Talk:Hamas/Archive 4

message: Tazmaniac, do you understand meaning of citation? online one? If you want to have that reference on page, you should remove link to first page 'cause it's totally irrelevant. The quotes will remain unreferenced, you're only confusing readers. -- tasc talkdeeds 20:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, removed the link to the front page. Tazmaniacs 01:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Le Canard Enchaîné]] citation 

message: I propose to merge Al Fateh TV here. It is not really notable to have a separate article from Hamas; its content may be transfered here without difficulty (actually, I had already added this new TV for children in the "Others" section in February) doesn't seems to be distinct from Hamas, and I don't believe anyone here considers that it will in the future represent a reliable source. Thus, it seems highly unprobable that we will start quoting "Al Fateh" in "Cite news" template, and even if we did, well, it seems more reasonable to REDIRECT it here to the Hamas entry. As a sidenote, I don't see the use of doing any propaganda for this hate media, and recall the words of dada: "people that like dada speak about dada, people that don't like dada speak about dada, everybody speaks about dada!". In other words, I'm not sure that creating a separate Al Fateh article is a wise way to counter Hamas' influence: it may well lead to the opposite effect, whatever the actual content of the article. This last argument was intented for Zek, but he doesn't seems to agree with me. Making noise about something is not always the most efficient way to fight it. To me, it seems rather like propaganda for a hate-site, or even spam-linking (it's like making an article about a revisionist site, writing that it's evil, and providing links for people to read it: actually, this seems a quite good idea to follow for would-be revisionists. Tazmaniacs 05:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a category of it's own: A web site to Children that golrifies suicide bombers. This is unique enough. Zeq 05:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zek I suppose you wouldn't do it, would you? Tazmaniacs 16:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Al Fateh here 

message: The article refers to the deaths of Israelis as murder "the 1996 murders of Yaron and Efrat Ungar" and the death of Palestinians as assassinations.
:The Israelis killed were civilians not involed in any conflict, thus by definition they were murdered. The Hamas or other militants killed were, of course, militants. —Aiden 16:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Origins
I am pretty sure that Hamas was given life greatly in part by Israel.  Israel helped in its creation because it thought it could be controlled and be used as a counter weight against the PLO.
So, if anyone has documents or citations for this let me know.  I am going to try and look for it myself.  I do feel that this entry has been biased against Palestinians in general.  Everyone lets work towards moderation and balance no matter what the heck you are. :)
Smurfyninja--Smurfyninja 05:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You won't find any creditable citations because such claim is a load of racist horse shit. ForgetNever 16:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal attacks. This user is suspected to be the sockpuppet of User:KaintheScion, who is himself suspected of being the sockpuppet of User:ElKabong. I presume innocence, but this kind of comment above is not acceptable on this talk page. Please go air your anger on a blog. Tazmaniacs 22:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: Why has this unsourced contention been yet again reinserted into the introduction, without explanation and without regard for the discussion above or for WP:CITE? Palmiro | Talk 13:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should'nt. Please remove it. I guess that some of us are tired of edit wars against people who fail to understand that maybe, apart of being an evil movement, Hamas has some political causes which explained its existence, and that an article should explain this. Tazmaniacs 20:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamas, even hamas, can not change the Quran. Zeq 05:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you heard of Hermeneutics? Tazmaniacs 16:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, it is really damaging for Wikipedia's credibility if we use this site for assigning personal interpretations of the Quran to Hamas. Bertilvidet 12:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer to ask rather than delete, myself, because my edits on this article, notably including previous attempts to remove this particular unsourced claim, seem to attract automatic reverts. That's why I posted here rather than simply taking it out. Palmiro | Talk 16:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose the discussions continues at :Talk:Hamas#Destruction of secular Palestinian state in order to not create this new section each week. Tazmaniacs 16:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article reads like something off Fox News. There's no mention of the context in which Hamas operates, namely the illegal occupation and humanitarian crisis resulting from that occupation. Palmiro, they'll revert your edits regardless. If you disagree with something, edit accordingly. The dialogue is meaningless when everyone is committed to their own biases. Amibidhrohi 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please continue posting comments on talk page, we talk, they don't, that's their problem. We are not fanatics, to the contrary of some historical revisionism attempts that are being done here. There is nobody here who supports Hamas, it is sad to see that others users don't seem to understand that, and that they therefore make no differences apart from "Us" and "Them". Tazmaniacs 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Contrary to the canard that their existence has anything to do with "illegal occupation", their raison d'être is the destruction of Israel (and any other non-Muslim state in "Palestine"), as their anti-Semitic conspiracy-theory spouting charter makes clear.  Furthermore, trying to shove that information down into a tiny section on the bottom is the grossest kind of whitewashing. Finally, Talk: is only useful when people talk in good faith, and don't keep repeating themselves.  Remember, you are the people who wanted to actually remove "excess" citations from the article on some grounds that are still unfathomable. Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, this is your POV and it is respectable. That Hamas is an anti-zionist group is clear, but that they become a popular movement is without doubt due to some kind of "historical conditions". Tazmaniacs 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  "You are the people"? I don't know what you're talking about. And their reason for wanting to destroy Israel is also clearly explained in the charter - namely the occupation of Israel of what was and is Palestinian land. "The Palestinian Question" is mentioned all through the charter. Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza illegally, as the UN resolutioned referred to clearly point out. The context in which Hamas came about and its related ambitions must be mentioned, if this article is to claim any sort of objectivity. I say this just for the record, since I don't believe you to be quite as stupid as you'd have us believe you are (note to admins: not to be taken as a personal attack but a backhanded compliment), and are quite aware of the humanitarian crisis that is suffered by the Palestinian people because of Israel's gross violations of international law and human rights. As for the charge of anti-semetism, arabs are semites too. Israel calls itself the world's only jewish state. As such, it's perfectly fair for the people Israel oppresses to describe the Israeli aggressors as "Jews". As representatives of Hamas clearly point out, they do not categorically oppose Jews simply because they are Jews (as England and France and Germany had in the past), but their actions through Israel. Amibidhrohi 22:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again I am sure many people will disagree with your interpretation. Hamas can state whatever reasons they want for why they want to destroy Israel, it doesn't make it valid.  Also the UN general Assembly passes some kind of resolution at least once a year condemning Israel for something, they often do this while other countries are committing acts that only an insane person would think are less serious.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  destruction of any secular Palestinian state 

