Talk:Fatah–Hamas conflict

message: User Kendric7 hasn't MOVED the page correctly from the old name. Here's the history that has been lost: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas-Fatah_conflict&action=history --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it didn't occur to me to merge, then move one over the other. Sorry, the fork started at Palestinian National Authority which had a whole section on the skirmishea without linking to the main article. I didn't realize until I scrolled down thru the current portal. -- Kendrick7talk 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page history 

message: It seems kind of weird to have Abbas and Haniyeh listed as "commanders" in the infobox, as they aren't 'leading their troops' in the traditional sense of the phrase. I would support removing their names from the infobox. Thethinredline 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. If this does become a civil war with clear leaders on both sides, it would be a better fit. -- Kendrick7talk 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be "a better fit" for this article. But it would be somewhat less convinient for the many who would be killed in the process. Abu ali 10:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commanders?

message: Do we need the month and year as these are the first such clashes and here disambiguation isn't needed?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: also, I propose the name Palestinian factional violence. Like Iraqi sectarian violence. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name-date 

message: This page should be moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Fatah/Hamas_tensions as it fits there better then starting a whole other Article. 24.226.128.164 16:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: better to merge the articlesAbu ali 16:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be moved 

message: This is separate armed conflict.
:I agree.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you add the merge template to this page then Boris. Hut 8.5 20:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second thoughts, I've done it myself. Hut 8.5 21:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes but these clashes are more notable than the overall tensions so this should be the main topic and page name. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing that this is a new conflict, it should have its own article. I would suggest removing "December 2006" from the name as this conflict statrted earlier and it might last longer. – Zntrip 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that it is a new clash.  It is an exclamation of an older clash that started when Hamas gained power. 69.114.71.250 23:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this page shouldn't be moved 

message: Please remove newspaper style like Tuesday night -- in a month or so we aren't aware of weekdays anymore. --62.227.135.168 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: "Palestinian factional violence"? "Palestinian civil skirmishes"? Who came up with this page name? Since the press is calling this a civil war, wouldnt it make more sense to call it that? Or would that not be politically correct? KazakhPol 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please source your statement, I doubt they call it like that. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you joking? KazakhPol 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This doesn't seem to meet the criteria to make the defination of civil war to me. There needs to be lines of control including check points among the parties to be a civil war. (e.g. English Civil War, American Civil War)  Without this it's mearly sectional rioting. Jon 13:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing press use of civil war yet and I haven't found any recent discussion here about the page name change.  To me this looks like someone trying to be bold.  I think the previous title was more appropriate and would support changing it back until there is a concensus in outside media that this is a civil war. --StuffOfInterest 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, with current events, now "Fatah-Hamas Conflict" seems to weak a term, but "Civil War" would still be the wrong term since it was a "coup d'etat' Re: "Britain condemns Hamas 'coup d'etat' in Gaza" on Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/06/15/afx3825449.html). And on CNN: "Hamas gunmen seize president's office" (http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_topstories/~3/125061794/index.html) Jon 15:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason it's not a coup d'etat, in my opinion,  is that it's not one power-climber and his followers, overthrowing an indvidual leader and leaving the rest of the government intact, but rather it's two separate factions stuggling, each with their own operatives, hierarchies, ideologies, and ethnic affiliations. thanks. --Sm8900 15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, re-reading this article, and comparing with Battle of Gaza 2007, I've changed my mind since it's now apprent that only the portion of this dealing with Battle of Gaza 2007 is part of the Coup d'etat. So if we are going to keep these two articles seperate, then the current name for this one (Fatah-Hamas conflict) would be fine. Jon 17:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name

message: At the moment this artical and a History_of_Fatah/Hamas_tensions duplicate each other, i don't really care which is merged into which, but they really do need merging. P.S. This is espeshally the case after this articals name was changed. --Boris Johnson VC 15:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guy's this is getting ridicilus 

message: I am preparing a similar article in the German WP. Here are some sources for the October 2006 events which are so far not covered. Collected back then so you'll have to check if they're still valid. --213.155.224.232 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sources 

