We should not forget that Gaza is not aplace where people are free to talk to the press on any subject (unless they want to blame Israel) Zeq (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This is nonsense. Hamas won the election by specifically campaigning on NOT instituting an Islamic state with Sharia law. The violence against Christians in Gaza has been conducted by criminal gangs, not by Hamas. Nobody, not even the Washington Times (which has a record of making false claims about Christians being persecuted by the Palestinian government and is run by an evangelical cult), have said that Hamas is persecuting Christians and instituting Islamic law. You guys who get your information from hack polemicists and forum postings on Free Republic should lay off the Wikipedia editing. <eleland/talkedits> 23:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I only had the patience to look through half of those links and only one (the JP article) associated Hamas directly as a source of tension (and that was by reporting a claim from another group). I'm assuming they are representative of the second half of the links. If so, then they fail miserably to prove the argument that Hamas is responsible for the violence perpetrated upon these Christians. Maybe the argument you're trying to make is that Hamas allows this violence to occur or that the current state of affiars is the responsibility of Hamas (ie taking control of Gaza) and any violence which occurs due to these circumstances is also their responsibility. Delad (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, that IS the argument. I never stated that the Hamas themselves perpetrated the violence. However, if Christians and Moslems did live in peace for centuries in Gaza, as the previous version indicated (and I am not challenging that statement)and the circumstances changed since the coup in which Hamas took power, the reader can draw his/her own inferences about what a Hamas-led state would be like. Note that I did not include my own opinion in the talk paragraph above in my edit. Eleland's statement about why Hamas won the election is both irrelevant and unsubstantiated. If violence against Palestinians in the West Bank committed by extremist Israeli settlers is the responsibility of the Israeli Government, then violence against Gaza Christians by Islamic extremists in Gaza is the responsibility of the governing power in Gaza--Hamas. Hence I have re-placed the sentence; if you want to revert it again, provide a better reason than the ones given above. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmikeh49 (talk \u2022 contribs) 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
also moved that sentence to a more relevant location--directly after the quote describing how Hamas believes that Moslems Christians and Jews will also coexist peacefully in a Hamas state. The fact of the Christian exodus is extremely relevant in the context of that quote. \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmikeh49 (talk \u2022 contribs) 18:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
as requested on the page, will those who keep reverting my edit please have the courtesy to discuss the rationale on this page? Tarc claimed that "this was not the place for original research or synthesis of unrelated information"; does anyone else believe that the status of Christians in Gaza is unrelated to the beliefs, philosophy and goals of Hamas vis-a-vis the Jewish population of Israel? Drmikeh49 (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not relevant as they are largely economic refugees. The economic problems are outside Hamas control. Israeli settlers are the responsibility of the Israeli Government because they are "supposedly" law abiding citizens but it is wrong to assume Hamas is responsible for a criminal group any more than Israel is responsible for the so called "Israeli mafia". Wayne (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The statement "they are largely economic refugees" is contradicted by the references that I cited. The same statement has been made about many fleeing political persecution in Latin America. Supposedly the extremist Moslem groups that committed those acts were otherwise "law-abiding citizens" as well, (as were the KKK in the American South). "I expect our Christian neighbors to understand the new Hamas rule means real changes. They must be ready for Islamic rule if they want to live in peace in Gaza," said Sheik Abu Saqer, leader of Jihadia Salafiya, an Islamic outreach movement that recently announced the opening of a "military wing" to enforce Muslim law in Gaza. Jihadia Salafiya is suspected of attacking a United Nations school in Gaza last month, after the school allowed boys and girls to participate in the same sporting event. One person was killed in that attack.http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3414753,00.html. So-- if I wanted to place information about the status of the Christian population in Gaza, how would you suggest wording it-- separate paragraph entirely? I am open to advice. Drmikeh49 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a reprint of an article from WorldNetDaily, a far-right conservative news website. The author, Aaron Klein, is an unsavory type who hangs out with Kahanist settlers and pushes swift-boat style smear campaigns against US Democrats. And if you read down to the bottom, you get a much more plausible explanation (since the criminal gangs in Gaza were all linked with Fatah) - they were just criminals who vandalized the church during a robbery in order to embarrass Hamas. In any case, this is an article about Hamas, not about the social situation in Gaza. We shouldn't be including sources that have little or no actual coverage of Hamas. <eleland/talkedits> 16:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am at a loss what your argument is (except WorldNetdaily bashing) . can you clarify if your argument is one of those two:
  1. Chrstians in Gaza are doing great
  2. Chrstians in gaza are suffesring but Hamas is not responsible for the security situation in Gaza

btw, The issue of "muslim law" or not is not the issue here. Hamas campaigned on creating a secure streets in Gaza and indeed it now has total control - even on the criminal gangs. Since Hamas took over the attcaks on chrstians have intensefied greatly. The sources are very clear on that. Zeq (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the topic was already opened by a previous editor's inclusion of this passage "He also "didn't rule out the possibility of having Jews, Muslims and Christians living under the sovereignty of an Islamic state, adding that the Palestinians never hated the Jews and that only the Israeli occupation was their enemy".[56] Therefore, I propose that we remove that quote from the article as well. And Eleland, are you implying that Israeli media have "little or no coverage of Hamas"? Drmikeh49 (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Why, is there an NPOV issue ? if so find the sources that describe the state of Chrstians in Gaza after hamas came to power on Jan 2006 or the take over at June 2007 and include info based on these sources. see links above. Just do a good job of writing in a bbalanced way according to wikipedia policies. Zeq (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Best known

I wanted to try moving the lead around to avoid the POV issue, but thought it would be best to propose it here first:

Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada. The organization has been widely involved in Palestinian politics and social services, but has become best known for multiple suicide bombings and other attacks[1] directed against civilians and Israeli military and security forces targets. Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in effect) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[2] The organization is widely described as antisemitic.[3]

I'm taking my lead here from the formulation of CFR.org;[11] the idea is to make the same point while attempting to raise less flags. Mackan79 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"We will knock on the doors of Heaven with the skulls of the Jews"

I have frequently heard this line -- "We will knock on the doors of Heaven with the skulls of the Jews" -- as having something to do with the Hamas' charter or anthem. Does anyone know the full English text of both of these? Frotz (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems not to be a part of the charter, but of the folklore, as it were:

--Avi (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Another fascinating study in I/P propaganda. Here's what happened: according to a report from some "media monitoring" site, which was then picked up by the Forward, the website palestineinfo.com (?) which is apparently affiliated with Hamas ran an anti-Sharon cartoon with the caption reading "We will use Jewish skulls to build a bridge to Heaven". (A slightly different version is visible in this book preview.) This was then printed out in the Territories and passed around by word of mouth, as it were, till one of their suicide bombers death videos featured it, only slightly changed. This revised version had two things going for it: the bomber in question was Hamas' first woman, and it translated to "we will knock on the doors of Heaven with the skulls of the Jews", which has better metre. Because of this, it seems to have been picked up in its revised form by several different websites, and attributed variously to a sermon by Sheikh Yassin, a wall in East Jerusalem, Arafat, a letter to the editor of a campus newspaper, and, apparently, their Covenant.
There, that's quite an interesting story. By our apparent standards in this area, practically enough for an article. --Relata refero (disp.) 03:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Folklore 101 :/ . Regardless, it does not seem to be official Hamas doctrine, but it is espoused by many members and supporters of Hamas. -- Avi (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Charter "no longer enforced"?