message: Please justify deletion of passages. I've add new information today that is sourced & that has nothing controversial, I would like to know why it's deleted. Furthermore, they're have been calls to justify this interpretation of the Covenant which haven't been answered. Not only is this interpretation contested by various users (see section above), but some other users insist on putting it in the second sentence of the intro. When I add in the intro FACTS, meanly two: Russia hasn't cut all funds & hasn't support all the Quartet's conditions — it is plain revisionism to claim that — second, this article is here to describe Hamas and its policies, this includes describing bombings and terror attacks and stating that it is a terrorist group (of which no user here whom are trying to put a bit of something else than FOX News, as Amibridhoni above puts it, contest), but it also includes stating & in the intro since you insist on making the most POV intro possible that They declared that at best they would be ready to accept the Arab League initiative formulated during the 2002 Beirut conference, that Hamas is ready to accept the Arab League proposition of the Beirut summet of 2002, that is: "full normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 internationally recognized borders, implying Israeli evacuation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, east Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants." You may not agree with these revendications, you may think they are irrealist and dangerous, you may think HAmas is an islamo-fascist group, but here on Wikipedia there is nothing which allows you to delete it. IT is a sad fact to see such historical revisionism on a page like that, I have nothing else to add. Tazmaniacs 19:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit your POV pushing, your personal attacks, and your 3RR violations. It's childish and tiresome, and entirely unoriginal. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  POV pushing? The pot calling the kettle black? All but one of the sources being used to support this article are either Israeli, American or British. I'm one of few people here trying to bring an ounce of neutrality here, and charlatans like you are trying to create a propaganda page in what's supposed to be an encyclopedia. I have no objection to the inclusion of every damning piece of rhetoric that you fish out; I merely insist that all sides be represented. As for personal attacks, I'm sorry but I have no respect for the likes of you- people who seek to spread disinformation by censoring the truth. I say what I feel, and if you feel that constitutes a personal attack, well... Amibidhrohi 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted passages 

