Talk:Hamas/Archive 2

message: :Top Hamas leaders, Khaled Mashal and Imad al-Alami, have either fled or been expelled from Syria. Mashal appeared briefly in Egypt before going into hiding. al-Alami appears to have gone to Iran. Syria denies that the two where expelled. (end of article)
Not infrequently we read in the NYT that the United States is pressuring Syria to take measures against Hamas.  This may be a response to that pressure. An Syrian source states that the two (quoting article) "should find safer territory, and Alami reportedly went to Iran while Mashal surfaced briefly in Cairo and then disappeared. Syria has officially denied it kicked out Mashal and other Hamas chiefs."  Perhaps I have unfairly represented the matter.  Help making the paragraph more accurate would be appreciated. Lance6Wins 13:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: An unnamed Palestinian source quoted in Haaretz discussing Syrian government activities is rather speculative. The article even conflicts with earlier Haaretz articles that placed Khakled Mashal in Cairo one week prior to the assassination of Sheikh Khalil. These events are often distorted by disinformation from many sources. Elucidating motives of governments and groups is especially fraught with bias. Every effort should be made to keep Wikipedia NPOV and fact-based. There is no point in an encyclopedia of speculation. Let's leave that to the newspapers, editorial pages and foreign policy journals.  Alberuni 14:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Anon 209.135.35.83 wrote "Top Hamas leaders, Khaled Mashal and Imad al-Alami, have either fled or been expelled from Syria. Mashal appeared briefly in Egypt before going into hiding. al-Alami appears to have gone to Iran. Syria denies that the two where expelled. (end of article)" This was not even a factually accurate summary of the Haaretz article which itself was hearsay - so I deleted it. If you can add some factual substantiated information that adds to this article, please feel free to do so. Alberuni 17:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why delete this 

message: I think we can all agree three basic points:
- Hamas does not recognize the existence of Israel and is committed to its "removal" (to use an NPOV term) from the face of the earth.
- Hamas has committed violient acts, targeted at killing Israeli civilians (whom it regards as potential soldiers).
- Hamas also provides philanthropic services to the Palestinian people, including building Hospitals and Schools.
My suggestion, therefore, is to leave the introductory paragraph alone. However, to be consistent, and to retain a NPOV, the first paragraph of the article on German Nazism should begin with a comment on how it brought Germany out of economic depression, renewed hope among the German people, began a youth movement that inspired its members with discipline and good, honest, hard work, and, just happened also to have advocated the extermination of all Jews.
Sounds pretty NPOV doesn't it? Presenting the good and the bad?Loomis51 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand the anger, frustration and pain that has led to the posts in this sub-section, I do not believe that they bring us any closer to defining the nature and importance of Hamas' philanthropy within the P.A.  Consequently, I have changed the title of this sub-section accordingly. (Mingus ah um 00:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Article Formerly Known as "''Hamas's "Philanthropic" Wing''"

message: Some claims continuosly that Hamas won 56,1 %. I have now added reference to the figures (42,9%)(Central Clection Commission - Palesetine). As long as my figures are not refuted with a reliable reference, I suggest that we consider any edit of the election result as vandalism. See also [Palestinian legislative election, 2006] Bertilvidet 20:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 election result

message: What is the definitive source for Israel's early support of Hamas? Articles referenced seem to go both ways. I think that this should be brought up, but shouldn't be stated as fact.
00:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
: Moreover, the article says Hamas was founded 1987 but funded by Israel 1970.  How come? Leandro GFC Dutra 22:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice to have some more information about Israel's early support for Hamas; something I've heard a lot about but never seen discussed in detail.jackbrown 14:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Leandro - the reason for the confusion in dates is that the article fails to carefully outline the fact that Hamas is an organization which grew out of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood during the first Intifada--and then basically supplanted the Brotherhood; nowadays there is no distinction between them in Palestine. I guess I should write a paragraph in the article outlining the evolution. But I feel that the article is so broken that it needs to be taken down and rewritten from the bottom up, something you can't do on Wiki.jackbrown 14:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel funded Hamas?

message: There appear to be large sections of this Talk page that are repeated, as if the entire text of it was appended to itself at one point.  Would one of the more established contributors to this page please delete the extra copies of the discussions?  Once that is done, feel free to delete this note as well.  Thanks.  --Lachrym 21:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated blocks of text in this Talk 

message: Could someone please add some information on Hamas-PLO relations, with the Palestinian Authority and with Fatah in general? It helps give context on the role of Hamas in the Palestinian struggle. 66.166.247.162 18:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hamas-PLO relations

message: I suggest we get rid of the charter section entirely: It's a waste of space to include giant chunks of the organization's founding charter in what is, after all, supposed to be an encyclopedia article. If people think it's necessary to mention the charter, it can probably be summarized in a paragraph. We can link to the Avalon Project's full translation of the charter (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm) at the bottom, in the external links section...jackbrown 19:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I try to keep this as an encyclopedia and not a blog of how you see Hamas. Why don't wait 2-3 days, see where hamas is heading and  at that time  edit this artyicle. You can use the time to learn how Wikipedia works. It has rulls and ways of doing things. For example you can sign your name after you make a comment so that people will know who said what. Zeq 20:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: ZEQ -  I would say the same.  This is not your personal blog.  please stop using your own evident personal contempt for Hamas to obstruct others from filling out the one-dimensional parody you are insisting on presenting. Anomalous
Zeq, are you saying that Hamas has nothing to do with being the government of Palestine?  I suggest turning on the tv to see otherwise, or reading any major newpaper to see otherwise.
I am saying that this an article about Hamas. They won the election. They have not yet took power. Don't assume you can rewrite all of history. This is  NOT </B> you flog. Zeq 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And the connection to this article is ... Please feel us in. This is the Hamas page. The Hmas charter is a fundemntal part in their idology. The Hamas won 76/132 seats in the palestinian parliment. Likud has about 12/120 (was 40/120) from the israeli knesset. Likud Prime minister has removd Gaza settlments so if you want to talk about Likud go to that article. At least one good thing I can tell you: You will not find me there. I could not care less about Likud. Zeq 14:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only brought up the likud to illustrate the level of bias HERE. Compare and contrast.Lampajoo 15:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with first comment. Charter should certainly be quoted, extensively if really need, but isn't that too much, especially since there's a wikisource link to read the whole text? It only makes a subsection which quick readers skip, instead of reading a quick, well-done (not more than one short paragraph) resume of the Charter. Don't worry, everybody knows Hamas is an Islamic group and against Israel! Tazmaniacs
If you want a section on the Hamas Charter, that section has to be a summary of what the Hamas Charter contains. Instead, what we have here is a selection of quotes meant to push a certain arguement, that being that Hamas does not recognize Israel. There are two options which can be taken to make this section NPOV. The article needs to be rewritten or expanded such that it accurately graps ALL of the Charter, with references not only to its policies towards Israel, but its social and economic policies and ambitions as well. Since the majority of Hamas' efforts are directed to domestic efforts and not terrorist activities, those aspects of its charter should not be shoved aside. The other option of course is to provide the link to the charter which can easily be read by anyone remotely interested in the document. I'd opt for the second, since a comprehensive and NPOV summary of the charter would consume alot of space, despite not being really necessary in an encyclopedic entry. Amibidhrohi 19:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamas Charter 

message: Can we get a "semi-protect" on this page to keep anons and new users from continually vandalizing it? Heck, I can't even keep up with reverts! Justin Eiler 23:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear the IP's listed on the page history. Another reason IP's shouldn't have the right to edit pages. We really have to keep an eye on this page.-Jersey Devil 00:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Phew!
:My brothers in Wiki, thank you all for writing such an athletic set of exchanges. I was gripped by your ability to lob, smash and grunt through many kB of text: a real five-set thriller! I had to save it locally so I can watch again when rain stops play. My only complaint, however, is that some of the rallies went on too long; perhaps no-one had the killer edge?  
--die Baumfabrik 04:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here here. I want to shoot myself. (ImagoDei 06:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fable Tennis 

