Talk:Hamas/Archive 3

message: The intro states:
"Following the organization's victory in the 2006 elections, the Quartet on the Middle East — the European Union, United States, Russia, and the United Nations — announced that future aid to the Palestinians would be tied to three principles: that Hamas renounce violence, that it recognize Israel's right to exist, and that it express clear support for the Middle East peace process, as outlined in the Oslo Accords. [8] [9] Hamas leaders have rejected these demands as "unfair". [10]"
While this is partly true, it doesn't explains well the attitude of Russia, which has warned against stopping funding of the PA and has invited Hamas leaders to Moscow. The Quartet did announce that, but Russia also said the reverse at the same time. This should be taken into account. Tazmaniacs 00:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia 

message: Are five notes really necessary to prove the point that "Hamas is known for carrying out suicide bombings"? Tazmaniacs 00:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I believe these sources can be deleted, as they support a non-disputed fact.Bertilvidet 16:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for accidentally reverting that edit of those sources--computer crashed and I mistakenly used a cached version (from browser history) to navigate back to the page without realizing it wasn't the latest edit.  Stupid mistake on my part, in the middle of the night and was tired...67.183.186.85 02:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I tried again. This is really not an important issue for me...but if someone out there thinks that it serves a usefull purpose worth the confusion it gives in the article, please let us know. Bertilvidet 11:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, it seemt to be very important for some people with all the sources. I`l not remove them again. But for curiosity, could some one please tell why it is so important??? Bertilvidet 14:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that it seems that Wikipedia is unwilling to label Hamas as a terrorist organization (which it is, by the definition of a terrorist organization on wikipedia), providing information about their terrorist acts (ie. suicide bombings) becomes all the more important. 72.56.10.196 15:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK noone disagrees on having the sentence "Hamas is known for carrying out suicide bombings". But do we need to bombard the readers with FIVE sources for this uncontested fact?? Bertilvidet 16:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I suggest it be changed to "carrying out suicide bombings that target civilians and non-combatants" to give the proper context, in lieu of the linked sources.  I don't think the sources are there because the fact is contested, more to provide context.72.56.10.196 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That proposal sounds fine for me, and I just reworded the article as proposed. Let's see how long it stays...Bertilvidet 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Half an hour they lasted....Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, could you maybe spare a few seconds to argue for the revert? Bertilvidet 07:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After 10 days there is still nobody arguing for the need of 5 notes. So I try once agaın changing the text as per 72.56.10.196. Bertilvidet 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because nobody needs ten news article to know what everybody can see on TV? Who is contesting the fact that Hamas has used bombings including suicide bombings? The five notes could at least be gathered into one note, for the sake of READABILITY (does that goes for a "valid reason"?)! Tazmaniacs 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: I believe (sic) that it might be better putting the "Covenant" subsection at the beginning of the "Beliefs" section, as it is an objective part to lay on (at least, it's a written text, and by those guys), and then go on about it's attitute during the elections and its antisionism. What do you think? Tazmaniacs 00:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is a good idea as well, as long as the most correct and accurate translation of the text is used and not the biased source from the political advocacy site which unfortunately keeps being reinserted despite discussion. Arabhorse 22:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs, covenant 

message: I find it interesting the way that the Wikipedia article on the Tamil Tigers, another arguably 'terrorist' organization, currently deals with this question.  One snippet from the page reads..
:"Despite their support amongst Tamils, the LTTE is accused of terrorism.  It is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by several countries, including USA, Canada , Britain, India, Australia and Malaysia, and LTTE delegations are barred from the European Union."
:"Part of the reason for the accusation is its targeting of political figures and non-military officials, and its use of suicide bombers....the LTTE's bombing attacks have caused a large number of civilian casualties and, in instances such as the attack on the Temple of the Tooth in Kandy, Dehiwala train or the Central Bank in Colombo, did not have any military target...The LTTE's supporters justify these attacks by saying that the people assassinated are either Tamil traitors or persons closely associated with the Sri Lankan military action. Specifically in relation to the TELO, the LTTE has said that it had to attack them because the TELO was in effect functioning as a proxy for India. They also draw comparisons between the casualties caused by the LTTE's actions and the actions of European resistance forces against Nazi occupation during the Second World War." (emphases mine)
I think the Tamil page is an example of a more balanced, well-written, and objective article than this version of Hamas that we currently have.  The Tigers are another example of an organisation labeled as 'terrorist' by most of the Western world and the media, however the article devoted to them seems to me to be much more informative and detailed.  It addresses the 'terrorist vs. freedom fighter' question in the body of the article by acknowledging multiple perspectives and analyzes those perspectives more indepthly.  Do you think we could integrate (not plagiarize, but use as a better example of a good template) some of the ideas from that article to improve this one?  The neutrality of the Tamil page is also disputed but it seems as if the discussion/compromise among the participants there is much further along than it is here...  Arabhorse 08:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