message: I think that we should put the start date of the curent conflict of the Palestinian factions to be October 1st 2006 because, yes there was fighting even back in May, but the most intence fighting started at the begining of October and has since then been on and off just like it is now. We just put the December 15th because then is when the assasination attempt happened. But the major fighting actualy already started back in October. What do you other guys think. --Top Gun 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should go even further back than October. It seems like these clashes/civil war began right after the elections in January 2006. But the fighting definitely did not begin on December 15. PBP 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start date of the fighting 

message: This should have more pictures. How is the one on the left of this site? 
--Shamir1 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More pictures 

message: It doesn't make any sense to try to count the wounded because most of them go unreported by the media. More than 200 people were injured in the past two days and the article's toll is still at 305. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.220.149.119 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty toll 

message: Has the conflict reached the point now that we can call it a Civil War, or is that too soon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to do that, some news sites already labelled it like that. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are saying it is by definition a civil war, fine. If you are saying that there is some threshhold for that, but we have already reached it, it's way too soon for that. It's been only two days, and this level of conflict has already happened before. So I suggest that the terms we use may be relatively less important in addressing this topic. thanks. --Sm8900 18:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil war? 

message: Is there another article for the new violence over the last few days? I'm adding an update tag. -- Kendrick7talk 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to have a look at History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That covers some of it. thanks. --Sm8900 18:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't under the impression that the latest round of violence involved Israel, though I didn't really delve beyond the a passing mention in today's Boston Metro. I certainly didn't think it would rise to levels for inclusion in the I-P article. But I'll poke around....-- Kendrick7talk 18:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems relevant in the sense that it forms part of the history of the overall conflict. The status of Palestinian governance is directly related to the chance for peace, and for the conflict to be resolved. --Sm8900 18:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) That seems to be talking about something else. There's new violence going on between Fatah and Hamas. See google news. -- Kendrick7talk 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean it wasn't relevant, just not what I was looking for. -- Kendrick7talk 18:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Timeline of the Palestinian factional violence needs update. This page only minimal --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New violence 

message: I think that we have overcounted the number of killed Fatah members by 2. It has been established in one article that 24 people were killed in the first three days and we have compiled the list of all of those in the timeline section, on the 16th, the worst day, it was reported in various news articles that 21 people were killed, on the 17th only 3 were killed and on the 18th 1 person was killed. That makes a total of 49 killed. But the AP is today saying that 47 were killed since the start of the fighting not 49. I checked and found that on the 16 there were two instances that two Fatah fighters were reported killed, one report that bodies of two Fatah were lying beside the compund of the Palestinian president and another one which said that two were killed when they entered a part of the city which was under the countrol of Hamas. Now there was also a report that a presidental guard was killed that day too. So may guess is that that guard was killed in the attack on the compound and the two bodies lying beside the compund were mistaken with the report about the two killed in Hamas teritory. Yes that would make 19 killed on the 16th which is in contrst with reports that 21 were killed that day but then it would make 47 total since the start of the fighting like it is reported today. I am removing two Fatah.(Top Gun) 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:Hi. I applaud your effort at accuracy. however, I think it is a little soon to try for exact numbers. Besides, issues like these are why we go to other sources in the first place. So if we're not sure, we can simply say "over 40." We don't actually have to pick our way through all the various sources. We can wait 2 or 3 days, until another oficial source actually does come out with a definitive figure. thanks. --Sm8900 17:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overcount of casualties 

message: Please, a distinction has to be made between the periods before and after December 2006. There is a difference in the intensity before and after. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of fighting 

message: The troops numbers for Fatah are too high  - why is every single soldier counted as if everyone of them will take part? This is how I see it:
*This is an article about a war
*In the info war box troop numbers that are deployed or take part in battle should be counted.
Look at for example the Iraq war in 2003. The troop numbers for the Coalition forces don't include every single British, American and Polish etc. soldier in their respective armies. So why has the Presidential guard and police been included in this war? Has the 4,200 strong presidential guard actually taken part in the fighting? 
If we can't clarify whos or how many have been fighting than it should be stated that these are possible troop numbers.Tourskin 11:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troop numbers 

message: As far as I can tell, the conflict is ongoing. Why does this article refer to it in the past tense? Sloverlord 16:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's how historical articles describe events, even if aspects of the events are still occurring. if not for that, we'd have even bigger debates, as there would be disagreement over what was and was not still occurring. --Sm8900 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The war isn't over 