message: The group is paying a spin doctor $180,000 (£100,000) to persuade Europeans and Americans that it is not a group of religious fanatics who relish suicide bombings and hate Jews.
Yeah, I'm going to remove that in a few hours unless there's some really good reason why we should discuss a (quasi)-political organization's spin doctors in the opening sentences of the article.  Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 13:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This is unencyclopedic.--68.211.68.122 13:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disagree. Because those spin doctors may be on the internet (even right here in Wikipedia) trying to improve the organization image so it is good that the guardian exposed that and so should we show it . Zeq 15:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand the concerns about people pushing an agenda on Wikipedia, Spin (public relations) is solely a perjorative term in English usage. If the phrase can be reworded without a perjorative connotation, I'd welcome re-adding the information, but with the insulting connotation, I can't see it as anything but POV. Justin Eiler 15:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We should include it since the fact that Hamas is interested in its image in Europe and the US is relevant and helpful in understanding the group. Perhaps we should rewrite the sentence in a more encyclopedic way. We should also move the statement out of the 1st couple paragraphs. How about something like: "In January 2006, Hamas hired a media consultant to improve and soften its image in the West. 67.176.232.105 15:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I care about susbstnce not the exact wording. Anyone who want to rephrase it is welcome. Zeq 16:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You have thirty seconds...

message: Just how fully integrated anti-Jewishness and anti-Judaism are in the Islamist struggle against Israel can be best learned from the ideology of the Islamic Resistance Movement -- the HAMAS. By its own definition, the HAMAS is a Palestinian Islamist movement fighting for the liberation of the entire Palestine, the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic State in its stead. However, starting with its most basic ideological literature, most notably the HAMAS' Covenant of August 1988, the organization stresses that its actual struggle is global and as much against the Jews as against Israel or its Zionist inhabitants.
THE HAMAS IDEOLOGY
In November 1988, Hamas published a covenant which was an attempt to systematically present the movement's ideology, in contrast to the PLO covenant. It presents the Arab-Israeli conflict as the epitome of an inherently irreconcilable struggle between Jews and Muslims, and Judaism and Islam. It is not a national or territorial conflict but a historical, religious, cultural and existential conflict between "truth and falsehood," the believers and the infidels, in which one side will eventually be the victor. The only way to confront this struggle is through Islam and by means of jihad (holy war), until victory or martyrdom. "The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews [and kill them]; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!? This ideology is represented in the movement's emblem, which shows the Qur'an and a sword. Reflecting this point of view, the Hamas leaflets were the most vociferous of all leaflets distributed by the Palestinian organizations during the Intifada and contained the most extreme anti-Semitic statements against Jews, Israelis and Zionists.
The terminology used against the Jews in the leaflets is a mixture of Western anti-Semitic and Islamic rhetoric. Some of the anti-Semitic expressions appearing repeatedly in the leaflets are:
"The brothers of the apes, the killers of the Prophets, blood suckers, warmongers," "barbaric," "cowards," "cancer expanding in the land of Isra' [reference to Palestine which was the destination of Muhammad's night journeyl and Mi'raj [Muhammad's ascent to heaven] threatening the entire Islamic world," "a conceited and arrogant people," "the enemy of God and mankind," "the descendants of treachery and deceit,", Nazis," "spreading corruption in the land of Islam," "the Zionist culprits who poisoned the water in the past, killed infants, women and elders," "thieves, monopolists, usurers."
Verses from the Qur'an and the hadith (the traditions associated with Muhammad passed down by his companions) were used often to reinforce the negative image of the Jews, and terminology with Islamic connotations was dominant. The leaflets usually began with the religious invocation: "In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compa.ssionate." Almost every leaflet contained a Qur'anic verse either as a heading or as a conclusion, emphasizing a certain feature inherent to the Jews, is instigating war. For example: "Oh believers! take not the Jews or the Christians as friends." "So make war on them: By your hand will God chastise them, and will put them to shame, and will give you victory over them, and will heal the bosoms of a people who believe." 
source:  []
Hamas Movement Spreads Anti-Semitism via the Internet  []
“In Hamas' literature, anti-Semitism became almost dominant. Earlier anti-Semitic motifs are developed time and again in their magazine Falastin al-Muslama. Almost every issue contains anti-Jewish articles using elements from the Islamic tradition. Judaism is presented as a religion based on lies, which from its origin called for aggression against others and their exploitation.”
Its founding charter contains strong anti-Semitic motifs including a quotation from the Koran as well as extreme derogatory remarks taken literally from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The charter of Hamas says this is an authentic document reflecting the danger of the Jewish people.
source: []
Hamas Terror and Anti-Semitism Harsh Anti-Semitic Expressions by Abd Al-Aziz Al-Rantisi,
A Senior Hamas Leader in the Gaza Strip -  Rantisi’s incitement usually includes anti-Semitic attacks against the Jewish people. The themes he uses are well known and drawn from both classic European anti-Semitism and Islamic anti-Semitic interpretations.  Source:[]
or just google it yourself   []
-Regards,Doright 22:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have provided good evidence that some Israeli organizations consider Hamas to be anti-Semitic. That doesn't make it a fact. The accusations of anti-Semitism should be included in the article with attribution to the source. The category is not appropriate because it implies that the accusation is a fact. --68.219.203.209 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, 68.219.203.209, Hamas blows up Jews indiscriminately. This would probably constitute a sufficient evidence of Hamas’ hatred of Jews, ergo anti-Semitism. Unless, of course, you consider this sort of behavior to be an expression of passionate love towards Jewish people. Jeffsnill 22:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Earth is Flat and Hamas should not be indexed in the Antisemitism Category

message: "This word is from the same root as a common Biblical Hebrew word for "violence, injustice, harsh wrong" (Oxford University Press Hebrew-English Dictionary), used for example in Gen. 6:11."
Interesting observation, but its inclusion may violate NPOV. Root derivation is not an index of identification: saying that "hamas" derives from a common root with a Biblical Hebrew word for "violence, injustice, harsh wrong" can be like saying that "nonviolence" derives from a common root with an English word that means "to inflict physical harm" - specifically, the English words "violence" and "nonviolence" share the common Latin root ";vehemens"! Common derivation is only significant if the commonality is significant; in this case, "hamas"'s common root with "violence, injustice, harsh wrong" is only significant if we decide that the name Hamas is synonymous with "violence, injustice, harsh wrong." If the common root from which both are derived also means "violence, injustice, harsh wrong" then the observation is appropriate - could anyone identify the common root? I'll leave the quote in for now, but someone ought to address my concern.
:Good point: Hebrew roots can be terribly ambiguous. Additionally, a reference to a Biblical Hebrew root is not necessarily significant when working with modern Hebrew. I'll remove it for now (per WP:BOLD). Justin Eiler 15:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that even if we can all agree what the Hebrew means, it shouldn't be included in this article unless there is some evidence that it means something to Hamas or that its meaning influenced their choice of acronym. Otherwise, it's a mere coincidence which is not really worth mentioning in an encyclopedia.Palmiro | Talk 16:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you think it is useful and really is significant, I suppose it could go in, though the first part of the proposed sentence is a bit speculative. Certainly the Muslim Brothers had the meaning of the Arabic acronym in mind, just as those of Fata7 (conquest). Palmiro | Talk 12:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it certainly doesn't belong in the first line giving the meaning of the Arabic word. Palmiro | Talk 18:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hamas operates (only) in Israel(and the Gaza Strip, and the occupied Judea and Samaria). If Al-Qaeda meant something in Hebrew, I wouldn't have want it added to the article. Besides, I'm talking about the effect the Hamas has on Israel. It belongs here as much is at belongs to Effects of Palestinian Terrorist Organizations on Israel, Israeli Culture and Israeli Views. conio.h • talk 03:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology of Hamas