An editor has added to the lead the claim that the Hamas charter is "no longer enforced" based on these two sources:

To begin with, these sources (in particular the second) are hardly official pronouncements of Hamas policy. Even worse, as should probably be obvious, neither source even mentions the Hamas Charter, much less claiming it is "no longer enforced". I refer editors to WP:SYNTH:

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

If there is a reliable source out there that explicitly states that the Hamas charter is "no longer enforced", please bring it forward. Jayjg (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also important to keep in mind that hamas speaks in more than one voice. They have ouitside leadership (Mash'al in Syria), they have a prime minister in gaza who is not fully in control, they have military leadership in gaza and several more. Even the same group may say different things on different days but all together none of them has ever denounced the charter. In fact they continue to work the long term goal of erudicating any Jewish rule on what they see as mulsim wakf of Palestine. During this long process Hudnas (until such timeas hamas think they are mire noumerous or stronger) are possible. Zeq (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an interesting point. Here's a member of the PA assembly saying the charter is considered outdated. (For those who remember Arafat and the fuss about the PLO's charter being outdated in the mid-80s, this is all eerily similar.) A summer 2007 statement that the charter "wasn't the Koran" was widely quoted, and formed the basis of a cover story on changes in Hamas in the New Statesman, IIRC. The ]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1137605900679 JPost says] those Artful Villains are "blurring" the extremist bits of the charter, though of course its all conniving doubletalk. And of course there was the 2006 Jpost report that the charter was being rewritten to take the Protocols out, though I presume that that has stalled because of the Rigors of Government.
There are a ton of other sources that claim the Charter is generally irrelevant, but I can't find any major academic ones. There is an Oxford MPhil thesis online, though I can't seem to find the link now, that has as its central argument the fact that the focus on the charter in Western sources matches a disconnect between rhetoric and reality, but until that argument is made in more places, it doesn't deserve to be in the lead. (Though it would be nice if it could be fit into the article somewhere.) --Relata refero (disp.) 08:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a hamas founding charter. If they want to change it surly they know how to do it. On such charter there is not any issue of "enforcment" it is what define Hamas - how they define themself. If they change it we will refelct this in the article. Zeq (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It is dishonest, a violation of WP:BLP and POV to state the Charter is still in force when over the past few years so many HAMAS spokespeople have stated objectives that are contrary to it. Most recently and comprehensively I watched a series of interviews on 60 minutes where it was claimed by Hamas that the Charters core belief of resistance to occupation is still valid and the only significant change is that HAMAS will now accept an Israeli State but this article actually emphasized that this was the main part enforced. It was implied that the charter has not been updated because of resistance by the Palestinian public most affected by the Israeli reprisals. Whatever "double talk" HAMAS normally does doesn't change the fact that they are likely to now actually be willing to accept an Israeli state. Probably it would be more accurate to say "no longer enforced in it's entirety" but then we would need to detail exactly which parts are and are not which is too difficult due to ambiguity. therefor "no longer enforced" is the best way to write it atm. Wayne (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Wayne, I think my statement was clear enough. If there is a reliable source out there that explicitly states that the Hamas charter is "no longer enforced", please bring it forward. Until then, please review WP:SYNTH. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Wayne, don't accuse other people in "dishonesty" this is a violation of WP:AGF. I trust your good faith but I can not understand how someone who decalre himself as jain (a peace loving religion) can be so out of touch with what the hamas represent. Hamas wants an Islamic Khalifate over all the middle east. in the mean time they are willing for many "hudna" or other arrengments. This does not imply any acceptence of israel's right to exist as a homeland of the Jewish people. Zeq (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
They were always willing to accept "an israeli state" their problem is with a Jewish rule over parts of what they call "wakf of palestine". They don't care that Palestine will be called israel as long as muslims are the majority .... Zeq (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I never accused editors of being dishonest as many still believe the claim, it is the claim itself. Jayjg asks for a RS that the Charter is no longer enforced but I say show me a RS that it is. There are many RS that report actions and claims that are contrary to the Charter and I have previously provided a RS that states the Charter is not policy so it is clear it is not entirely enforced. If this is Synth then claiming it is still in effect is also Synth. I am fully aware of what HAMAS represents but being a Jain means this is irrelevant and I can not allow the evil they do to influence how they are described. I am obligated to see the good they do as much as the bad. Wayne (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you asking for a source saying this is the Hamas charter ? check out the verb "is" - this is present tense so no need to provide you with more "sources". The Charter is hamas charter, this is how it was founded and there was never a change to that charter. Zeq (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Wayne, you're the one who wants to insert unsourced arguments into the article, not me. The current version of the lead is quite well sourced, but I'm happy to add more if you want. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that "no longer enforced" should be in the lead, as there is insufficient sourcing for that. Perhaps if Wayne could be shown reliable sources indicating why the Charter itself is in the lead, he will be satisfied. --Relata refero (disp.) 01:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There are three there already. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but none of them indicates that the Charter is central to Hamas' notability. No other organisations that I looked at had their equivalent document name-checked in the lead. Not even the UN. So we must have a reference telling us that its important, right? Not just references mentioning it? --Relata refero (disp.) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This might give some indication of its importance. This too. It's not every organization whose charter quotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact, and contains quotations about killing Jews. Only one that I can think of. Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course, its noteworthy for that very reason. But can we have a reference saying that it is relatively central to Hamas' notability or to impressions of Hamas? That will satisfy all those in the future who don't want it in the lead? Naturally, merely the number of gbook hits doesn't help... --Relata refero (disp.) 05:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You're asking for a standard for the lead that I don't find in other articles, or, indeed, in this one. Can you prove that the 2006 election win is central to Hamas's notability? How about its "hospitals, education systems, libraries and social services"? Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
And, as I've pointed out before, the very first sentence of the Britannica article on Hamas mentions this fact, and doesn't even mince words: "Hamas: militant Palestinian Islamic movement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state in Palestine."[12] Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Then why attribute it to the charter? That line sounds better, the charter's a red herring. Just summarise the "beliefs" sections (should that be "aims"?) without mentioning the charter. --Relata refero (disp.) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the irony; it's quite obvious that Hamas's goal is the destruction of Israel, but that statement is the kind of things that brings up all sorts of editors trying to whitewash the organization, insisting that they don't really intend to destroy it. Thus, referring to the Charter calling for Israel's destruction was seen as a way of appeasing those apologists, by pointing to a more neutral and less controversial fact. Of course, I don't think anyone expected someone to insist, based purely on his personal opinions, that the Charter was no longer enforced. Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, that is unfortunate. Still, at least we have reasonable references for saying that destruction of Israel is central to Hamas' notability, and so deserves to be in the lead. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Couple more sources to consider: [13],[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48676],[14], [15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21] --Zeq (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Hamas Charter, adopted in 1988 and still very much in effect, defines the land of Palestine as "an Islamic Waqf" (trust territory) consecrated for future Muslim generations. It adds: "Until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it" (Article 11).

The Charter's preface states "Israel will arise and will remain existent only until Islam eliminates it as it has eliminated its predecessors." Furthermore, it defines the enemy explicitly as an ethnic-religious group - the Jewish people. Hamas officials continue in their refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist.