message: I've changed the article name from "Palestinian Civil War" to "Fatah-Hamas conflict". In naming articles, we should follow the principle of least surprise and name articles by the most widely used term or, failing that, by the most descriptive NPOV term. In this case, the former name was not widely used (very few news stories have described it as the "Palestinian Civil War") and it's far from clear that the conflict actually constitutes a civil war. "Fatah-Hamas conflict" is a more neutral and descriptive name which doesn't beg the question of whether the conflict is a civil war or not. -- ChrisO 22:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? What are you talking about? This conflict has been referred to as a civil war by many and many outside reliable sources. This totally fits the everyday, normal person definition of a civil war. Are you sure you're not over-thinking this? --Elliskev 02:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Since the United States seems to be backing Fatah, do you think that this may be yet another theater in the War on Terror?
:US support does not make it part of the war on terror. Nor if everything the US does related to the War On Terror.Narson 20:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, Template:War on Terrorism is big and ugly and would clutter up this article. Batmanand | Talk 09:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WOT template NOW uses code so it only appears as one line until you expand it. Second its looks are not important just that it supplies a lot of info in one space is. Third and finally all this is irrelivent if we don't have sources saying the US supported Fatah with weapons and equipment, and that that support is part of the WOT. Hypnosadist 10:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here a story from the Beeb  that discusses US-Fatah talks at the moment. Hypnosadist 13:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was being somewhat ironic; what the template looks like is - as you say - utterly irrelevant to its place in the article. Batmanand | Talk 19:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Part of the War on Terror?

message: The article says that Abbas intends to rule by presidential decree.  But it also says that he has appointed a new government.  That seems somewhat contradictory.  Is the first part outdated?  --JGGardiner 00:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think it simply reflects the fact that while the head of a state in a parliamentary system does have the right to choose whomever he wants to form a new parliamnentary coalition, it is not consider a real coalition if it does not includes a plurality of elected legislators. So if Abbas is simply choosing any of the new parties to form a new government, that is by definition a presidential decree, even if it preserves the outward forms of parliamentary government. hope that is helpful. --Sm8900 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abbas

message: I would suggest to remove that template, since Israel doesn't play a role in this conflict. --213.155.224.232 12:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and done. Neither side would particularly want Isreal's help. Jon 21:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Fatah has asked repeatedly for Israel's help. And it looks like they will now get it...  ابو علي (Abu Ali) 14:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We spoke about that and then decided to add the template AND A FOOTNOTE. We will remove or keep the template according to the future events. So please extend the footnote but DO NOT remove the template ;) The conflict is as much important for Israeli-Palestinian conflict as 2000 Camp David Summit for example. Twice are PARTS of the bigger conflict it's obvious. ;)
If you really don't belive me ^_^ look at History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ;)
--Mrpouetpouet 22:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Template:Arab-Israeli Conflict 

message: This BBC article covers The execution of al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades commander Samih al-Madhun and the you tube videos that are now being released. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6221694.stm  Hypnosadist 16:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Web war

message: The infobox says that this conflict is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. While it's definitely related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and has a lot to do with it, I don't think that it is directly a part of the conflict. For other examples, see Black September in Jordan and Lebanese Civil War. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When in doubt, blame the Jews. --HanzoHattori 15:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please, I dont think there is much doubt since the critical issue for Hamas and Fatah is the same, recognition of Israel. It would make no sense to seperate this internal conflict from the larger Israeli-Arab conflict. Gortfromort 11:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly is not a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as it only fits one of the two criteria required. But just because a war involves Arabs does not mean that its automatically part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definitely part of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic, and part of  the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic; in addition the conflict itself is definitley part of both those larger conflicts. I agree the main issue is recognition of Israel. --Sm8900 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Part of the topic perhaps, but not part of the conflict AFAICT. TewfikTalk 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that Fatah-Hamas conflict is related to the Israeli-Palestinian/Arab conflict, but it clearly isn't part of it. Alinor (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of the Arab-Israeli conflict? 