message: :Hamas is well funded and known to make generous payments to the families of suicide bombers. According to The Guardian  the group is "paying a spin doctor $180,000 (£100,000) to persuade Europeans and Americans that it is not a group of religious fanatics who relish suicide bombings and hate Jews." 
:On December 12, 2005 Hamas sent a video greeting to the "Arabs of 1948" (i.e Israeli Arabs) on their help to Hamas "To destroy Israel from within" . , and not to suffer from the perceived corruption of the Fatah party . 
These are the two paragraphs I removed from the intro. Zeq, there are some real problems with them.
# "Hamas is well funded and known to make generous payments to the families of suicide bombers." -- Needs a citation, and needs to be in a later section, not the introsuction for POV reasons.
::Also needs to point out that they make payments to the families after their children have committed the suicide bombing because the Israeli government imposes severe financial penalties on the same families. I.e. far from funding terrorism this is a case of trying to help the poor that are robbed by the Israeli government for the crimes of people that are not them. I.e. a case of ensuring that although the Israeli government punish people for the crimes of others, in contradiction to the universal declaration of human rights, Hamas wish to ensure that people's rights under that same declaration, those rights the declaration says they have simply by virtue of existing, are upheld.
# "According to The Guardian  the group is "paying a spin doctor $180,000 (£100,000) to persuade Europeans and Americans that it is not a group of religious fanatics who relish suicide bombings and hate Jews." -- I've covered this in an NPOV manner in a later paragraph.
::In much the same way as Creationist groups pay for TV adverts to say that it isn't a bunch of evil terrorist nutcases. There isn't anything significant about this, other than people who clearly have a bad press in some regions of the world, many of which are heavily biased against them, trying to clear their own name.
# On December 12, 2005 Hamas sent a video greeting to the "Arabs of 1948" (i.e Israeli Arabs) on their help to Hamas "To destroy Israel from within" .  -- This not only needs a citation (from a neutral source), this needs to be in History, not in the intro.
::That would be 100% of the membership of Hamas that sent the video? or an individual, or group, within it. I.e. is it like the entire state of Israel bombing civilian targets, or just the nutcases that constitute KACH?
# and not to suffer from the perceived corruption of the Fatah party.  -- Straight POV.
Zeq, I support Israel and I'm not at all fond of Hamas. But if we live in a world where we deal with people like them, we must know ALL the truth--not just the truth that agrees with our preferences. Justin Eiler 16:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi, Zeq 

message: Zeq, your last edit to this page cited an editorial/opinion piece. Opinions and editorials are not "facts"--they are opinions, and cannot be cited as facts. Justin Eiler 17:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Opinion" is not "Citation"

message: I archived the first twenty subtopics of the talk page to Talk:Hamas/Archive_1 and Talk:Hamas/Archive_2. Justin Eiler 23:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived Discussions 

message: Would anyone like to offer a reason why I should not take out all the quotes from the Hamas Charter, which is readily available in full from the external links, instead giving a succinct description of relevant provisions thereof in appropriate parts of the article? Palmiro | Talk 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because poeople rearly click on external links and it is better to give them a glance of important quotes. Maybe look at the reason whu you filled the "nakba" articles in zionist quotes although those quotes (and links to them) belong in articles such as "transfer". The quotes stay, they belong in this article. Zeq 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is exactly what I think is looking increasingly like the only alternative, and indeed a result we are now poised to incrementally achieve, but it uses a disproportionate amount of space, duplicates Wikisource, and is contrary to policy. Palmiro | Talk 16:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Too long. It is enough to give the important quotes (as done now) and provide a link to the whole charter. Zeq 17:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence so far that the "important quotes" are being chosen on any basis except that people think they can use them to prove one point or another in pursuit of their ideological ends. This means other people put other bits in. And eventually we will have the whole thing here. Not good. Palmiro | Talk 17:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Luckly, so far, this did not occur and we have a reasnable number of quotes that take up 3-4% of this article. If someone will start adding many more quotes to cloud the issue this would be against WP:Point so I am not worried - we will be able to deal with it. If there is a quote you think is important - feel free to add it but make sure you don't violate WP:point just to show your point that what you think  might  occur is  indeed occuring  (so far it did not. Zeq 17:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamas Charter, again 

message: stop being biased and mention that! source from BBC News
Hamas runs social programmes like building schools, hospitals and religious institutions 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1654510.stm
:This is true and I actually added that, not sure why it was deleted. Zeq 20:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the section title CAPITALIZED? And so many question marks... Really, one is enough. El_C 00:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Nazis made trains come on schedule, didn't make them any less homisidal Jeffsnill 22:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That we will ensure the trains run on time is attributed to the Italian Fascists (Mussolini), actually. El_C 00:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A NPOV article should include all information.  This is an encyplodedia article, not an article to convince people that hamas is bad.  The information should be included.  --MateoP 13:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamas Run Sschools And Hospitals! Why No Mention Of That?  

message: What is the point of this section? Why should it not be deleted?
:The first paragraph refers to a civil action in the USA against an event taking place in Israel. Legal actions against events outside a court's jurisdiction have no relevance.
:The second paragraph refers to an indictment which, by definition, is POV.
--die Baumfabrik 05:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Action Against Hamas? 

message: Yesterday I have fixed the spelling of Alistair Cooke's name (was misspelled as Crooke). His opinion does not correspond to mine, but that's another story. Today, his name is misspelled again, and some relevant links (such as ADL) were gone. The removal of a linked, sourced, relevant material is not a way to collaborate. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's Alistair Crooke.
 There is an Alistair Cooke (probably rather better known, in England anyway) but it's not the same person at all.   Probably worth citing a source in the article just so that the confusion doesn't recur. Palmiro | Talk 12:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed it because his name is "crooke" Zeq 14:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, good to know. I stand corrected.  ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flurry of enthusiasm here 

message: I suggest that any new news be moved to a topc named "Hamas Palistinian Election of 2006" and information should be moved from that to the main Hamas article as appropiate.
As a note of consistancy the Republican_Party_%28United_States%29 article can change rapidly, just as the George W Bush. But they currently don't have that block inserted becuase there are articles such as U.S._presidential_election%2C_2004 to do this. Article does but they are not listed as current events because they both aren't events, they are entities. What are peoples' opinions on this? --..micky 09:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Event. Why? 

message: Being anti-Semite means being against the jews. (although other national origin, especially the arabs, are also semites)
Still, antisemitism is widely used to describe hate against jews.
Being "for the destruction of Israel" or Being "pro-peace" may not seem antisemitic - right ?
so let's examine:
*Being for peace is nice, but if this peace means that it is achived by removing all the jews from israel - this does look so noable any more - right  ?
Being "anti_Israel" sound as being "anti-American" or "Anti-French" but let's examine closly:
*"Anti-Israel" is against the right of the Jewish people to have a homeland. After all israel is the only homelnd the Jewish people have.
So do not let retoric confuse you. But in case it does read article 6 in the Hamas covenenet: Their hatred toward  the jews  is spelled out clearly in article6.
Zeq 15:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti israel or Antisemite  ? 

message: I rm this:
:"According to the semi-official Hamas biography "Truth and existence," Hamas evolved through four main stages:
# 1967-1976: Construction of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Gaza Strip in the face of "oppressive Israeli rule";
# 1976-1981: Geographical expansion through participation in professional associations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and institution building, notably al-Mujamma` al-islami, al-Jam`iyya al-islamiyya, and the Islamic University in Gaza;
# 1981-1987: Political influence through establishment of the mechanisms of action and preparation for armed struggle;
# 1987: Founding of Hamas as the combatant arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine  and the launching of a continuing Jihad."
This last sentence in particular "Founding of Hamas as the combatant arm of the Muslim Brotherhood" is incorrect. How can you claim Hamas is the "combatant arm of the Muslim Brotherhood"? It is inspired by it, that's not the same at all. Tazmaniacs
:Actually, the wikisource translation of the Covenant says "The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine". I think that material should go back in; it seems to correspond surprisingly closely to fact. Palmiro | Talk 16:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rear moment in wiki history: I agree with Palmiro. back in it should go. Zeq 17:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the intro to state this rather significant information about the organisation. Palmiro | Talk 18:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed questionable passage 

message: Due to the controversial nature of the topic, shouldn't we use only endnotes as in other similar articles, with Citenews templates? It's longer, but at least we immediately know which source comes the info from. Tazmaniacs 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources: how about endnotes? 