message: IT has been repeatedly deleted that Hamas was "at most ready to accept the Arab League iniative proposed in 2002 during the Beirut summit, although it is a sourced fact. Could this undeleted motivation be explained, please? Tazmaniacs 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably being removed because your edits are not just adding that piece of information, but making other big changes to the article. Try adding solely your sourced content in a single edit. I'm sure it'd stay. —Aiden 04:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So only the POV intro should be reversed. When I make edits & that I see new things that I don't like, I don't just reverse everything except in drastic case, I edit the thing so it goes better. No justification have been provided, this is unacceptable. Everyone on this page must be aware that we all come from different backgrounds & that we have different policies, and that we are all dependent on a way or another on the media that gives us the info. It is clear that the media don't paint the same picture whether you live in the States, in Israel, in Europe, or in Russia. I particularly ask to the Americans people to show more tolerance to other ideas, especially since they are not directly concerned by the conflict, to the contrary of Israelis. I personnally have Israelis friends that are ashamed of what some others may say "in their name", I think that they should be thought upon. Furthermore, the article should also states the different policies adopted by Israel, the US ("hard line" to put it like Le Monde has), the EU (which finally aligned itself on the US' decision, but has since been looking for a way to transfer funds to the Palestinian civil society through the World Bank), various countries in the EU, and finally Russia (we all love Putin, don't we?). Thank you, in particular to you Aiden that at least took the time to give a response. Tazmaniacs 10:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2002 [[Arab League]] initiative 

message: Can we please get a lock on this article? Amibidhrohi has reverted and been reverted over 6 times in the past 24 hours. —Aiden 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's closer to nine times, but he's been blocked now so things should calm down. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: I have nothing against French sources, however, there are so much in English on Hamas that we can limit ourselfs tio English sources  in this article  Zeq 11:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to systemic bias of US sources & of many English-sources, I think it is only NPOV to use French sources, especially since France is an important member of the EU & follows specific policies concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please refrain from deleting them as you did concerning Russia. Tazmaniacs 13:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French sources 

message: The article contains a claim, presented as a fact, that Israel "thwarted" a Hamas plot to assassinate President Mahmoud Abbas. The only sources given for this in the UK Times article cited are anonymous "intelligence sources" and an equally anonymous "Palestinian source who was an adviser to Arafat and is a close acquaintance of Abbas. . This is not an adequate basis on which to present these claims as a matter of uncontested fact in the article. Palmiro | Talk 13:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was published in israel in 'Ma'ariv' and independently in UK in 'Sunday Times'. Please reisert the sourced material. Also you should note that Jordan also announced the arrest of 20 member hamas cell that was plotting against the Kindom.Zeq 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't taken anything out, but the claims of anonymous sources, especially intelligence sources, can't be taken as established fact; anyone who is familiar with the media is aware of how unreliable such sources can be. The section needs to be rephrased. Palmiro | Talk 14:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once sunday times published it it become the source. This is how wikipedia works. 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2168494,00.html Zeq 15:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And the jordan story:  http://www.albawaba.com/en/news/197856 , 
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3249415,00.html 
http://za.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-05-10T135937Z_01_ALL050353_RTRIDST_0_OZATP-MIDEAST-JORDAN-HAMAS-20060510.XML
Zeq 16:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Bollocks (excuse my French). This is a reliable source for the claim that anonymous Israeli intelligence sources said they discovered such a plot. It is not a reliable source for the existence of the plot. Common sense and any experience of the media will tell you that claims attributed to anonymous sources, especially security sources briefing on contentious political matters in which they have an interest, must be taken with a considerable pinch of salt. What is wrong with saying in the article here what our source says: that unnamed Israeli security sources (and an equally anonymous "adviser of Arafat") claimed such a plot existed? Why the anxiety to give the claim a greater degree of certainty in the Wikipedia article than anyone reading the original source would gain from that? Palmiro | Talk 13:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We say there was a plot according to the Sunday Times. We don't question it; we just report it and cite our source. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we cannot just report that there was a plot; we must report what the Sunday Times says when it gets into detail, which is that anonymous Israeli security sources said there was a plot. Otherwise we are giving people a misleading impression, that is, a stronger impression of the factual certainty of the issue than they would have had they read the source themselves. Palmiro | Talk 14:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing the source means that we must say it is an anonymous Israeli security source, Palmiro is completely right. Please see :Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy for other debates concerning the opinions which are presented as facts in the current article. Tazmaniacs 14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think putting "anonymous" in the article seems to cast editorial doubt on the claim, which wouldn't be in line with NPOV; let's just keep it as "security sources", or at any rate "unnamed security sources" might be OK. Palmiro | Talk 14:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged plot to kill Abbas 