--Zeq (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of all those sources you quoted only ONE is a RS for the claim you are making and even that is ambiguous in that it says HAMAS is divided on the issue and suggests the hard line support for the Charter will lose to the moderates. All the other sources are either decades old or are statements by Jewish organisations/sources.
The Britanica article is incorrect when it says "dedicated to the destruction of Israel" as Hamas statements over the last few years sometimes contradict this. Why is it so hard to accept the first positive thing HAMAS have ever said on the topic? Take a minute to sit back and read what you are writing and ask yourself....how would you view editors writing about Israel that way? Wayne (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(The connection between Jain religion and Hamas still cracks me up) anyhow: You still think that if you are asked to provid a source for your claim that the charter is "no longer enforced" there is a need to find a source that say exactly the opposite. I have explained to you and will do it again (for the last time). The text in the article describe what the Hamas charter is . This text is properly sourced as there are many sources on that charter. This is the end of discussion about sources to describe the charter. Now if you want to present updates on the issueof if the charter is enforced or not - you are welcome to find sources claiming one or both sides of that argument and include them in the article. Zeq (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Zeq, when you say things like "this is the end of the discussion", it only serves to pique my interest in something about which I don't actually give a damn. Which is an achievement, as words cannot express how tiresome I find this wrangling.
To point out something you appear to miss: the charter is certainly sourced. It is certainly still in effect de jure, as it has not been superceded in any way. A mention about the various attempts to do so, however, would not be ruled out by WP:UNDUE.
Whether it belongs in the lead is another matter. I note my sensible idea, in line with WP:LEAD, of summarising the "beliefs" section - and, in fact - reworking it into an "aims" section, per the standard for such organisations - has been summarily ignored by all, presumably as it is too sensible.
Wayne, please note that if some reliable sources say one thing and others say another, the most you can hope for is a note that sources are divided. It is unsurprising that the sources are divided, as Hamas, (like Jeremiah Wright?) is quite capable of speaking in two levels, rhetoric and reality. For a useful reading list dividing the sources into "pragmatic" Hamas and "ideological" Hamas, try this link, which gives you some idea of what an encyclopaedic rundown should actually look like. Presuming, always, that people actually are interested in representing what the sources say and not find sources that represent what they want to say. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If there are sources I don't mind Wayne will use them. Please let him present sources, (from both sides since Hamas is not only a terrorists organization but also a charity - so it is normal than they speak in more than one voice) . We should maybe explore more what does Hudna really mean etc... see discussion below of what Hamas core views are and the fact that those views are unchanged since the time Hamas was founded. Zeq (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Why is it so hard to accept the first positive thing HAMAS have ever said on the topic?"

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia but I will answer WLRoss: You really have no idea what does Hamas mean in what they say. If you just look for postive I will share your positive thinking and tell you this: You do have to listen since Hamas is honest and say exactly what they mean. When they don't mean something they don't say it. have you heard their wilingness to live side by side to israel as a Jewish state ? They don't. They don't mind waiting even 20 or 50 years but their goal is to control all the land they call palestine as an "islamic Waqf". Their understanding of the Koran does not allow them to give up any part of that land to be controlled by anyone who is not muslim. Do you know that a muslim that sell land to Jew is exceuted ? It is really nice you have nobel Jain ideas and I am sure that if you want to come up with a jain interpretation to the Koran it will be a best seller in Gaza. (woops, they burn libreries there since they carry the bible so maybe try again in few years....) Zeq (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, NOTFORUM. I've recently suggested redacting all talkpage posts that don't specifically talk about changes to article content, defined narrowly. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In 2nd though it is highly relevant. Please see this is as my understanding of the situation. We can not off couse use it but I am sure that if we better understand we can know how to find and present the sources that do speak about it. So I offer this as clarification for Wayne. Zeq (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Where do you get your information? Mashaal has several times stated HAMAS will accept an Israeli state within the 1967 borders. What has "a muslim that sell land to Jew is exceuted" to do with it? I'm sure i can find similar discrimnatory Israeli laws to justify HAMAS but I don't throw them around as the core issue is reality not what you think is the situation. I'd also like to know why you make fun of my religion. What exactly "cracks you up" about it? Wayne (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Wayne, is this an argument or you seriously want to understand the middle east ? I'll assume good faith and explain: Mashal' speaks in English and in Arabic. When he speaks in English he speaks to the west. What he say is as important as what he does not say. Hamas has Yassin "prophesy" that in 20 years they will concur all of Israel. hamas can wait they have time on their side. They are willing for Hudna now in 67 borders and will wait 20 or 50 years until they are stronger. They also want "refugees" to return into Israel so that they will help become a Palestinian majority inside Israel. So if Hamas really willing to accept israeli/Jewish rule on part of palestine they can say so, in English and in Arabic. Please try to find such source. In fact their charter specifically fobeeds them from giving up even part of the islamic Waqf of Palestine.. I hope you understand if not I think this is enough as I am not trying to convince you. You can think what ever the sources you find tell you. best, Zeq (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that we can't use "what he doesn't say" in the article. That HAMAS will reinstate the charter in "20 or 50 years" is OR. That the Charter has the same weight to HAMAS as the Quran is OR.

Hamas accepts the existence of the state of Israel but will not officially recognize it until the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, according to Khaled Meshal, a Hamas leader in Damascus.
In comments to reporters, Meshal softened his anti-Israel rhetoric, suggesting that Hamas does not seek the destruction of Israel as written in its charter.
He said that Israel is a "reality" and "there will remain a state called Israel -- this is a matter of fact."
"The problem is not that there is an entity called Israel. The problem is that the Palestinian state is non-existent," he said.
Ahmed Yusuf, an adviser to Haniya, said that Hamas recognized Israel's de facto existence but was not going to recognize it officially.
"Israel is there, it is part of the United Nations and we do not deny its existence. But we still have rights and land there which have been usurped and until these matters are dealt with we will withhold our recognition," he said.
Meshal's comments (show) little substantial divergence from other Hamas statements.
The Guardian, Friday, Jan 11, 2007

Wayne (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather unsurprisingly, various Hamas members say all sorts of things, depending on the audience:

"Underlying that theme, [Hamas leader] Zahar promised that Hamas 'will not change a single word in its covenant,' which calls for the destruction of Israel." Levitt, Matthew. Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, Yale University Press, 2006, ISBN 0300122586, p. 248.

In any event, do you have any reliable sources saying the Charter is no longer enforced? Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any that say it is? I have provided several so far that indicate it is not although none specifically say the words "it is not enforced" which is apparantly the exact wording you want. You can't just keep saying Arabs lie so you can't believe them when they say things contrary to the Charter. Wayne (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wayne, can we cut this endless fruitless debate ? No one need to show that a "charter is enforced" . I am not sure even what it means to "enforce a charter". The charter is the founding charter of hamas. Key verb here was explained to you again and again is the verb "is". This is the Hamas charter and this is what the wikipeia article say based on sources. end of story unless you find good sources that say anything else on the charter. So far, you have not found any good sources that say Hamas have ammeded the charter. To the contray, there was some talk about it but none has come to frution and you surly know why: The charter is based on the Koran and as such no muslim scholar can change it. Zeq (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wayne, you've made a claim, no-one on the page else supports your claim, nor do any of your sources. Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Charter, pt 3

OK, I've been lurking in this discussion, and I basically agree with Jayjg et al; we can't go drawing our own conclusions about whether Hamas's charter is "enforced," whatever that means, because it's original research and it's not neutral.