message: I see no reason to remove these sources from the line "it is known for carrying out suicide bombings" in the second paragraph.  Removing them serves no useful purpose.
Bertilvidet justifies removing these as "loads of sources for uncontested fact about suicide bombings deleted per talk", yet I don't see this discussed anywhere.
72.56.10.196 02:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for suicide bombings 

message: See also :Talk:Hamas#destruction of any secular Palestinian state 
WARNING: Concerning interpretations of a Covenant or of the Quran or of any text for that matter, it is suggested to have a passing look at Hermeneutics before stating fanatic claims. Thank you." Tazmaniacs 16:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: I would rather not have to put this warning on this page, although some users seem to be unfamiliar with the Kabbalah. Maybe instead of editing, they should have a look in some books. Tazmaniacs 16:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd prefer something like "opposes the establishment of a secular state"; the idea of destruction is not unambiguously worded in the Covenant, so we could only say Hamas intends to destroy any secular state if we had reliable sources saying so. Establishing sharia may be called, for example, "transformation" of a secular state into an Islamic one. Pecher Talk 08:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pecher´s proposal seems reasonable. It is problematic that the current version is based on an interpretation - made by Wikipedia and not supported by any sources ´on the primary source. Bertilvidet 08:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree with Pecher's phrasing. It just contains what is written instead of what is probably insinuated.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: reluctently, I'll go with Pecher proposal although I like to state things as they are and not as coniniant for PC reasons. Zeq 08:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a second thought,  "opposes the establishment of a secular state" implies that Hamas prefers Israeli occupation to the establishment of a secular Palestinian state. If any sources confirm that it is fine for me. If not, I am afraid we should find another wording´- anti-secular, maybe, if it is not understood from the first paragraph stating that we deal with an Islamist organization. Bertilvidet 08:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm... now that would be interesting indeed! Concerning the wording, I think "oppose secularism" is better and more simple tnat "transformation of a secular state into an Islamic one" (that doesn't really convey all of the political conflicts involved in this  huge mess, and sounds a bit too... smooth?). As long as we have no source concerning what it thinks about the existence of a secular state (which, by the way, already exists, at least officially - and Hamas deputies are now members of the PLO, whether they want it or not, which is secular that I know; i.e. they are in the same positions as socialists deputies at the start of the century, who claimed they were against any "bourgeois" government, but nevertheless participated in it, and finally became social-democrats; this remark mustn't stand as if I was risking myself in any prediction: if one thing is sure in the Middle East, and more generally in politics, is that predictions have a fair tendance of either being false or producing themselves their effects...) Tazmaniacs 15:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I really don't see how the wording implies that at all.  I think any ambiguity that might actually be present is cleared up by the context.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It is really a shame for Wikipedia's credibility when such interpretations - even not supported by any sources - are accepted to stay as undisputed facts in the article. Bertilvidet 21:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as this disputed paragraph stays we do need to tag the article, that its factual accuracy is disputed. Bertilvidet 13:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously some of us are speaking to the wind. The introduction is not supposed to be a pamphlet against Hamas, nor the article either for that matter. Those of you who only insist in portraying Hamas as an evil movement are only playing Hamas games, you should meditate on this one little second in your Wikilife. In your personal life, do whatever you will! Tazmaniacs 16:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking to the wind, indeed...Tazmaniacs, thanks for participating in the talk. It is slightly frustrating to discuss with people who prefer to revert rather than participate in the talks...Bertilvidet 09:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destruction of secular Palestinian state 

message: This edit was reverting what is obvious:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&diff=50100883&oldid=50100444  Zeq 08:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamas' goal of the destruction of Israel is mentioned in the second paragraph already. —Aiden 18:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1st paragraph should be a summary of the wholoe article and should stand on it's own as a mini-article (that is the policy) so think of 1st paragrpah : Is that the most important thing to say anout hamas or something is missing..... ????  Zeq 19:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer my version, "militant anti-Israeli organization" as it summarize this long sentence which can be found in the continue of the article, but whatever.  Psychomel@di(s)cussion 07:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I really don't think they should be refered to as anti-israeli in the way that your phrasing does.  It is clear from the rest of the article that they are anti-israeli but there is no need to write it as you have.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how come "Palestinain" can stay? It is also clear by the rest of the article that they are Palestinaians. I, as a reader, am finding it more improtant that Hamas ia anti-Zionist than Palestinian. Psychomel@di(s)cussion 10:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because although anti-zionism is part of their platform, it is not their entire platform.  Stating it as you have implies that it is, but they are primarily concerned with Palestinian society , and are only anti-zionism in that it relates to Palestine.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that the "anti-Israeli" (or anti-Zionist) should stay before to the word militant as a context of their militancy. Psychomel@di(s)cussion 20:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  call it as it is 

message: It was before becoming a seperate group and changing her name. Robin Hood 1212 13:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in the area; they are the MB there now. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamas is no longer the wing of Muslim brotherhood