message: It seems to be a hard work to keep this article - about a sensitive issue - sufficiently NPOV. I have however the impression that all of us participating in the discussion have reached an agreement / compromise about the points to be in the introduction:
1. The largest Palestian Islamist movement
2. Provides extensive social services
3. Has carried out attacks on Israelis (including civilians) why it designated as a terrorist organization by several states.
And then, obviously, we should not have too many details in these first lines, which must sum up the main aspects of the group.
Until we reach another agreement I strongly urge everyone to keep an eye on these first lines and do an effort to keep it NPOV in line with the above mentioned points. Bertilvidet 07:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction that we all agree upon?

message: I think we're going about this the wrong way. What we're here to achieve is a concise, factual definition. If we all sit about here trying to find compromise wording, all we'll end up doing is compromising the facts -- the very thing we don't want. So why don't we lay out the facts first (in point form) and do the wordsmithing afterwards. Softwalker 22:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there are many facts about any entry. And the article is filled with facts, if there is anythning factually wrong it will be contested immediately. My point is that we whould find a compromise, which I believe we have, about which facts are the most significant and best describing the group and thus tobe mentioned in the introduction. I believe an introdcution will be clearly biased if any of my three poınts are left out! Bertilvidet 14:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please particapte here...It really serves nothing just reverting the introduction to whatever you find the most relevant...I believe we can reach a consensus, and I think the three above mentioned points is a good point of start.Bertilvidet 10:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Really 

message: When discussing Hamas, their history of terrorism should be discussed prior to their history of social welfare programs. For instance, when discussing the organization in the opening paragraph (and I'm paraphrasing here, since this page changes every time I blink my eyes) the initial description of Hamas shouldn't be that they're a group who engages in social programs AND happens to launch deadly terrorist attacks. The harm they do to Israel is far greater, more note-worthy (and makes them more notorious) than the good they do for the Palestinians and so their history of terrorism should take precedence before any mention of their social programs are discussed. When their social activities are discussed first, it gives the impression that their terrorist activities are being downplayed. Let's remember this is still a designated terrorist organization that has committed indiscriminate slaughter of hundreds of innocents.--BlueTruth 17:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the history of edits for this article and the Talk discussions, you will see that consensus has not allowed insertions of "terrorist" labels directly. It is used only to state what countries, organizations and analysts themselves use the word. Also there is no reason or policy that I know of that compels us to use the order you specified, which is why I am reverting that edit. The harm they do versus the social good they do is entirely a matter of POV. --AladdinSE 22:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And it seems you have your own biased POV concerning this subject so there's little use in arguing with you. The fact remains that Hamas is known primarily for being a terrorist organization and our own State Department has designated it as such. How can one even argue that they do more good than harm, when their actions have led to the deaths of hundreds of innocents? Please explain. --BlueTruth 00:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe 'your own State Department' has a web page where it can present its views. The aim of this site is not to transmit what that or any other institution thinks about any given subject. We should try to give balanced informations - which can include the views of your government, but may not take it for granted. Bertilvidet 20:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hamas tell us what it is and what it stands for: Mukawama (euphmism for restitance) Zeq 21:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist activities before social activities 

message: ::::: I think we all agree with you Zek, sincerely. For my part, it is so obvious that Hamas is a terrorist group that it should of course be said - the obvious must be said - but simply doesn't need to be said in three lines (there is a whole section detailing each bombing, isn't there?). I'm not blaming anything on the West, first of all because I don't believe in a dualist opposition between West and East ("Occident against Orientalism???", guy who thought that really was drunk on that day...). Terrorist groups have to pass by an underground economy to finance themselves. As other peoples do. Things are much more complex, and our interest all of us is exposing this complexity. Tazmaniacs
::I'm abstaining from editing right now, but please considers that writing this, in the intro:
:::"Funded, according to the U.S. State Dept, [1] by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, the group is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States, and is banned in Jordan."
::... is simply carrying out without any CRITICAL point of view the US State Dept. informations. Who knows who funds the Hamas? I'm sorry, but this is not at all NPOV. I wouldn't care so much, if I didn't fear the US starting another war, somewhere else... When one wants to speak about terrorism, one must understand that NO terrorist group has been able to support itself on its own. Henceforth, it has always been looking for allies one way or the other. And, due to the nature of politics, these allies change a lot. Furthermore, it is the work of the intelligence agencies of controlling terrorist organizations. The first way to do it is to infiltrate them. And here the ambiguities can begin... Things are not so simple, and surely we Wikipedians are not the one to know who is manipulating who. It is silly to report such claims without any distance. What would have written Wikipedia when the US claimed that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction? Would we have written in the introduction:
:"Iraq is a country ruled by dictator Saddam Hussein, allegedly involved in ethnic cleansing (against the Kurds in the 1980s, etc.) and who tried to invade Kuweit in the 1990s. Iraq, according to the U.S. State Dept, has got weapons of mass destruction, and is allegedly in possession of the nuclear bomb. After fighting with Iran during 8 years, it has turned toward Israel, on whom it launched a SCUD during the Gulf War."
::What do you think about this??? I also recall that before Arafat's death, everybody was saying he was the main obstacle to peace, and that Israel had nobody to negotiate with. Who's got Israel to talk to now?Tazmaniacs
::I found it regrettable that edits are made without previous concertation. Since nobody's has given feedback but that some POV have been pushed, I've felt obliged to moved the majority of the intro in the "overview", as to make the intro the more factual possible, and concentrated on the current issue (Wikipedia should take advantage of its reactiveness). Furthermore, since no comments have been made about those allegations of funding, and that I'm sure I'm not alone in considering that a NPOV requires a Critical Point of View on US State Dept sources concerning those matters, I've NPOVed it adding the allegations concerning MOSSAD's previous support. Fair game. Tazmaniacs 20:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of people's opinion about the length of the intro, it has to be properly written and encyclopedic. This isn't, because it removes the sources alleging that Hamas is a terrorist group, and inserts "thus qualifying it as ..." which is the editor's personal opinion. The current intro gives a more extensive overview and is sourced. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I conserved the current formulation in the intro about Hamas as a terrorist group with the US State Dept source. However, I did put again the discussion about where do Hamas funds come from in the Overview subsection. Please consider again the arguments above. We have no real way of verifying where those funds come from, and if the US State Dept is usually a reliable source for Wikipedia, I am sure many people agree with me that we can't cite it without a Critical Point of View concerning stuffs as Hamas, Iraq, Iran, Al Qaeda, etc. You do realize that some hawks are pushing for a war against Iran, don't you? You do realize that carrying on the US accusations without any distance, a requirement of objectivity, Wikipedia is not following the neutral point of view policy, and may fall in the trap of being an advocate of this propaganda. I am not at all a supporter of Islamism, but I'm not either a supporter of bringing hell to Iraq because of virtual WMD. Tazmaniacs 17:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree completely on the above comment. BTW, why is it so relevant that Hamas is outlawed in Jordan, that it should be mentioned in the very beginning?? As far as I know the Muslim Brotherhood operates legally in Jordan. Bertilvidet 15:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funds 

message: Dear Wikipedia Admins,
Some Pro-Palestinian Vandalist editing the page and describing Hamas as Islamist Movement.
Currently, by most Western Countries and by most people, Hamas is an Terror Organization for everything.
Hamas was responsible for many Suicide Bombings that killed many innicent victims.
I hope the vandalist will stop editing it and making it Islamist Movement, and they will let the truth goes out - Hamas is Terror Organization.
: Comment The consensus (on this page and others) is that the word "terrorist" is a point-of-view word (i.e., one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter).  The article already states that Europe, the U.S., and Israel classify Hamas as a terrorist organziation. Wikipedia does not represent any of those entities; it is a global encyclopedia. I hope you will take some time to read the discussion page for the article.  OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not think the consensus is based on the idea that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Targeting large groups of civilians for violent death has not historically been a strategy of most liberation movements ("freedom fighters"). However, "terrorist" is a vague and poorly defined word, and carries far more polemical weight than explanatory value. I think this is the source of the consensus not to use it. Babajobu 21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll concede that the "freedom fighter" analogy may not be that accurate. I do think that the term "terrorist" is controversial enough that we should stick to using it in the context of who calls who a terrorist versus stating it as a fact. Thanks for the clarification. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to violate the WP:3RR rule, but insisting that Wikipedia label Hamas as a "terrorist" organization seems to be a political statement to me. I'm not a supporter of Hamas, but I do strongly believe that Wikipedia should be as neutral as possible in such matters. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamas is Terror Organization. 