However, this article devotes disproportionate weight to the charter (which it calls "the covenant," a nonstandard but oh-so-useful translation,) and vastly downplays basically everything Hamas has said since 2004. It seems determined to portray Hamas as a crazy religious cult rather than a nationalist political party. Every statement regarding Hamas' peace proposals is immediately followed by some random interjection about jihad and awqaf. It's amateur theologizing unbecoming an encyclopedia, and it's something we would never do to an Israeli party, no matter how beholden to religiosity and extremism.

Yeah, "pro-Israelis" like to claim that Hamas doesn't mean anything they say, except for the parts that justify refusing to negotiate with them. We get it. It's appropriate to describe and attribute that view in the text. It's not appropriate to push that view into every other sentence in the article in a manner which drowns out all other views. <eleland/talkedits> 13:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of other "nationalist political parties" whose charter opens with a discussion of "our struggle against the Jews", cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as factual, and "aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise" that "the Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight 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."? Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, referring to the charter as something no longer enforced is every bit as much OR, unless you source it. I can't find any Hamas officials making any statements regarding such changes. TerminusEst (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll be glad that we treat all wikiepdia articles the same way. allegations of Israeli apartheid is also an article that give undue wieight to facts I see as meanigless or near meanigless. In any case the founding charter of hamas - especially since attempts to change it have so far failed (see sources above) is clearly an important document to anyone wishing to read an encyclopedia article about this organization. Zeq (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Source to consider

[22] Zeq (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[23] Zeq (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: Why is there no mention of external leadership, specifically Damascus, Syria? JaakobouChalk Talk 09:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Those sources are quite useless for this article; Zeq has a habit of posting irrelevant links to videos and the like into talk pages in this manner as "sources to consider." Well, I'm "considering" reverting all of them as spam. Jaakobou's question is much more relevant and identifies a very obvious shortcoming in this article - it contains essentially nothing about Hamas' internal politics, structure and organization, or relationships with other Palestinian / Arab groups. <eleland/talkedits> 02:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Meir Litvak and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

I have removed the quote from Meir Litvak's interview published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. According to the center's own Wikipedia entry (emphasis added):

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) was founded in 1976 by Professor Daniel J. Elazar, as "an independent, non-profit institute for policy research and education serving Israel and the Jewish people." It has produced hundreds of studies by leading researchers on a variety of topics about and/or relevant to Jews and Israel. It's focus is \u201cthe main issues affecting Israel's security and international standing in order to wage the war of ideas in global opinion.\u201d JCPA maintains it has "developed and implemented an array of cutting-edge programs to present Israel's case to the world."

This pretty-much disqualifies it as a reliable source. If the sentiment quoted from the article is indeed a broad opinion, then better sources should be available.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.04.2008 12:22

Agreed, good catch. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how appropriate that is. JCPA is certainly a hasbara organization representing the Israeli political right, but at the same time, it is scholarly. If Wall Street Journal editorials are considered reliable sources then JCPA should be, as well, at least for the purpose of giving a partisan opinion from one side of the debate. 99.250.52.219 (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, they're entitled to an opinion, but how reliable is their opinion on the feelings and motivations of an enemy of Israel? How reliable would you consider Hamas' or the PLO's (or even Electronic Intifada's) opinions regarding the motivations behind Israel's actions to be?
Again, if their opinion is wide-spread, there will be better sources out there. If not, then this is WP:UNDUE and/or exceptional claims requiring exceptional sources.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.04.2008 14:36
Well, if you exclude JCPA then the Journal of Palestine Studies will be next. And I would support the use of an official PLO statement or an Electronic Intifada article to comment on the motivation behind an Israeli action, yes. Wiki-link the JCPA in the inline citation, serious attentive readers will either know already what their biases are, or they will click the link and discover it exists to "serve Israel and the Jewish people" in the "war of ideas" to "present Israel's case to the world."
This article is of course terrible, and tells us virtually nothing about Hamas's internal politics, history, relations with other Palestinian groups, or really anything relevant. It is a blatant coat-rack upon which to hang various cherry-picked embarrassing quotations and virtually unreadable laundry lists of incidences of Jew-bashing and blowing shit up. I just think you folks have picked an odd place to start improving it. 69.159.87.67 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"a charge the organisation itself rejects."

A claim has been made that Hamas rejects the charge of antisemitism, based on this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/31/comment.israelandthepalestinians I've looked through the article, but don't see the word "antisemitic" or "antisemitism" in it at all. Have I missed something? Jayjg (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The passage in question is

Our message to the Israelis is this: we do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us - our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.

This is the same passage quoted in the Antisemitism section. Please self-revert.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 08.05.2008 06:04
I see; so based on this individual's statement you are advancing the argument that Hamas rejects the charge of antisemitism? Please find a source in which they actually directly reject that charge. Jayjg (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I see; so based on all those quotes you mined you are advancing the argument that Hamas is "widely described as antisemitic"? Please find a source which actually directly makes this claim, i.e. that Hamas is "widely described" as anything. Cuts both ways. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 08.05.2008 12:10
Well, actually it was you who claimed that "widely described" was original research, while simultaneously inserting claims about Hamas and antisemitism from sources that nowhere mention antisemitism. In any event, many sources are provided, and many more are available - but the sources themselves just say that Hamas is antisemitic. We should probably remove the "widely described" qualifier, and describe Hamas simply as "antisemitic", as they do. Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hoo boy. Jay is now apparently claiming that accurate summarizing and paraphrasing one source is actually WP:SYNTHezing multiple sources in order to advance a position which is not supported by the sources individually. This is a new low. <eleland/talkedits> 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NOR#Reliable_sources states quite clearly "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research; see below." The bolded text is right in the policy, and the "below" links to WP:SYN. Now, does the source directly and explicitly say that Hamas rejects the charge of antisemitism? That would be a neat trick, I would think, for a source that doesn't even mention antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've adjusted the text according to the comments and concessions here. Everybody happy? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 09.05.2008 06:12

No you haven't, you've POVd it in a way that is unsupported by the discussion here. You may be able to get away with this kind of misrepresentation on the Lieberman article when you are dealing with Jaakobou, but rest assured, I will not accept it. You have 10 reliable sources stating it Hamas antisemitic, so you find one source from one Hamas members that is related to the topic only by your original research, then insert it first to construct an argument against all those reliable sources that say Hamas is antisemitic. This kind of policy violation is completely unacceptable. I have removed the word "widely", in recognition of your objections, though its inclusion is entirely justified by the source. And "best known" and "infamous" mean the same thing in this instance, please stop removing reliable sources on entirely spurious grounds. Jayjg (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
(EC) User:Jayjg, now you've got several issues going...
  • "infamous" and "best known" mean the same thing? Here's the Oxford English Dictionary's complete definition (without quotes):

    infamous, a.: 1. Of ill fame or repute; famed or notorious for badness of any kind; notoriously evil, wicked, or vile; held in infamy or public disgrace. a. of persons, their attributes, etc. b. of things. 2. Deserving of infamy; of shameful badness, vileness, or abominableness; of a character or quality deserving utter reprobation. (One of the strongest adjectives of detestation.) a. of persons, etc. b. of things. 3. Law. Of a person: Deprived of all or certain of the rights of a citizen, in consequence of conviction of certain crimes. b. Of a crime or punishment: Involving or entailing infamy.