message: What the heck? Is this by the same people who blame the latest Palestinian riots in Lebanon on the "Welsh club"(???) on youtube? --HanzoHattori 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "U.S. funding, weapons and training for the violence" 

message: Can we change that section title to something more neutral sounding?  --JGGardiner 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fatah Strikes Back

message: I don't know if this should be there, he might have been arrested but he wasn't arrested by Fatah but by Egypt wich is not a participant in this conflict so his arrest has not got anything to do with this conflict. The Honorable Kermanshahi 07:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Flag By Dief 

message: I'm sorry, but none of the sources are cited, and the section is obviously very biased. Take this part for example: "The botched plan has rendered the dream of Middle East peace more remote than ever, but what really galls neocons such as Wurmser is the hypocrisy it exposed." That isn't up to par with Wikipedia's standards of neutrality. 
And the section's main claim "The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power.", doesn't have a single citation. 
I'm going to remove this section from the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphabravo11 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:   "U.S.  plot to start Palestinian civil war"???  

message: The image :Image:Fateh-logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      File:Fateh-logo.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Fateh-logo.jpg

message: I'm sorry folks, but I don't know how to edit the references properly. I believe the vanity fair will help with the reference that is being put in doubt in the 2006 elections section. The sentence, that puts that reference in doubt, right after the last reference in that section seems out of place and unlike usual wikipedia standards. 
Here is another reference that can be added to the U.S. support of Dahlan and/or the Fatah 2006 campaign, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0112/p09s01-coop.html, "An inside story of how the US magnified Palestinian suffering" Christian Science Monitor written by "Norman H. Olsen served for 26 years as a member of the US Foreign Service, including four years working in the Gaza Strip and four years as counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. He was most recently associate coordinator for counterterrorism at the Department of State. His son, Matthew N. Olsen, is the director of Explore Corps, a nascent NGO that uses outdoor education and youth programming to facilitate peace-building among young adults, with several current projects in the Gaza Strip."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.32.185 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: So I am surprised that the transcripts and meetings between Fatah, the Israelis, the Americans, and M16 haven't been added. It's clear that Fatah has been committed to attacking Hamas militarily and politically with the aid and tacit support of the Western powers. 
http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112512109241314.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112511595595810.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011125144345427365.html
Wallykhan (talk)wallykhan  —Preceding undated comment added 09:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian Papers 

message: Well now, Hamas and Fatah seem to have finally reached an agreement and I don't think their conflict should remain under the "ongoing" status... --Jaro7788 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Which bit of the article are you referring to ? Sean.hoyland - talk 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just go through and tweak it which hopefully will update to current status. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict's over 

message: In the context of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, the Irish senator David Norris said that "[...] Israel is afraid of Palestinian unity. That is what all of this is about. It has nothing to do with the appalling murder of those three Israeli kids. The Israeli police knew that Hamas had nothing to do with it before this war started. Israel created Hamas in order to split Fatah, so it is responsible for Hamas. I had this confirmed at the highest level in the foreign ministry in Jerusalem some years ago. [...]"
Source: speech at the Senate of Ireland on Thursday 31 July 2014. Text: , video: .
Dt Mos Ios (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatah, Hamas and Palestinian unity 