message: I actually think that they were an improvement. Removed weasel words, made the article read more NPOV, and it's certainly not as though they inserted any pro-Palestinian propaganda. Babajobu 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His edit is a setback. He has edited here under multiple IPs, against consensus (if slim, jayjg and myself are in agreement about wordings this is a rear event) He is most likely some who is on a mission tio improve Hamas public image. They just hired a PR firm. Maybe he is part of it. Zeq 05:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. Babajobu 05:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who needs a PR firm when you have Slim, Jayjg anf Zeq making the Israeli POV the consensus POV?--68.211.66.29 00:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the article reflects "the Israeli POV". Regardless, there is no single Israeli POV on this issue, just as there is no single Palestinian POV. Babajobu 12:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IP 68.211.66.29's changes

message: Hamas has created a network of social welfare programs throughout the West Bank and Gaza
this is Hamas' POV, hardly NPOV. ems 16:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a matter of fact. Where does the POV come into it? This article is basically an appalling heap of shite, and has been ever since people got interested in Hamas once they won the elections, but this is hardly one of the problems. Palmiro | Talk 16:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this deletion frenzy? if it's a "heap of shite", nobody forces it in reading it. When you say that stating Hammas is a Sunni organization is irrelevant, than I have a hard time in believing in your good faith. Same goes for multiple deletions of sources, references, whole paragraphs, etc. You don't like what the Canard Enchaîné writes? Nobody forces you to like it, to believe it or anything. It is a legitimate source, which you can identify following the link. So long... Next time a total revert is in order with this kind of behavior, deleting a whole paragraph on the new development without putting it to talk page first or moving it somewhere else. You do realize Wikipedia is written by people who disagree together, don't you? Tazmaniacs 17:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry but being Suni is the not the main issue about Hamas. see this:  Zeq 17:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not engaged in a deletion frenzy, so please assume good faith and be civil. I am not sure about how good a source Le Canard Enchaine is (how thoroughly does it check its facts?); neverthless, it was not me who deleted that. As for Sunni, the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam is not of massive importance in the Palestinian context to put it mildly, and there is nothing so specifically Sunni about Hamas to warrant this being one of the first five or six words in the article. That can certainly be mentioned later on. The Muslim Brotherhood connection (which people keep trying to associate for some bizarre reason with the Egyptian rather than the Palestinian branch of the organization) is one example of something far more significant. Palmiro | Talk 17:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse-me Palmiro, as you point out it wasn't you but some other guys - Zek? - that suddenly  decided to erase all of this. The Canard Enchaîné is certainly a valid mainstream source. Now, about the specific Sunni question - let's talk seriously about something - how can you say it is not relevant when, first of all, this is an Encyclopedia which should certainly state if Hamas is sunni or chiite, since this is two main division of Islam. Beside, Palestinian context or not, it is totally relevant because, in case you didn't follow what's happening Zek, you do know that Hamas has got connexiones to chiites, don't you? And you do know that this is quite strange, as Zarkawi certainly doesn't? It must be stated in the first part, because where you're going to state it then? This is so ridiculous, not wanting to say that Hamas is a Sunni organization. Beside being totally non-encyclopedical, what does it really  matters to you? That maybe some understand things are a bit more complex than a view of the world which want us to believe in so-called "civilization clashes" and "religious wars"? I'm sorry, I'm not into this kind of ideology, which I despise as much as Hamas. Tazmaniacs 17:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's hardly the strangest thing in the region if you start from an expectation that everyone must form cohesive sectarian blocks: cf Michel Aoun and Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah and the Syrian government, the Iranians' close relations with Armenia, need I go on? I don't have any objection to the matter being included in the article, but I find it odd and jarring as one of the first words used to describe Hamas - but perhaps that is partly because I am familiar enough with the region to know that there is no Shiite presence of any significance in Palestine. I am certainly not goiung to make a stand on the issue if other people think it should go back in. Palmiro | Talk 17:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Palmiro. I am more than intimately familiar with the region, I am actually a native of the region, and it is sort of odd that 'Sunni' is there in the first sentence. Hamas has certainly never defined itself as such, and this whole Shiite/Sunni business was grossly exaggerated by the Americans over the Iraq invasion. There is no relevance or significance in stating they are 'Sunni' any more than stating that they are 'bearded'. I'd say it's best to have in the intro the accepted and significant definitions of the movement, as defined by the movement itself and as regarded internationally. 'Sunni' does not fit either. Ramallite (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, beards come to most people's minds quicker than the sunna when Hamas is mentioned! Palmiro | Talk 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: :It's a matter of fact. Where does the POV come into it? This article is basically an appalling heap of shite, and has been ever since people got interested in Hamas once they won the elections, but this is hardly one of the problems. Palmiro | Talk 16:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this deletion frenzy? if it's a "heap of shite", nobody forces it in reading it. When you say that stating Hammas is a Sunni organization is irrelevant, than I have a hard time in believing in your good faith. Same goes for multiple deletions of sources, references, whole paragraphs, etc. You don't like what the Canard Enchaîné writes? Nobody forces you to like it, to believe it or anything. It is a legitimate source, which you can identify following the link. So long... Next time a total revert is in order with this kind of behavior, deleting a whole paragraph on the new development without putting it to talk page first or moving it somewhere else. You do realize Wikipedia is written by people who disagree together, don't you? Tazmaniacs 17:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry but being Suni is the not the main issue about Hamas. see this:  Zeq 17:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not engaged in a deletion frenzy, so please assume good faith and be civil. I am not sure about how good a source Le Canard Enchaine is (how thoroughly does it check its facts?); neverthless, it was not me who deleted that. As for Sunni, the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam is not of massive importance in the Palestinian context to put it mildly, and there is nothing so specifically Sunni about Hamas to warrant this being one of the first five or six words in the article. That can certainly be mentioned later on. The Muslim Brotherhood connection (which people keep trying to associate for some bizarre reason with the Egyptian rather than the Palestinian branch of the organization) is one example of something far more significant. Palmiro | Talk 17:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse-me Palmiro, as you point out it wasn't you but some other guys - Zek? - that suddenly  decided to erase all of this. The Canard Enchaîné is certainly a valid mainstream source. Now, about the specific Sunni question - let's talk seriously about something - how can you say it is not relevant when, first of all, this is an Encyclopedia which should certainly state if Hamas is sunni or chiite, since this is two main division of Islam. Beside, Palestinian context or not, it is totally relevant because, in case you didn't follow what's happening Zek, you do know that Hamas has got connexiones to chiites, don't you? And you do know that this is quite strange, as Zarkawi certainly doesn't? It must be stated in the first part, because where you're going to state it then? This is so ridiculous, not wanting to say that Hamas is a Sunni organization. Beside being totally non-encyclopedical, what does it really  matters to you? That maybe some understand things are a bit more complex than a view of the world which want us to believe in so-called "civilization clashes" and "religious wars"? I'm sorry, I'm not into this kind of ideology, which I despise as much as Hamas. Tazmaniacs 17:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's hardly the strangest thing in the region if you start from an expectation that everyone must form cohesive sectarian blocks: cf Michel Aoun and Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah and the Syrian government, the Iranians' close relations with Armenia, need I go on? I don't have any objection to the matter being included in the article, but I find it odd and jarring as one of the first words used to describe Hamas - but perhaps that is partly because I am familiar enough with the region to know that there is no Shiite presence of any significance in Palestine. I am certainly not goiung to make a stand on the issue if other people think it should go back in. Palmiro | Talk 17:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Palmiro. I am more than intimately familiar with the region, I am actually a native of the region, and it is sort of odd that 'Sunni' is there in the first sentence. Hamas has certainly never defined itself as such, and this whole Shiite/Sunni business was grossly exaggerated by the Americans over the Iraq invasion. There is no relevance or significance in stating they are 'Sunni' any more than stating that they are 'bearded'. I'd say it's best to have in the intro the accepted and significant definitions of the movement, as defined by the movement itself and as regarded internationally. 'Sunni' does not fit either. Ramallite (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, beards come to most people's minds quicker than the sunna when Hamas is mentioned! Palmiro | Talk 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: some other topic