Now, since I assume you will harp on the word "notorious", here's that definition as well:

notorious, adj. and adv. A. adj. I. With neutral or favourable connotations. 1. a. Of a fact: well known; commonly or generally known; forming a matter of common knowledge. Cf sense A. 5a. b. Of a person, place, etc.: well or widely known; famous; (in later use) esp. noted for a particular quality or feature. Cf. sense A. 5b. 2. That may be generally or openly known; publicly knowable. Obs. 3. Conspicuous; obvious, evident. Obs. II. With depreciative or unfavourable connotations. 4. attrib. a. Of a criminal, sinner, etc.: noted or well known in that capacity; infamous. b. Of a reprehensible action, fact, etc.: noted or well known for its egregiousness; flagrant. 5. Well known on account of something which is not generally approved of or admired; unfavourably known; noted for some bad practice, quality, etc. a. Of an action, fact, etc. b. Of a person, place, etc. 6. Discreditable or disgraceful to a person. Obs. rare. B. adv.= NOTORIOUSLY adv. Obs.

Nope, sorry, no "best known" there either. Do you have a dictionary source making that link?
  • You've got quite a case to make regarding quoting a text directly being WP:OR... If the head of Hamas says, verbatim,

    "Our conflict with you [Israel] is not religious but political,"

    then how is the phrase

    "Although Hamas claims its conflict with Israel is political and not religious"

    original research? Or, in relative terms, how is it less WP:OR than synthesising a list of sources to infer a global opinion?
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 09.05.2008 12:19
As pointed out below, the problem with the material is that you're using an interview to construct and argument regarding the charge of antisemitism - but the source itself does not actually address that charge. Of course that original research. Find a secondary source that says Hamas is not antisemitic, if you feel you must counter this claim - though it's hard to imagine why one would bother, when one actually reads the Hamas charter. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Pedrito, I don't know if this is your first experience of a Jayjg spin-session or not, but I think you're taking it too seriously. Neither your first edit ("a charge the organization itself rejects") nor your revised version ("Hamas claims its conflict with Israel is political and not religious") comes anywhere even close to violating WP:SYN or WP:NOR, as every experienced editor here (including Jay) knows.--G-Dett (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, you promised to turn over a new leaf, and to stop filling pages with un-civil comments. Comment on content, not on the contributor. I am deadly serious about this; don't make any comments about me on any article talk: pages. Regarding your actual point, original research occurs when "an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position." In this case Pedrito is trying to counter the charge of antisemitism by using statements made by a Hamas member in an interview; a primary source, and one individual, used to construct an argument. As every experienced editor here (including me) knows, this is forbidden, by policy. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Jay, please don't quote the original research policy to me; that's pageant, and as such rather disruptive. I know the policy well, and so do you, and you and I both know that Pedrito's edit came nowhere close to violating it. Writing from sources is the essence of Wikipedia. You have ideological reasons for obstructing it in this case, but your SYN and NOR and "primary-source" arguments are ridiculous and disruptive. If you make the effort to use talk pages in a serious way, a way that doesn't insult the intelligence of literate people, you'll find your fellow editors willing to accord you a level of respect that won't leave you crying "WP:CIVIL!" eighteen times a day.--G-Dett (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, I am explaining exactly why the inserted material was original research, as it quite obviously was. It was put there to counter multiple sources claiming the group is antisemitic, even though it never actually referred to antisemitism itself. As for the rest, Comment on content, not on the contributor. As I said, I'm deadly serious about this. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If you'd make a stab at being intellectually serious instead of "deadly serious," it would be less deadly boring and more constructive, not to mention more grammatical (the idiom is 'dead serious'). There was no original research. If you're keen to avoid discussing editors, then stop speculating about their motives, which in this case you've badly misread. The point of including Hamas' denial is not to "counter" other sources, but rather to tell the reader something interesting and relevant about Hamas, specifically, about their rhetorical equivocation, the way they blend extremism with the occasional olive branch. This, you may not have noticed, has been the story about Hamas in the months and years since their election.--G-Dett (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

here is a link where Yassin denies the charges. Imad marie (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Which not only has a direct quote from Yassin, but is also a secondary source specifically interpreting that quote as being a denial of anti-semitism. Perhaps the wiki-lawyering on this can stop now? --Nickhh (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a good source, and directly related, unlike the other. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
My goodness, Jay, you must be a major player in the propaganda wars, because only six days after you assert that Hamas does not head-on deny charges of antisemitism, Hamas head-on denies charges of antisemitism! It's good to see Hamas is taking you so seriously ;)

[...]instead of support and solidarity from the western media, we face frequent attempts to defend the indefensible or turn fire on the Palestinians themselves.

One recent approach, which seems to be part of the wider attempt to isolate the elected Palestinian leadership, is to portray Hamas and the population of the Gaza strip as motivated by anti-Jewish sentiment, rather than a hostility to Zionist occupation and domination of our land. A recent front page article in the International Herald Tribune followed this line, as did an article for Cif about an item broadcast on the al-Aqsa satellite TV channnel about the Nazi Holocaust.

In fact, the al-Aqsa Channel is an independent media institution that often does not express the views of the Palestinian government headed by Ismail Haniyeh or of the Hamas movement. The channel regularly gives Palestinians of different convictions the chance to express views that are not shared by the Palestinian government or the Hamas movement. In the case of the opinion expressed on al-Aqsa TV by Amin Dabbur, it is his alone and he is solely responsible for it.
[...]
It should be made clear that neither Hamas nor the Palestinian government in Gaza denies the Nazi Holocaust. The Holocaust was not only a crime against humanity but one of the most abhorrent crimes in modern history. We condemn it as we condemn every abuse of humanity and all forms of discrimination on the basis of religion, race, gender or nationality.

<eleland/talkedits> 04:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Eleland! Could we elaborate more on Hamas's beliefs somewhere instead of picturing it as a terrorist organization who is seeking to destroy Israel for no reason? Imad marie (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Eleland, it's not me that says Hamas is antisemitic, it's over a dozen reliable sources that do. It probably has something to do with their charter adopting conspiracy theories based on the antisemitic literary forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That, and quoting hadith that call for killing Jews. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Jay, I'm afraid you must have your wires crossed, because you've introduced a completely unrelated question into the discussion. We haven't been arguing about whether or not Hamas actually is antisemitic (of course their organization and membership are pervaded with antisemitism...) it's about whether Hamas denies the charge that it fights Israel because it is antisemitic. Of course there are reliable sources making that claim; if there weren't, what would Hamas even have to deny? Ignoratio elenchi will not get you very far here, O fellow Wikipedian. <eleland/talkedits> 10:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Imad-- shouldn't the article summary introduce the reasons why Hamas is anti-Israel, (aka, more about instead of just stating that they blow people up and are considered to be a "terrorist" organization? People passing by the article casually can be easily influenced by the lack of neutrality in the summary. It's shocking, really. If the conflict is political and not religious, this seriously should be developed upon in the summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafgreentea (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
In fairness it is not entirely well-established, at least for Wikipedia purposes, that the conflict is "political and not religious." However I agree that it's fairly stupid to have a very long lede which doesn't say anything about Hamas's political positions and ideology. <eleland/talkedits> 15:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Call to attack United States targets

I've added the POV tag to the section, Hamas has always rejected attacking American targets, maybe some official sometime stated that they should attack American targets, but this is not a reason to title a section with this as it would be POV. Imad marie (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the section, Hamas has rejected attacking American targets through its history, having a section with this title is POV. Imad marie (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm restoring it but I'm going to balance the Jerusalem Post source with other sources like this one. Hamas's statement was ambiguous and interpreted differently. <eleland/talkedits> 10:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Far more neutral :) Imad marie (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well-poisoning in the lead

Ironduke, you reverted to a version of the lead that looks to me a lot like well-poisoning. The material in question reads –

Hamas's view of Jews, as outlined in its charter, is based in part on the conspiracy theories of the antisemitic literary forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the organization has been described as antisemitic, a charge the organisation itself rejects.