message: Many unsourced claims and obviously false have been noted by various users on this page. I advise users to refer to:
*:Talk:Hamas#Russia about the false claims made about by Russia (mainly that it would have agreed with the US & the EU in cutting funds - Russia HAS NOT CUT FUNDS). 
*:Talk:Hamas#destruction of any secular Palestinian state 
*and to :Talk:Hamas#Finding a consensual and NPOV decision for the intro to witness the overall will to negotiate on this page. Some users with to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here instead of explaining it.
*Finally, an user found it relevant to delete sourced sentence about the World Bank report concerning unemployment, I will advise him to refer to the recent Quartet's decision; he may understand that this report has been one of the important cause justifying the new decision of the Quartet, mainly that the US has accepted the EU proposal. This shows too UNDENIABLE facts: 
**first, confusing the US & the EU as if they followed the same policy is making a gross mistake and shows definite lack of understanding of international relations.
**second, trying to delete facts about the Palestinian economy also shows definite lack of understanding of the situation of the Palestinian occupied territories (it is not "POV" saying they are occupied: it is the case since 1967, has been recognized by UN resolutions, and the observation of this fact & and of what it brought even convinced Ariel Sharon to implement his controversial unilateral disengagement plan.
Thanks you to all users who show a will to negotiate, I think the others users plainly show their fanaticism in whatever POV they wish to support. Since we are on the English Wikipedia, I will again urge US users to understand that there is absolutely no need to speak of a supposed "conspiracy" to influentiate US medias to recognize that they give a POV view which is not shared by all other European medias. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Best regards, even to my fellow political opponents, I hope they understand that it is not worth it carrying "edit war" here when we already have enough wars. Spreading hate has never been a way for peace. Tazmaniacs 14:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's exactly what we don't do. We say there was a plot according to The Sunday Times. We don't judge beyond that because we're not in a position to. See WP:V and WP:RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking part in negotiations. Let's follow this point in :Talk:Hamas#Alleged plot to kill Abbas and see if we can find a consensus on this particular point. Regards, Tazmaniacs 15:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Then Hamas must change its covenant. Until such time as it does, it's not for us to say that it doesn't matter. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking part in negotiations. Let's follow this point in :Talk:Hamas#Hamas Covenant in the intro and see if we can find a consensus on this particular point. Regards, Tazmaniacs 15:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Why don't you than deleted the whole article on a basis that you haven't ever seen hamas members? -- tasc wordsdeeds 08:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the article is substantiated with sources.  This claim is unsubstantiated. --U$ Retard 08:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy 

message: I moved that to discuss it: 
 Its charter, written in 1988 and still in force, calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic state based on Sharia. "The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)", MidEast Web, August 18, 1988; "The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement", The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, retrieved April 22, 2006.  
See :Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy for discussions concerning the relevancy of this inclusion of the charter in the intro. Tazmaniacs 15:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charter in the intro 

message: POV's one thing, but writing's another. I keep having to correct the same spelling, grammar, and punctuation in this intro. If someone corrects writing or punctuation, do not revert them. Also, please note that footnotes come AFTER punctuation, except where it's a colon or semi-colon. No periods/full stops after footnotes. This sentence has three  periods: one after the sentence (correct), one after the first footnote (wrong), and one after the second footnote (wrong). "Israeli minister of foreign affairs, Tzipi Livni, said the measure was "acceptable", while PA minister of foreign affairs, Mahmoud Zahar, welcomed the promise of aid but criticised attempts to bypass the PA. [8]. [9]." SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please don't use the cite templates for the references. They make extra work for anyone needing to fix them or add something, and it's actually faster just to write them. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing

message: See also :Talk:Hamas#Russia
I moved this to discuss it: 
 