message: When I heard that Israel decided not to give the taxes collected for the Palestinians to them because Hamas wants to destroy Israel I wondered if this does not break any treaties? Who paid these taxes? I wonder why I cannot find anything about this in the news. 84.59.93.80 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more important to note that Israel's behaviour doesn't serve any meaningful goal. Cutting the money only helps to unite Fatah and Hamas supporters. Like the film "Munich" showed it, in politics you don't act rational. You only appeal to emotional values; and it's sad that this often means outright retaliation. --Keimzelle 20:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think an encyclopedia is for speculation about effects of actions. An encyclopedia is for reporting facts. So I would like to know if there are treaties broken or not. 84.59.103.81 21:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I admit not knowing anything about the legal situation.--Keimzelle 09:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Palestinians payed those taxes. Israel is not violating any treaties since the taxational formula isn't based on a treaty. Even if it was based on one, they can simply legislate it as being null so long as it involves an entity which call for its destruction. El_C 08:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doesn't understand this... If it isn't based on a treaty, why do they even justify not transferring the taxes? "Well, they hate us and they want to destroy us?" - I really begin to laugh because this is PR. The Israeli government should be more honest and should transfer tax incomes under no circumstances.--Keimzelle 12:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They justify it in saying the money will be used in an attempt to destroy them. El_C 07:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal not to give taxes to Palestinians? 

message: My personal opinion that it is  un leagal  to hold the money.
What i suggest as far as Wikipedia, is to understand that israel is in the middle of election campign. Instead of reverting each other 100 times over an issue that yet  did not occur (previous payment was delivered albeit in 7 days delay)  why don't you wait until March 28 (israel election) and see what took place.
BTW, most news reports are wrong and cirrent decision is onlt to withhold the money  after  palestinian goverment is active which maybe even after march 28 . 
So cool down and wait. Zeq 09:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the money: legal or not leagl ? 

message: Some pro Hamas editor claimed that "majority consensus " is to dilute what hamas has done (including vilations of it's own self declared Hudna) he wamts to hide the suicide bombings etc..
I know, this is Wikipedia, home of the lefty Biased west Academia but  Enough is ...... Enough 
You want to drag me to ArbCom on trying to keep this article NPOV. be my guest. Exposng ArbCom bias is important as well. Zeq 11:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lefty biassed west academia? lol Palmiro | Talk 17:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eeeh, is Hamas leftist?? We forgot to write that in the article! Bertilvidet 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Zeq, do you have any specific complaints about the article? If you do, please bring them up here, but otherwise there's nothing anyone can do to rectify your complaints.--Sean Black (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: was refering to this revert:  which since have been reverted back to slim revision. Zeq 11:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand well, Zeq you are only contesting the fact that I placed parts of the intro in the "overview" subsection & the "Following the January 2006 legislative elections". Why did I do this? Because the intro was getting too large; because also, while someone (maybe you?) had (rightly i think) transferred a large part of the intro to the "following the January elections" subsection in order to tighten up the intro, at the same time this transfer put back the previous version of the intro, which was completely POV (mainly, it tried to speak about what happened following the elections, without speaking either about Israel's moves, nor about the Fatah's moves, nor about Hamas declarations themselves, which, whether you like them or not, believe them or not, are certainly a change from previous declarations.) To repair this POV reversal, I put together both parts concerning the events following the elections (the one moved to "january elections" subsection & the one replaced in the "intro"). Like this, arguments such as "Hamas still follows the destruction of Israel" were'nt separate from recent declarations that it would abandon "armed struggle" if Israel recognized 1967 borders & withdraw itself from all Palestinian occupied territories. I suppose it is the most NPOV way to deal with, so actually, you're reversal is more pov. Your request for arbitration is not motivated by anything precise, it seems. Tazmaniacs 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The idea was correct but it tried to put into emphasis marginal issues such as the consipracy theories that Mossad is behind Hamas finacing. Take a look now, I rearanged it based on the idea that Tazmanics suggested. Zeq 15:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you remember well Zeq, the inclusion of these so-called "conspiracy theory" supported by United Press International, the Canard Enchaîné, and L'Humanité - henceforth a main news agency, and two important French national newspapers, one of whom is famous for being the best investigative newspaper in France -- was added to counter the US Department's allegations that Hamas was funded by Iran and others. US lied concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, there is no reason to believe them without any distance taken concerning Hamas. A NPOV has to be a critical point of view. Tazmaniacs 16:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I included this in the article but you can not move it to talk. Also for NPOV you must find a source that dispute this or say that it was during th time When hamas was not yet a terror organization. (alleged mossad funding was in the 80s but military wing established in the 90s) Zeq 17:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On behalf of "NPOV", I should look for sources saying that my sources lie? Isn't that utterly absurd? Or I should find a source that says that Hamas didn't yet engage in terrorism activities? There is no need for a source telling that Hamas didn't engage in the time in terrorist activities, since nobody is claiming the reverse. What's up man? Tazmaniacs 18:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  majority consensus  ?  "Enough is Enough" 