Is this appropriate material for the lead, and is it neutrally presented? Those are separate questions. I think the answer to each is no, so I removed the material citing UNDUE and NPOV. You restored it saying "the previous edit would seem to be well-supported by the sources in the footnote, therefore not violating UNDUE or NPOV." Aren't you conflating RS with NPOV?

If the lead of Likud were changed as follows (new material in boldface) –

Likud (Hebrew: ליכוד, lit. Consolidation) is a major center-right political party in Israel. Founded in 1973 as an alliance of several right-wing and liberal parties, Likud's victory in the 1977 elections was a major turning point in the country's political history, marking the first time the left had lost power. However, after ruling the country for most of the 1980s, the party has won only one Knesset election since 1992, though its candidate, Benjamin Netanyahu, did win the popular vote for Prime Minister in 1996. After a big win in the 2003 elections, a major split in 2005 saw Likud leader Ariel Sharon leave to form the new Kadima party, with Likud slumping to fourth place in elections the following year. The party now leads the opposition in the Knesset.

Likud's view of the occupied territories, as outlined in its constitution, is that the Israeli claim to them is a "perpetual right that cannot be challenged," and that a fundamental goal of the party should be, accordingly, "the establishment and development of settlements in all parts of Eretz Israel and the imposition of the State's sovereignty over all of them." Likud's views have been described as bigoted and their policies as a serious obstacle to peace, charges the party has itself rejected.

– on what grounds would you object to the new material? Would it be that it was well-poisoning, non-neutrally presented, and disproportionately foregrounded in the lead? Do you doubt that sources could be gathered so that the material was "well-supported?"--G-Dett (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, G. Well, I may say without irony that I am very tempted to engage the Likud analogy, but I've found it's best to take each article as a separate entity, with rare exceptions. Hamas and Likud are not the same thing, I think, would be the easiest way to express it. If you really think your version above is an improvement, I will have no objection to your visiting the Likud talk page and proposing it. As for my conflating RS with NPOV, it will not surprise you to learn that I don't believe I am. If there were a number of RS's that trumpeted Hamas' putative love and respect for Israelis/Jews, then it might be a violation of NPOV, and UNDUE to mention their reliance on the Protocols. I have seen no such sources. Rather, what I see are arguments like, "Yes, but perhaps such sources exist, therefore, 'balance' requires that we omit this criticism of Hamas." For me, the sources are paramount.
While I have your attention, I must also take issue with your criticism of Jayjg for the use of the phrase "deadly serious." The phrase is perfectly acceptable, and means essentially what "dead serious” means. "Dead" in this context is an (often old-fashioned) intensifier, meaning "very." [24] (see entry 38). "Deadly," in this instance, has a slightly more ominous undertone, but also means "completely." [25] (See entry 8.)
Like I said, it's all about sourcing. Cheers. IronDuke 23:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you may be tempted yet. No, Hamas and Likud are not the same thing; nor, however, are comparisons and analogies. Heads don't compare to hands, at least not without the aid of poetry or aphasia, but even the deadly-dullest schoolboy will tell you that –

Head is to hat as hand is to glove

– is an analogy. So is this:

Likud's founding constitution is to its actual stance toward Palestinian self-determination what Hamas's charter is to its stance toward Israel, the Jews, and the West.

Analogies help us think. Contrary to popular misconceptions, they do not, when managed by an alert and scrupulous intelligence, introduce "moral equivalence."
No one is saying, "Perhaps such sources exist, therefore, 'balance' requires that we omit this criticism of Hamas." That's a strawman. What we're saying is that the material as such is well-poisoning, non-neutrally presented, and disproportionately foregrounded in the lead.
"Deadly serious" – unless we're talking about lugubrious poets, moony-eyed suitors, and cocktail-party bores – is an example of what linguists call overcorrection. Just between you and I.--G-Dett (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As always, I enjoy reading your lucid prose. Irregardless, I think you’ve side-stepped the major point: there are sources aplenty which attest to Hamas’s use of the Protocols as a justification for their antisemitism. Could other organizations/people in the Middle East also have negative things written about them, based on reliable sources? I’ve no doubt they could. This does not mean that Hamas is therefore immune to this specific criticism, even if certain other entities have entries that are, by some measures, insufficiently scathing. Though other articles fail, that does not give license for this article to fail. Hamas is an organization that has demonstrated an adherence to classic antisemitic tropes. I don’t see a problem in pointing this out, seeing as it is sourced to the hilt.
I may also point out, an analogy is an illustration, not a point of logic. While your first analogy is obvious, your second is not – especially without a source.
As for Deadly Serious, I note that there is even a small press with that very name: http://www.deadlyserious.com/. (Not to mention over 300 hits on Google news alone. And over 7,00 on Google Scholar. You aren’t going to argue with Google Scholars now, are you?). Overcorrection? I don’t know… redundant, perhaps. But no more than the (ab)use of the word “very.” IronDuke 04:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Duke, I don't think I've sidestepped your point about sourcing. As I've said several times in several ways, the fact that something is sourced does not make it appropriate for an article lead. I'm not suggesting that other articles are "insufficiently scathing"; on the contrary, other articles on controversial political parties conform to the norms of Wikipedia neutrality that this one so markedly violates. The other articles don't "fail" in that regard; this one does.
There are also "sources aplenty" that attest to the bigotry, religious chauvinism, rejectionism and territorial expansionism of Likud, as reflected in their constitution (which they've never revised, not even as Sharon shifted toward acceptance of the peace process and the two-state solution), but I do not think these would be appropriate sources for the lead of that article.
That small press publishes murder mysteries, Deadline News, and the Deadly Directory. Their name plays on a second meaning of "deadly serious": menacing, hazardous, lethal. That meaning and the meaning I already mentioned – witless, dull, lugubrious – comprise all of entries I've checked in your Google Scholar list:

Even Soviet broadcasting was deadly serious broadcasting, missionary broadcasting...

This is a serious problem, but it has now become deadly serious with the arrival of increasing numbers of patients with tuberculosis...

Probably the most useful entry in that Google Scholar list is the following, written by a humorist who knows well the difference between "dead serious" and "deadly serious," and plays one off against the other to describe his encounters with dull-witted readers:

Sadly, I have occasionally run into people who did not perceive that it was a style and an affectation: people who apparently assumed that everything I wrote was dead serious, and who wanted to respond to it in a deadly serious vein. Once (as mentioned and embroidered upon in chapter 8) I found that some of my columns had been picked up and reviewed in an abstracts journal as if they were serious papers...