Following the organization's victory in the 2006 elections, the US and the EU cut funds to the PA. 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.No byline. "Confused on Hamas", The Washington Post, February 18, 2006 "Quartet warns Hamas over funding", BBC News, March 30, 2006 Hamas leaders have rejected these demands as "unfair". "Hamas rejects 'unfair' aid demand", BBC News, January 31, 2006 In May 2006, following a World Bank report about the Palestinian economy, the Quartet agreed to transfer funds directly to the Palestinian population. Israeli minister of foreign affairs, Tzipi Livni, said the measure was "acceptable", while PA minister of foreign affairs, Mahmoud Zahar, welcomed the promise of aid but criticised attempts to bypass the PA. "Palestinians to get interim aid", BBC News, May 10, 2006 
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but those of you who followed the issue have seen that Russia has considered this a "mistake", did not cut funds, & the intro can therefore not states that for once, the US, the EU & even Russia actually managed to find unanimity on which to base their decisions on. See :Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy and :Talk:Hamas#Russia. Tazmaniacs 15:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beside, if we state the Quartet's three conditions, then we must state that Hamas has agreed to the Arab League's 2002 proposal. This is WP:NPOV representing both points of view. Tazmaniacs 15:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia again 

message: Some editors seem to be obsessed with the notion, that "destruction of Israel" should be mentioned right away as the first and only thing, without covering the large image. I have no interest to participate in the article, but to me the intro appears blatantly written by someone who has a extremely sentimental world view that Hamas is a sole baby-killer organization without any logic or other activities. I recommend reading the research "The Palestinian Hamas"  by Shaul Mishal and Avraham Sela. It introduces Hamas quite differently than some editors here want it to be introduced.--Marielleh 15:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I'm talking about. The charter and Israel destruction buzz is a only one part of the political science's interpreration, but this intro is focused completely around it. Read again what I pointed out.--Marielleh 16:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: See :Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy & :Talk:Hamas#Intro for further discussions concerning this subject. Tazmaniacs 16:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totaly dis agree with the way you are handling this. Is this a war of attarition ? many times you have received answers on the disgareements you have. You have not generated a consensus. Please restore the lead section and if you choose proceed with mediation and /or arbitration. Your last edit should just be reverted but I'll wait a while and let someone else do it. It would be nice if you would do it yourself and find a way to resolve this edit conflict. Zeq 17:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Marieh's point. The charter is a significant aspect of Hamas' workings, but it isn't the most important or the most prominent. It certainly doesn't need to be in the introductory paragraph. Amibidhrohi 18:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is perfect Original reaserch. The issue is not how you see hamas but what is in this article. The lead should refelct the article. Do you want us not to mention Hamas charter at all ? Zeq 19:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section should reflect how it's introduced in literature. This is an encyclopedia.--Marielleh 22:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  If you'd read on, you'd find an entire section dealing with the contents of the charter, including their desire to return Israel to the Palestinians. In addition to being inappropriate content for the introductory paragraph, it's redundant to repeat the content when there is an entire section devoted to the charter. Amibidhrohi 20:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead should cover  all the  main points   of the article. Not just those who fit one POV. Zeq 21:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, although it's actually main points of the subject itself.--Marielleh 22:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  The lead should introduce the topic matter to the reader. Bits and pieces of the remainder of the article are redundant. Also, the intro would be much too long if ALL the main points of Hamas' activities were added into the intro; and adding those points that certain partisan parties like to push is POV. ANYWAY, there is clearly no consensus on the addition of the charter mention, so that's reason enough to exclude it. Please don't add it back in. Amibidhrohi 21:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed again discussed passages of the intro, where we will surely find a lovely consensus all together on the :Talk:Hamas#Intro section, for example, after a little passage by :Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy, of course. Tazmaniacs 00:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed these passages after only discussing the matter with a couple other people, before the main editors of this article could throw in their opinion.  If you want to delete such a large amount of material you better get actual consensus of all the primary editors.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are no 'primary editors' in Wikipedia. An editor is an editor, and so long the content at issue here isn't supported by consensus, it shouldn't be here at all. Given that there's a very large separate section dealing with the very topic, I don't see why this is a problem. Amibidhrohi 02:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  No, Moshe Constantine, I think you're misunderstanding the point. I've purposefully asked for negotiations concerning the intro repeatedly since more than a few days, based on various users' revendications and edits, this in order to avoid endless edit-wars & find a stable version on which, maybe, we could agree on. The current version has never been stable, and is full of challenged facts. Please see :Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy and :Talk:Hamas#Intro & the section immediately above. Thank you. Tazmaniacs 04:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I particularly urge you to refer to :Talk:Hamas#Hamas Covenant in the intro. Who are the happy few who have the chance to be called "main editors"? Now that would be nice if those "main editors" accepted discussing with primitive savages such as Amibidhrohi above, who is of course only a dangerous Hamas-POV pushing editor &, because of that, should be treated with only, at best, despise. I'm sorry, but on Wikipedia there is & there should be no differences between "main editors" and "anon users", since "main editors" are as anonymous as anybody else. Tazmaniacs 04:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can not create an edit war, with the help of a banned editor, on an issue that was long regarded as consensus and later say :" there is no consensus". Restore the lead section to what it was for long time. It was explained to you why the covanenet is part of the article and the lead. Zeq 04:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not "creating" an edit war. I am not "helped" by a "banned editor" or an "anon user". There is & has been no consensus in this intro, & you may address your justification for this contested inclusion of the Covenant in the intro in the relevant subsection :Talk:Hamas#Hamas Covenant in the intro. Tazmaniacs 04:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: I raised this point earlier. Take the time to do this bit of an exercise: go through the sources at the bottom of the page. Except for Marieh's last entry, ALL of them are Western sources, either American or Israeli. Several of them are think tanks that explicitly state their goal of promoting American interests. Can an article built on these sources be possibly considered NPOV? I intend on introducing a section that gives the perspectives from the Arab media sources. "Arab views on Hamas" or something like that. Given the balance of opinion here, I can't change the fact that the remainder of the article will remain American/Israeli propaganda. If there's any opposition to including non-American/Israeli sources, please voice the reasons for them here instead of just deleting them from the main article. Support for the idea would be appreciated too. Amibidhrohi 20:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any positive contributions to this article would be welcomed. Tazmaniacs 04:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: On the subject of this section, see WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why shouldn't they be considered reliable? This seems like a descriptive statement, doesn't it? Tazmaniacs 05:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV of Sources Being Used 