message: Wiki demands that its content reflects a NPOV. This article, as per mid-December 2014 had an introduction to the “Background” section that was seriously skewed, consisting in essence of praise for Fatah and criticism of Hamas, with explanations for Fatah choices but none for those by Hamas. It also failed to provide any underlying context for these differences. My (Ericthe enquirer) edit, time-stamped  ‘16:36, 20 December 2014‎’, was intended both to provide the Hamas motivations and at the same time provide the factors leading to these differences.
This edit was reverted in its entirety by User:Tuylrnicracker666 without any recourse to Talk; a violation of WP:ARBPIA protocol. In the one-liner Edit Summary justification, it provided that Arafat, leader of Fatah, had earlier planned the Second Intifada. This is irrelevant, given that Arafat was the leader of Fatah at the time, not Hamas. Unsubstantiated accusations of ‘cherry-picking’ and ‘POV’ were also made. This user then further took it open himself to adjudicate what text should be retained in the article because there is an article on the peace talks elsewhere, thereby violating WP:PRESERVE editing standard. No attempt was made to provide balancing text to remedy the alleged non-NPOV. Kenrick7 reverted the deletion, citing that latter standard.
Once again without resorting to Talk page discussion, User:Tuylrnicracker666 reverted with the one-liner Edit Summary “WP:PRESERVE doesn't mean to not revert cherry-picking POV edits”, once again unsubstantiated. I reverted in turn, requesting that User:Tuylrnicracker666 take his/her dispute to the Talk page. User:All Rows4 reverted next, also without recourse to Talk, with the one-liner “Opinions (from an Op_Ed) can't be presented in Wikipedia's voice”. Even excluding the issue of reverting without proper discussion, given that there were three citations, this 'opinions' claim provides no analytical value at all. Once again I reverted, inviting User:All Rows4 to take the dispute to the Talk pages. 
User:All Rows4 again reverted, providing only the one-liner “funny, I didn't see any attempt to support this by you on the talk page. Read WP:ONUS and WP:BRD)”. Even this off-topic one-liner Edit Summary (??) was logically flawed. Firstly, WP:ONUS demands definition of disputed content. There has so far been no discussion of this on the Talk pages. In line with WP:BRD, User:Gouncbeatduke reverted. Instead of complying with the BRD protocol and entering into Talk discussion, User:All Rows4  simply reverted again, this time again with another one-liner Edit Summary (ironically) citing WP:HOUNDing.
In order to provide for structure and reasoned discussion, I invite all interested parties to revert to the original 20 December edit, and to enter into discourse in Talk as to why text aimed at achieving a balance of motivations between Fatah and Hamas should be summarily deleted in its entirety; why the offered citations are potentially inappropriate; why text is POV; and what can be done to improve any (eventual) deficiencies; or why WP:PRESERVE should be violated and the entire edit deleted.
As a result, I am making a WP:BRD revert so as to promote recourse to Talk. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Above comment edited to avoid incorrectly categorizing this page. DexDor (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edit Conflicts

message: In December 2014 I flagged a portion of text in the introduction to "Background" which was not supported by the text "Fatah renounced armed struggle against Israel pursuant to the Oslo Accords". In fact the citation noted that Fatah was created precisely to implement an armed struggle, and, in 2002, "that armed resistance within the Palestinian Territories was legitimate." For lack of a balancing WP:RS in 4 months, I have deleted it. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Failure 

message: , after skimming over this section, I tend to agree with this comment you made: 
:: "This is an article about the Fatah-Hamas conflict. It needs to show where their views were in parallel, where they differed, and to what degree. ..."
However, there are numerous differences between the two groups views, and I am concerned sources used above note only few of them, and doesn't doesn't explicitly provide the conclusion that they were the source of the conflict among the two groups. 
Furthermore, I am concerned about the way this section is phrased. Right now it is appears that Hamas were pro peace, but only unfair things led it to reject the peace process moving to more "confrontational approach" ... I would like a source that shows that Hamas supported peace initiative or favored non confrontational approach prior to camp david--Elysans (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  SYN 

message: After combing the history section, it appears that some information/sources has been omitted without real discussion. In this case pertaining to oslo:
::: "Since the conclusion of the 1993/1995 Oslo Accords by Israel and the Fatah-dominated PLO, Fatah and Hamas went different ways. While Fatah renounced armed struggle against Israel pursuant to the Oslo Accords, Hamas initiated a long campaign of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis."
While the removal ostensibly justified, being tagged with "Failed verification", upon closer inspection the info is valid, relevant (showing where the two parties methods diverged) just poorly worded and no one bothered to fix it.  -- The source clearly state that until 1993 both sanctioned violence against Israel as a means to achieve a Palestinian state, however, since with the signing of the Oslo accords, as part of their efforts toward a two-state solution with Israel, they had to moderate (as oppose to renounce), recognizing Israel's right to exist.--Elysans (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omitted info 

message: The Puppet AttilaTotalWar (24 edits since 31 August and already fully equipped; zero edits on talk pages, but consistently refering to them)
apparently only wants to disrupt and obstruct.  WP:GAMING
The Reconciliation section was already 1:1 copied to Fatah–Hamas reconciliation process, presumely to plit off. It adds nothing to this article. --Qualitatis (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop accusing other editors of bad behavior, let alone when you have a clear POV agenda. You add content to your taste, placing all the blame on Fatah (using a one-sided opinionated source), while you pretend to delete sourced content that is completely relevant and related to the topic of this article, such as Hamas attempts to overthrow Fatah and other important information the article is lacking right now.--AttilaTotalWar (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

text: All that sourced information you want to remove is related to the context.--AttilaTotalWar (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconciliation attempts 