message: This topic is full of references to their dislike of Palestinians. You can only call a carrot orange for so long. I'm going to try to clean up the redundancy and try to put in more references to Hamas' other activities.
Sgarza 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also work on cleaning up the redundancy of other countries' responses to Hamas' victory. The article repeats itself in several places. Perhaps you could / should call in someone from the Cleanup Taskforce to help. (Just stopping by and saw some things that need work.) --Avery W. Krouse 04:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redundancies could be avoided if instead of systematically reverting, Zeq, you tried to formulate again keeping in mind NPOV and also the necessity to avoid redundancies. I've been trying to eliminate them; each time you reverse to the previous versions, so we have talks about the hudna, for example, in two parts of the article at least instead of once; you speak about "Hamas spearheading the Second Intifada" after speaking of the January elections, without respect of any chronological order and without taking into account that the elections have a subsection dedicated to debate about it and new facts. You're the one to have made a RfA claiming that we keep on reverting your changes; actually, you're the one reversing any attempt in improving the article, because you just don't like what's happening. Wikipedia is here to report what others report, that's it. Tazmaniacs 17:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: let's use talk.
You can not push this mossad funding to the top. This is a serious article not a place for conspiracy theories. Zeq 17:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right. This is a serious article? Please refrain from constant reversing then. There is no conspiracy theory, don't be silly! Anyway, it is not Wikipedia which will judge if the United Press International news agency or the Canard Enchaîné carry on conspiracy theories... You can't either push Iran funding to the top, in this case. Do you have proof for this "conspiracy theory"? Apart from the US Dept claims, which are not anymore reliable that the claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Beside, you can't put in the overview only the POV that Hamas hates Israel (thank you, but this is a serious article, not a blog!). You must take  into account recent declarations. Reuters has done it, why should'nt you accept it? Maybe Reuters suffers from a "left-wing Occidental bias"? As if Hamas was left-wing!... I'm abstaining from reverting your blind revert immediately, because i must go now. Tazmaniacs 17:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beside, writing "During the second Intifada, Hamas spearheaded the violence through the years of the Palestinian uprising." without adding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement is a blunt lie. Tazmaniacs 17:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine I'll move funding further down. Zeq 17:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you proposed, I put all funding concerns in the same "funding" subsection. Concerning the "overview" subsection, you insist on putting in only your version, which doubles with the rest of the article. I think it should be suppressed & contents moved to relevant subsections. Tazmaniacs 18:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rvv. Zeq, instead of improving the article & helping us avoid redundancies, you keep on reverting to outdated versions. Could you please rationalise your behavior here? Instead of losing your time doing this, you could go looking for sources in order to improve the article (I had to add that Hamas created a TV program for children, because you just didn't look somewhere for that info - which shows how Hamas carries on its propaganda). Why don't instead of keeping on doing these blind reverts which are getting nowhere you'll look for some serious sourced info? Tazmaniacs 19:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: This subsection is divided in two parts, first one unnamed and second one called the "Hamas covenant". The second one, according to its name, quotes the Covenant to define Hamas' beliefs. The first one mixes quotes from the Covenant (thus creating redundancies with the subsection immediately following) and acts or statements made by Hamas, during the campaign for elections, for example. Henceforth, it mixes Hamas' charter with historical facts that should be included where they belong, i.e. in the history subsection. Unsurprisingly, the only historical facts in that first subsection of "Belief" are statements by Hamas saying it does not recognize Israel, ignoring other contrary statements. This is manipulation of historical events. Tazmaniacs 18:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the "Beliefs" subsection 

message: I restored to SlimVirgin stable and consensus version.
You want to suggest 100 changes please use talk and list them here or start a private version on sand box.
This way of massive changes and reverts will lead no where.
Thank You. Zeq 19:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "Slimvirgin stable and consensus version" except in your imagination. See your request for arbitration. Changes made today were all attempts in reducing redundancies, as an user asked above. NO CONTENT WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN DELETED by me! I've only MOVED all content concerning "elections" in the "elections" subsection & all contents concerning "fundings" in the "funding" subsection you created, & all contents concerning the truce in the "truce" subsection you created. After the creation of those two subsections (by you), there was nothing much left in the "overview" subsection which was not repeated in other parts. So if this "overview" which simply doubles with the "intro" is empty, it should be deleted as a subsection. I've deleted nothing, to the contrary of you who deleted (for the second time) the Canard Enchaîné reference which u don't like. You are going no where boy! Again, instead of going into edit-war, why don't you go look up for some serious info which could help our understanding of this extremist group? Tazmaniacs 19:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know what ? I am out. Do with this article what ever you want. I requested that you stop and talk . Only a really stupid person would think that Mossad fnace Hamas terrorism. Zeq 19:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's well known the IDF backed Hamas throughout the 80s as a counterweight to Ashaf. See the article on חמאס, section 2.1. El_C 04:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop and use talk 

message: This disturbing box is still on the top of the article. I think the article has become far better - the most blatant cases of POV (like endorsing the labelling of Hamas as a terror organization, or labelling their suicidal attacks as acts of resistance) are gone. So, if you still have problems with the neutrality, please list the problems here one by one. And lets discuss them with the aim of reaching a consensus. Bertilvidet 16:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have state mine. A lot of this article is Hamas' POV. I brought an example above. ems 19:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That we state the fact that Hamas has created a network of social welfare programs throughout the West Bank and Gaza, which probably is the main activity of the organisation???? Bertilvidet 19:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality disputed 

message: There was a great deal of discussion last year about how to word the Hamas logo caption, and a consensus was reached that stayed in place for a long time. Zeq has been changing the designation of the territories from "West Bank and Gaza Strip" to "Palestinian Authority". This is not accurate. The PA is a government apparatus, not a nation-state or geo-political entity. --AladdinSE 17:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any problem with the way it is now. "Israel and the Palestinian territories" can also work. Zeq 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The phrase "Palestinian Authority" definitely does not refer to a geographic area but a political apparatus. Unfortunately, many Israeli outlets refer to it as a geographic area (e.g. "Secretary of State Rice will visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority" or "the wounded boy is from Salfit in the Palestinian Authority"). This is incorrect if not absurd. "Palestinian territories" would be acceptable, since it's defined in WP as a geographic area, but Palestinian Authority is unsuitable. Ramallite (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo caption: "West Bank and Gaza Strip" Vs. "Palestinian Authority" 

message: Hi, I added the following:
On February 25th the Hamas chosen Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh, told Washington Post in an interview.
We do not have any feelings of animosity toward Jews. We do not wish to throw them into the sea. All we seek is to be given our land back, not to harm anybody.
These statements are a complete reversal from its previous policy towards Israel.
Apparently this was deleted. I don't know why.
Bless sins 21:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to post everything what they are going to say now? it'll be deleted again, because, it's irrelevant. --tasc 22:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a huge section about arguments for labelling Hamas anti-semitic. So, now there are signs that this is changing you say it is 'irrelevant'. Howcome? Bertilvidet 22:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fair enough; I agree the part wasn't relevant in the section about the elections. I shortened and moved the quote to the section about anti-semitism. Bertilvidet 22:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He already released a message that he was misquoted by wash post Zeq 09:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent comments by Hamas chosen PM 

message: POV pushing by an anon editor continue. He revertes to no end. 
Clearly a sockppupet as he knows too much about wikipedia to be here randomly. Zeq 21:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing 

message: On Feb 12 I raised the question whether Jordans ban of Hamas is relevant for the introduction. Noone reacted. But Tasc put it back in the introduction. This point is not important for me, but if you think it is, please tell us why.Bertilvidet 21:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it does highlight nature of hamas. reason for ban may serve good example of what the prospective "talks" with israel and/or int. community may led to. --tasc 21:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: anyway, it's not mentioned anywhere in the article! I'd say it's best place to put it. --tasc 21:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was there a good source for it? If not it shouldn;t be there. Palmiro | Talk 22:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably it is true, and finding a source shouldnt be a problem. But still, I cannot see how it highlights the natur of Hamas...Democratic countries like US, EU and Israel label it as a terror organization, so what extra does it tell thta its banned in the Kingdom of Jordan? Bertilvidet 23:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jordan is arab and muslim country which is banned Hamas. It seems to me important to show that Hamas is not only "considered" by West but in fact IS terrorist organization. --tasc 10:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Source for what? That Hamas is banned? BBC. Secondly, many radical islamists perform terror attacks in a name of their religion. Shall we buy their point of view? Objectively, Hamas is banned in Jordan. Let it stay in the article. --tasc 11:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article says that the Jordanians closed down its offices and threw out its leaders - for whom the country had previously been a base. That's something that belongs in the history of the organization. I doubt that Jordan bans it as a terrorist organization. If you want a statement that it is banned in Jordan, please come up with a source that says so. Palmiro | Talk 22:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well that, if it belongs to Histrory why you've removed that sentence completly? Why not move it to history section? --tasc 06:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read my comment a little more carefully please, I didn;t say that the sentence I removed from the intro belongs in the history section. From my point of view, life is far too short to go looking for information to put into an article that is constantly being chewed up. If the article was in some sort of stable condition I might. Also, the history section is grossly inadequate in other ways. But feel free to put correct info in there if you wish to. Palmiro | Talk 13:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: IMO, only the EU, US and Israel should be quoted in the introduction, as the EU & the US are members of the Quartet. Australia & CAnada are not, nor Jordan. These three countries should be quoted afterward. If the only object of adding all of these countries is demonstrating that not "only the West consider it a terrorist movement", it's quite unnecessary. Any sane mind recognizes violence where it takes place, the only problem is that in that particular conflict violence has been going on on both sides since several decades. Tazmaniacs 17:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jordan ban in introduction 