There's also a pretty good bit by an Old Testament scholar, who describes Yahweh as "dead-serious about his intent still to punish [the Israelites] for their disobedience" in an episode from Judges, which in turn is introduced as an example of how "miscommunication can be deadly serious ... downright fatal."
Yes, witless apparatchiks and lugubrious poets, cocktail-party bores and Communist-party bores; also diseases and disasters, catastrophes and epidemics; all these are "deadly serious." But when men, admins, apparatchiks, gods, goddesses, or, as we've seen, G-d himself, make threats, they're being "dead serious." That's all for now.DeadlyDuchess 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If you and I were at a cocktail party and having this debate (with me in the role of bore, bien sur), you would win hands down, as you have managed to post the pithier remarks. However, as I have the actual sources, in Wiki-world, I think I might win this one. See a more specific Google Scholar search for more pertinent uses of Deadly Serious [26]. See below for more... Witless Lugubrious Cocktail Bore 01:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It is indisputable that a vast array of sources link the Protocols to Hamas' anti semitism, but it is at odds with statements by the Hamas leadership and is more a belief held by (albeit many) individuals within Hamas. For this reason the appropriate place for the disputed sentence is in the article body not in the lead where it incorrectly implies to the reader that the belief is Hamas policy and almost universally held by them. This type of critical editing is not acceptable for the Israel page so it should not be acceptable for this one. Wayne (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That individual members of Hamas say vague things about a theoretical State of Israel does not mean that the organization itself has lost the will or desire to destory Israel, or that their antisemitism is not founded in part on the Protocols. As I said to G-Dett, if you want to propose good changes to the Israel page on its talk page (or possibly even bad ones), I will not object. And to expand on the point about analogies I made above: while it may well be that Head is to hat as hand is to glove, you aren't likely to have much luck keeping your head warm with a glove. [27] IronDuke 21:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It is true that their antisemitism was based in part on the Protocols when the charter was written but it is WP:OR to state it is true today which is currently implied. As for the will or desire to destroy Israel, it is fact that they may still have the desire but again it is OR to say they have the will as current policy as stated by the leadership is to accept Israel with conditions. You say we are welcome to "propose good changes to the Israel page" but that misrepresents the arguement. We both said a critical edit for no other reason than to demonise the subject would not be acceptable in the Israel page and, to me at least, that type of edit should not be allowed on any page. Wayne (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
In the first place, it is not OR to suggst the Charter is still impacting Hamas attitudes today. Just read the sourcs on the relevant footnote: many put Hamas’ antisemitism in the present tense, and as having been influenced by the Protocols. I don’t think that’s the issue. I think the best point against putting the Protocols in the lead is that it fails UNDUE and fails LEAD. However, given the plethora of sources, I think we can say that it’s not like some fringe theory is being given prominence. As for WP:LEAD, it’s supposed to be a precis of the article, and the Protocols are given fairly prominent placement in the AS section (which is a mess, and someone (please not me) should clean up). I think it says a lot about the quality of their antisemitism, as opposed to say, older forms of Christian antisemitism (e.g. "The Jews killed Jesus") or American Country Club antisemitism ("The Jews are loud and flashy").
As for the Israel stuff, I couldn’t say. Maybe the Likud article could use a going over. But that article is not this one. IronDuke 02:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that the Charter is still impacting Hamas attitudes today. The Protocols can be prominent in the body as they played a part in the past but they are not appropriate in the lead as it is contradicted by Hamas statements and actions. Wayne (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
All right... I've thought about it, and I agree that the Protocols needn't go in the lead. I think a persuasive argument can be made that they reasonably could go in the lead, but I see the other side as well; the article won't collapse without it. I will also note that the lead is quite bloated, even after my latest pass, and not every detail can be crammed into it. Thanks to those who took the time to come to talk and explain their positions to me in a thoughtful manner. IronDuke 18:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Redundant elements in lead

I have reverted both of User:IronDuke's edits here.

The lead would make no mention of Hamas' social services -- anywhere. This is, according to this article itself, one of Hamas' major activities and thus should be included. An eight-word sentence is even almost too little in this case, considering the verbosity dedicated to its perceived notoriety and anti-Semitism.

The statement regarding the political nature of the conflict is also a must, otherwise the lead reads as if they were just a bunch of religiously motivated fanatics. That might be your -- and many other people's -- opinion, but its not Hamas' opinion. Therefore, those 11 words stay.

If you really have a good reason to remove these two bits (and not the destruction of Israel and anti-Semitism propaganda bits), then let us discuss this here first.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 26.05.2008 06:57