message: Fatah recognized Israel's right to exist and led the efforts toward a two-state solution with Israel, while Hamas maintained its charter and officially rejected peace process with Israel. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/gaza-e-r/fatah-vs-hamas/1227/ Hamas initiated a long campaign of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/12/israel
The Hamas charter is from 1988, thus it cannot be connected to the 2007 conflict. Suicide bombings were during the Second Intifada, thus can also not be connected. Sources do not support. Both are POV edits. --Qualitatis (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is talking about the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, not Second Intifada. That's why The Guardian says: "The Islamist faction, responsible for a long campaign of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis, still calls for the maintenance of the armed struggle against occupation. But it steps back from Hamas's 1988 charter demanding Israel's eradication and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its place."--AttilaTotalWar (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

text: It's factual information backed up by a reliable source and closely related to the topic, nothing to do with "incitement".--AttilaTotalWar (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: moved to Fatah–Hamas conflict (2006–07). Jenks24 (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamas–Fatah conflict →  – Limit article; give historical context.
This article focusses on the military Fatah–Hamas conflict between December 2006 and November 2007, whereas Battle of Gaza (2007) focusses on the culmination in June. A clear begin and end. The reconciliation part focusses on the political Fatah–Hamas conflict without any specific reference to the 2006-2007 events. It makes no sense to limitedless add such political events. 
The political aspects to be covered by Fatah–Hamas reconciliation process.
Qualitatis (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

text: For clarity: the choice is either make it a 2007 article, or keep it as a general longterm-article and move the undue detailed 2007 timeline. You cannot have both. The reconciliation part is a fork of Fatah–Hamas reconciliation process and does not make sense here. After removing timeline and fork there is little left. --Qualitatis (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
===Follow up===
Once the article has been refined and split, someone will need to go through these redirects and make sure they all point to the right location:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
*  
—Jenks24 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 September 2015 

message: Once the article has been refined and split, someone will need to go through these redirects and make sure they all point to the right location:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
*  
—Jenks24 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow up

message: The first section of Background is very artificial and I don't see anything that clarifies the 2007 conflict. I propose to delete this bla bla. --Qualitatis (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 2 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fatah–Hamas conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015202544/http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-13---2007/volume-13-issue-5/hamas-coup-in-gaza/ to http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-13---2007/volume-13-issue-5/hamas-coup-in-gaza/
*Added  tag to https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/fatah-and-hamas-agree-ceasefire-5938674.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pchrgaza.ps/files/PressR/English/2007/41-2007.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629055048/http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200706161550.htm to http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200706161550.htm
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380585473&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710740363&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Fatah–Hamas conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151118125506/http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=9055&CategoryId=4 to http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=9055&CategoryId=4
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151118120217/http://www.eubam-rafah.eu/node/2311 to http://www.eubam-rafah.eu/node/2311
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/793DD747-A1B7-4BE3-B120-0CF171612495.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070201/wl_nm/palestinians_dc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fatah–Hamas conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110916072807/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813032455&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813032455&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fatah–Hamas conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203040926/https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/609-did-hamas-carry-out-a-coup-in-gaza-in-2007 to https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/609-did-hamas-carry-out-a-coup-in-gaza-in-2007
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "The reconciliation process and unification of Hamas and Fatah administrations has not finalized as of September 2015."
That was a while ago, mateys. --90.227.198.191 (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs an update. 