message: "Quartet for Middle East policy -- the United Nations, the European Union and Russia -- got off to a good start by spelling out three conditions for Hamas to meet in exchange for recognition: 
*the renunciation of violence, 
*acceptance of Israel and 
* agreement to existing Palestinian-Israeli accords. " 
 Zeq 09:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, thank you so much for taking the time to write a few lines here on the talk page in connection to you major edits and continous reverts. Your source (it would be better to find something but an editorial, but anyway) talks about conditions for recognizing Hamas - and in the article you still write that the Quartet announced that future aid to the Palestinians is tied to "Three Principles". These are two different issues. I have made it clear several times, so I can hardly still assume good faith. You know from previous discrepancies that I refuse to participate in your revert wars. So if you please accept the disputed tag, go ahead and write anything in the article...this is the weakness of Wikipedia. Bertilvidet 09:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW one thing that is clear (including in the sources you provide) is that the international community is in deep division about how to deal with the coming Hamas government. Why dont we present the different views (isolation versus corporation)? What is the aim as presenting the Quartet as united, when they aren't?? Bertilvidet 09:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you imply by "division"? That Hamas is welcomed in Moscow? Well, Moscow do not give any financial help to Palestine and it did try to vow to Israel recognition, etc. --tasc 10:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I can tell you is TO READ THE SOURCES. They are clear and they are not what you claim theyr are. read carefully. Zeq 11:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting, I read it the same way. Shouldn't we mention that the international community is divided / confused about how to deal with a Hamas-led government? Obviously they agree on the aim, namely moderating Hamas, pushing it towards recognize of Israel etc. The differences is about how this aim is attained, which strategy to follow (isolation versus embedment). Bertilvidet 14:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The theree conditions - quote from Washington post 

message: The editors who keep reverting the correctly directed phrase to a capitalized "Suicide bombing" in the middle of the second sentence make Wikipedia look stupid. --68.214.35.104 01:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Suicide bombing]] redirects to [[Suicide attack]] 

message: The incoherence of the first paragraph makes Wikipedia look like it was written by people who are not native English speakers:
1. Terrorism: "It is best known throughout the world for carrying out Suicide bombings and other attacks primarily against Israeli civilians, as well as military targets, to further its goal of creating a Palestinian state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. 
2. Social welfare: Hamas has created an extensive network of social welfare programs throughout the West Bank and Gaza, explaining part of its popularity. 
3. Terrorism: The group is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States.
The logical order would be:
Hamas has created an extensive network of social welfare programs throughout the West Bank and Gaza, explaining part of its popularity.  It is best known throughout the Western world for carrying out suicide attacks|suicide bombings and other attacks against Israelis to further its goal of creating an Islamic Palestinian state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. The group is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States.[1]
I tried to fix it but for some reason, the non-native speakers keep messing it up. --68.214.35.104 01:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a matter of non-English native speakers, it is a silly edit-war between those who prefer to put the social welfare program after the suicide bombings and before the condemnation of the group as a terrorist organization. You are totally correct that the logical order would be the one you proposed. Tazmaniacs 17:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical order 

message: I am sorry to speak so frankly, but this article has turned really bad POV. It is so obvious that I wouldn't bother to tag it. 
Going to any article on Wiki I would expect to find some factual and balanced information about the subject. This is not the case here. The introduction is not about Hamas, it is about reasons for disliking Hamas: about their attacks on civilians, and a big part of the introduction is about what external actors want from Hamas. Still we dont know anything about the organisation.
I have been looking at other boogeyman organizations and persons, but havent found any one bad described as Hamas. Take a look at Hitler's National Socialist German Workers Party or Milosovic' Socialist Party of Serbia, these articles are about the actual parties, even many things can be said about people, organisations and states who disliked them.
May I suggest, that we try to turn this article into an article about Hamas - and then leave it to the reader to conclude normatively. And of course there should be paragraphs about Israel's and other international actors' views on Hamas being in office. But come on, as it is now it is too obvious just an indictment. Bertilvidet 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disgaree with you. If you have specific issues please raise them. This article editors have worked hard to make it as balanced as it is. Zeq 22:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course, Bertilvidet, you are right. The article is constantly being biased by people who hate and fear Hamas and want others to think like they do. The article is not objective. It is written by Israelis. --68.19.4.7 03:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the above comment is by a  banned user called Alberuni. He was able to insert quite a few pro hamas POV into the article. Zeq 05:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, I have nominated the Hamas article fro Article Improvement Drive, I assume that all of us involved in this article, despite other disagreements, will agree with me on the need for improving the article. So please have a look at Wikipedia:Article_Improvement_Drive#Hamas. Bertilvidet 22:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea. Zeq 22:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad POV 

message: I understand that we shouldn't say that they are a terrorist organization. I think that the third sentence (compared to the way the article is presently situated) should say that "Hamas is labelled a terrorist organizaton by XYZ." savidan(talk) (e@) 15:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's exactly what the article does say. The group is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States --tasc 15:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist organization 

message: I deleted the nonsense about Hamas wanting Islam to get rid of Israel versus a "jihad against non-Muslims". This is patent nonsense. I replaced it with "what Hamas considers to be Zionist Jewish settler-colonists". Clearly, Hamas' jihad is not against Palestinian Samaritans, Jews (yes, there are a few) or Christians. Hence, the phrase warranted deletion. Robert Lindsay 09:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hamas Wants Jihad Versus NonMuslims

message: This entry describes Hamas struggle as that between Islam and Judaism. However, in an opinion piece published by the Guardian Newspapers Ltd. Khaled Meshaal says, "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." () Perhaps, this statement needs to included under the sub-headline 'Beliefs' for a more balanced description of the group. --219.95.234.160 13:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Change in Hamas Policy? 

message: I really dont have the time or patience to read this entire page, but it does not seem NPOV to me to have articles whos sole purpose is to be critical of the organization disscussed in this article.  It would be better if critical views were linked to by putting a "see also" section for organizations that are critical of Hamas, then having links to their views on hamas from their article, or just letting people find them for themselves.  Notice that there are no links to critical articles from the wikipedia article for Democratic Party (United States), but there is an "other" that lists Republican Party (United States) from which a website critical of the democratic party might be found.  Ive already done alot to streamline the Links, but more could be done.
also, is it possible to delete some of the useless disscussion on this talk page?
k im going to try ang do this again without getting threatened
--67.161.93.159 03:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what exactly are you going to do? --tasc 11:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  links 

message: I've spent two hours yesterday cleaning references! and now some one 'restrored deleted materials'! is out there any respect to someonelse's work? -- tasc talkdeeds 17:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wtf! 

message: One one side people of this country did vote wrong but we do not know anything about their hints and nothing is mentioned in the article. Mostly there are more reasons, but to mention only that one is fitting in one's opinion is not objective enough for wikipedia. Politics is like a big chess and the Palstines voters voted with different purposes. Neglected is that a not neglectable number of voters voted for Hamas that they included in start of government. If they were included in government and attack the government they would kill themselves - no civil war now. But it is a risk that they will change democracy to dictatorship till next election. During that time they hope that enough leaders of Hamas will change their opinion (some have, but they are still minority). Govern needs time and soon they should not have time for continuing the crap of the past. They now in the center of power, center of public press and can not hide any more. And next election they will do a strong selection by votes. They are sure that the Allied Forces will garant next election, so they can risk this. All politicians outside of Palstine should accept that this is a chance and should not so upset. The better reaction were to say after the result that the world was surprised and did not like the result of the election. We understood voters purposes, but we were sure that was a to big risk. Are we smart enough to support population of this little state through their difficult way? They gave us the ball - it is your turn now - for the most difficult steps of game.  
68.37.133.158 02:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There could be chance although Hamas won election. 

message: Was its removal discussed here at talk? It should be restored. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the Beliefs section?