Cheers to you as well. I can understand, given the overly long intro, how you might have missed it it, but further down it says "Hamas has further gained popularity by establishing hospitals, education systems, libraries and social services." I deleted the brief mention first, although one could argue that the sentence should be pared down further to simplu "social services." In the interests of brevity, I say yes, but I'm not going to make a fuss about it. As for the other bit, I fully agree that Hamas' view of itself on this topic must be represented -- and it already is, later in that same sentence. As you have it, it readsd, "Although Hamas claims its conflict with Israel is political and not religious[5], the organization has been described as antisemitic,[6] a charge the organisation itself rejects.[7]" To paraphrase, "Although Hamas claims not to be antisemitic, they've described as antisemitic, though they claim they're not antisemitic." You see what I'm saying? We only need one denial. IronDuke 16:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the social services issues seems to have been addressed before I got here. I fixed the sentence containing the political conflict and anti-Semitism. I kept both statements since, although they are tangential, they do not mean the exact same thing. The sentence now flows as: Hamas is political -> yet it is accused of anti-Semitism -> which it denies.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 27.05.2008 06:27
Thanks for reverting back some of your edits. I think with regard to the Antisemitism redundancy, you've not really changed the text, so I'm going to go ahead and tweak it a bit. IronDuke 21:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It's an interesting argument - one which, unfortunately, the sources themselves do not make. Also, why would whether or not they were opposed to Judaism be relevant to whether or not they were antisemites? Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not getting why you think Pedrito's well-sourced edit is "original research," but for what it's worth, in a recent Guardian op-ed ("Hamas Condemns the Holocaust") Hamas' minister of health and information rejected the tendency of the Western media "to portray Hamas and the population of the Gaza strip as motivated by anti-Jewish sentiment, rather than a hostility to Zionist occupation and domination of our land."--G-Dett (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not getting why you would imply that if something is "well-sourced" it exempts something from being original research. Pedrito's argument isn't sourced, and his source doesn't refer to antisemitism - neither explicitly nor even particularly implicitly. The reference you refer to would be a better one. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS applies to material and argumentative syntheses that are unsourced. Pedrito hasn't introduced any argument; his edit is straightforwardly factual, indisputably relevant, and well-sourced.--G-Dett (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting that cherry-picking quotes from random Hamas members doesn't equal "Hamas has claimed," or any variation thereof. In order for "Hamas" to claim something, the organization itself must do so. IronDuke 23:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, no organization itself has passed a Turing test to establish itself as sentient. So until one does, we go by what members who speak on the organization's behalf have to say about the organization's beliefs. Tarc (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what Meshal is saying as being inconsistent with antisemitic beliefs, and I think it's OR to assume that it is. If a reliable secondary source says, "Hey wait a sec: Hamas is actually really keen on the Jews," we can consider that. IronDuke 19:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to evaluate claims that are both hypothetical and ludicrous, but I think a secondary source claiming that Hamas is keen on Jews would probably be bad or even worthless. Meanwhile back in the real world, I cited a piece wherein a Hamas official rejects the view that Hamas is motivated by "anti-Jewish sentiment." Antisemitism and anti-Jewish sentiment are synonyms. There's no original research.
If your real point, on the other hand, was that it would be nice to have some comment from secondary sources on the significance of the Meshal statement, then I agree with you.
On a more general note, many of your comments as well as Jay's suggest that you think you're arguing with editors who believe Hamas isn't antisemitic. I can only speak for myself in saying that's wrong. My views shouldn't matter, but here they are. Hamas has nourished and exploited antisemitism in order to cultivate its constituency; it's a small part of their cultural and electoral success, but it's there. In this they behave like many – probably most – nationalist political organizations during wartime. Attempts by pundits, politicians, and lobbyists to present this propaganda not as a symptom but rather a cause of the I/P conflict are pure blarney, of course, exactly as intellectually respectable as presenting World War II as brought about by the motifs in propaganda like this and this.
Most intelligent and literate commentary on Hamas in the past few years has tried to assess the implications of its arc of development, from fringe religious group to militants with mainstream appeal to a political party succeeding (sort of) within democratic electoral politics. Against this backdrop, of course it's interesting and relevant that a group whose founding charter cited the Protocols is now penning op-eds in England's newspaper of record acknowledging the reality and the horror of the Holocaust and disavowing any hostility towards the Jews as a people. Whether you or I think this gesture is duplicitous or so narrowly framed as to be insignificant is neither here nor there. It's politically significant, and this is an encyclopedia article about a political party.--G-Dett (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
What source is it that you're speaking of that refutes the idea that Hamas is antisemitic? And would it not be a gross violaiton of WP:UNDUE to take the sole source you are offering as a counterbalance in the lead to a plethora of sources arguing the opposite? As for antisemitism comprising a "small part" of Hamas' success, I'm not sure how you know that, or how it is that its lack of importance becomes something "politically significant" only when it's denied. IronDuke 20:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) We have several unmistakably clear responses from the top Hamas leadership to charges of antisemitism. They were published in major world newspapers. Whether one agrees with them, whether one thinks they're disingenuous, whether one think they're part of the satanic Moooslem plot against the Jooos, it really doesn't matter. Hamas denies the charges of antisemitism. It's relevant and it's notable. All of this wiki-lawyering about original synthesis and secondary sources and how many angels can dance on the head of a WP:TLA rings hollow — why cavill and caterwaul about secondary synthesis when the lede happily includes a prooftexting of Hamas's charter, a twenty-year-old primary source of dubious relevance, meant to expound on a disputed view of today's Hamas as opposed to any accommodation with Israel? So it's rather difficult to take these objections all that seriously. <eleland/talkedits> 21:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You actually seem to be taking these objections quite seriously, which I appreciate. Can you say which sources you believe support the idea that Hamas is not antisemitic? IronDuke 22:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Why would I say which sources support an idea that I'm not advancing, that everyone you're discussing with on this page has specifically disavowed, and that is not under discussion? And why would you ask me for those sources, when it's been patiently explained over and over on this talk page that we're not interested in debating whether Hamas is antisemitic? <eleland/talkedits> 07:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It's possible that I'm missing a step here. Is it the case that you believe that no reliable sources exist which would refute the widespread claim that Hamas is an antisemitic organization? IronDuke 17:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay... not sure if people have lost interest in the discussion. As I read things now, the leads hs been in violation of OR, SYNTH, UNDUE, and LEAD (and what the heck, NPOV). I hope I've ameliorated that somewhat, though the more I think about it, the more I believe any mention in the lead of Hamas' ostensible lack of antisemitism is, based on the paucity of sources supporting that idea, a violation of Undue. Happy to hear thoughts on this. IronDuke 03:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Duke,
I think you might have mis-interpreted User:Eleland's last comment, so I reverted your edit to the lead. You can't include criticism in the lead without including its flat-out denial by the criticised organisation, especially since the article is on them.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.06.2008 06:26
Hi Pedro. I'm not sure what consensus you're referring to. Can you show me where an agreement was reached by a consensus-level of editors that the sentence I reworded must stand as it was? And why leaving the sentence does not violate the policies I listed above? Thanks. IronDuke 12:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's see, User:Eleland, User:Tarc, User:G-Dett and I all disagreed with you and explained why the part of the lead in question doesn't violate any of Wikipedia's policies. The discussion died down because you ran out of arguments, not because we conceded anything consensus-like. Can you show me where there is consensus and agreement (your "per talk") that Hamas saying they're not Anti-Semites is not a WP:SYNTH and WP:OR for Hamas saying they're not Anti-Semites? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.06.2008 12:36
Would it be possible for you to respond to any major points I made in this thread? I'd appreciate it. IronDuke 22:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Duke, I've reverted you again. What are your major points? We've already discussed this being significant and not WP:SYNTH -- what else is there left to clear-up? Oh, and "widely" is a weasel-word and should be avoided... If you're so keen on nailing the rebuttal only on "some Hamas representatives", why not say "some sources" too?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 24.06.2008 05:55

  1. ^ Best known for suicide bombings/attacks:
  2. ^ Calls for the destruction of Israel:
  3. ^ Antisemitic:
    • Aaronovitch, David. "The New Anti-Semitism", The Observer, June 22, 2003.
    • Anti-Semitism at Core of Hamas Charter, Anti-Defamation League, February 27, 2006. Accessed April 17, 2007.
    • Levin, Andrea. Ignoring Hamas Hate-Indoctrination, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, February 8, 2006.
    • "Hamas, which is deeply engaged in teaching anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian hate in schools," Puder, Joseph. Levitt Can't Strike Hopeful Note About Hamas, Philadelphia Bulletin, March 27, 2007.
    • "Hamas refuses to recognize Israel, claims the whole of Palestine as an Islamic endowment, has issued virulently antisemitic leaflets,..." Laurence F. Bove, Laura Duhan Kaplan, From the Eye of the Storm: Regional Conflicts and the Philosophy of Peace, Rodopi Press, 1995, ISBN 9051838700, p. 217.
    • "But of all the anti-Jewish screeds, it is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that emboldens and empowers antisemites. While other antisemitic works may have a sharper intellectual base, it is the conspiratorial imagery of the Protocols that has fuled the imagination and hatred of Jews and Judaism, from the captains of industry like Henry Ford, to teenage Hamas homicide bombers." Mark Weitzman, Steven Leonard Jacobs, Dismantling the Big Lie: the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, KTAV Publishing House, 2003, ISBN 0881257850, p. xi.
    • "There is certainly very clear evidence of antisemitism in the writings and manifestos of organizations like Hamas and Hizbullah..." Human Rights Implications of the Resurgence of Racism and Anti-Semitism, United States Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations and Human Rights - 1993, p. 122.
    • "In calling for holy war against Israel, the covenant of Hamas, drawn up in 1998, also employs the language elecquention of the Protocols." Frederick M. Schweitzer, Marvin Perry, Anti-Semitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, ISBN 0312165617, p. 116.
    • "The demonization of the Jews/Zionists by the Hamas organization is also heavily shaped by European Christian anti-Semitism. This prejudice began to infiltrate the Arab world, most notably in the circulation of the 1926 Arabic translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion... Reliance upon the document is evidenced in the group's charter... The Protocols of the Elders of Zion also informs Hamas's belief that Israel has hegemonic aspirations that extend beyond Palestinian land. As described in the charter, the counterfeit document identifies the Zionists' wish to expand their reign from the Nile River to the Euphrates." Michael P. Arena, Bruce A. Arrigo, The Terrorist Identity: Explaining the Terrorist Threat, NYU Press, 2006, ISBN 0814707165, pp. 133-134.
    • "Standard anti-Semitic themes have become commonplace in the propaganda of Arab Islamic movements like Hizballah and Hamas..." Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry Into Conflict and Prejudice, W. W. Norton & Company, 1999, ISBN 0393318397, p. 266.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamas/Archive_8&oldid=1255282175"