message: Articles under WP:ARPIA are notorious for failing WP:BIAS tests by often being dominated by Israeli and United States views and opinions, for instance by quoting IDF and Israeli ministry statements without question, yet being highly critical (reverting/deleting) statements reflecting a pro-Palestinian position and balancing the pro-Israeli positions, often with unsupported claims [POV; UNDUE; SYNTH; BIAS; etc]. The latest case of many is by  who deleted a quote from the book "On Palestine" by Chomsky, Pappé and Barat (published by Penguin Special; reprinted by Haymarket Books) simply based on יניב הורון's opinion that it is "UNDUE". The quote contains many statements, each of which can be separately and easily supported by sources from the House of Commons, the Carter Institute, the New York Times; Congressional Research Service - The Library of Congress; etc., and favourably reproduced by other authors, many also with critical position against Israel, perfectly allowed by WP:BIAS. But these sources are not the point. Chomsky et. al. collected these pieces of documented history and presented them as a third party evaluation, EXACTLY what WIKI urges. I invite inspection of the deleted paragraph- History - Revision as of 01:28, 26 June 2018: Did the PA election take place when C&Pappé stated? Was it free and fair (e.g. Carter Institute)? Did it "come out the wrong way" by being counter to what the USA anticipated and wanted (FAS)? Was Bush highlighting "democracy promotion" at the time (NYT)? Have any other observers noted that the Palestinians were punished for having the temerity to present a vote that Israel and the US did not want (see Thrall and others in LRB)? Was a harsh siege/blockade of Gaza not instituted soon thereafter? Did violence not increase? Did David Rose of Vanity Fair not uncover previously confidential papers (confirmed by US sources) which demonstrated that the U.S. then promoted a Fatah coup and armed the Hamas opposition with a view to reversing Hamas's governance in Gaza and unseating the Hamas appointed security chief in the strip? Was Rose not favourably quoted in numerous speciality books on the subject? Did the European Union not ally itself with Israel and the U.S.? Did Israel not immediately escalate tensions by blockading the strip and firing on Gazans in their own territory? So what is worthy of revert about Chomsky and Pappé succinctly collecting these verifiable facts which are obviously (sky is blue) pertinent to the article topic in one place? Even more disconcerting ... what could possibly be "UNDUE" about them?  Alternatively, but not offered as a revert justification, what are יניב הורון's sources that these statements are false? I really support an open debate on such recent patterns of unjustified reverts on ARPIA topics, patterns which have become a TALKing point on Gaza War (2008–09) - section 'Blind Reverting'.   Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but you are not going to put an entire paragraph in the middle of the section just to copy-past an opinion article which is an extremely POVish interpretation of events by two known pro-Palestinian activists. It doesn't contribute to understand the simple fact that the international community suspended foreign aid after Hamas rejected to renounce violent struggle, recognize Israel and accept previous agreements. This is the fact of what happened in reality, not some "Israel/USA view". And if you see in the article an entire paragraph of 150 words just quoting some Israeli official, please let me know so we can remove it.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree putting such view is WP:UNDUE and its WP:POV violation.--Shrike (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Also there is a problem of WP:OR the sources in question should directly mention the topic of the article and they don't--Shrike (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

text: The amount of space given to a minority view of Chomsky (which is clearly in minority - when they are arguing against Israel, US, EU, and the non-Islamist part of the PA) - is UNDUE. Global Research is not a RS - and Israel's role in the beginnings of Hamas (not Hamas itself - but the precursor of Hamas) - is a bit more complex than the quote presented.Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Chomsky's suggestion that the Palestinian legislative election, 2006 was  is false on its face (see the Iraqi parliamentary election, December 2005 and the many free elections in Lebanon). Global Research is universally regarded as a conspiracy site by all serious RS; see, for example, the many sources listed here. You have not presented any academic source for the inflammatory (and WP:EXCEPTIONAL) assertion that Hamas was "created" by Israel; there is no evidence that Israel offered Hamas any material support whatsoever, although it didn't crack down as hard on the budding movement as it might have when it controlled the Gaza Strip due to its belief that Fatah was the bigger threat.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Revert 

message: It says: 
"Hamas has been the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip since its takeover in June 2007." 
Sorry, it was NOT a "coup", as some Muslim and left-wing apologists on MSNBC and CNN are wrongly characterizing it. Not understanding the facts and the history. 
It's true that Hamas denied future elections, but they said from the outset what they were all about, and the people of Gaza voted for them anyway, and in recent polls said they support Hamas and what they stand for, especially in regards to Israel and Jews, etc. 
Hamas was VOTED IN.  
In 2006.  
Before the events in 2007.'''
So it's wrong for Wikipedia to say that Hamas has been the "de facto" governing authority of the Gaza strip "since its takeover in June 2007". 
Hamas has been the DE JURE governing authority.  The official and duly elected governing authority of Gaza, since 2006 etc. 
The 2007 event was AFTER the election, not before. 2603:7000:A900:45DF:F479:7D22:D0FA:97BC (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left-wing whitewash spin of Hamas as "de facto governing authority since 2007" inaccurate  

message: It says that the US “allegedly” backed the PNA. That sounds like a nonneutral point of view. Maybe it’s worth pointing that out. SapphireBrick (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2024