message: This article does have some point of view, although in this case it is a good thing.  As Hamas is a terrorist organization responsible for countless killings of innocent civilians, the article should not paint an even picture of them, as if it where discussing a normal political party.  At the moment, the article's stance seems fair and neutral. Theonlyedge 00:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement seems a bit contradictory... There is no "good" POV... If the article seems "fair and neutral", that would make it NPOV... I believe I see what your point is, though. si»abhorreo»T 11:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the frank speaking, saying that this article should be a pamphlet against Hamas. I enter the POV-tag, and will thus let you paint the uneven picture of Hamas that you want to. Bertilvidet 20:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He hasn't actually done anything; if the POV tag wasn't appropriate before, it isn't now. Nothing's changed. si»abhorreo»T 02:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All articles are NPOV, but some articles are more NPOV than others. I'm insisting that a "globalize" boilerplate be added. Clearly this article has a Western viewpoint, and as the cliche goes, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Though I agree that Hamas supports terrorism, as most Wikipedians probably do, it is intellectually dishonest and propagandizing to exclude Hamas and its supporters' perspectives in this article.  --Aeki 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Aeki what do you believe needs to change in this article to make it less "intellectually dishonest and propagandizing".Hypnosadist 17:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the article has already been changed. At any rate, take a look at the writeup for Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq for comparison. It clearly and factually lists exactly what they do, history, etc.  Clearly Al-Qaeda in Iraq does horrible things, but in that article the reader is empowered to come to that conclusion on their own, rather than instructed as to what they should conclude. --Aeki 18:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq page is one of the best i've seen.Looking forward to your edits.Hypnosadist 18:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, there is POV but... 

message: [Forgive me for stating the obvious, but] The beginning of the article is the most frequently edited, and most of the edits consist of rearranging the information and adding and removing small snippets at a time.
The goal here, it appears, is to create the right balance (I'm generalizing and being blunt here) of anti and pro information, as to give the first time reader the "correct" impression of Hamas. This may be especially important to some editors due to the current political situation, as when a newspaper or TV news show features a piece on Hamas, it is likely to start with "The Palestinian government party Hamas...", rather then "The fanatical/militant/terrorist/extremist group Hamas...", thus risking that an observers perception might not be the "right" one.
Here is the current lead section. The parts that to me appear to be pro are bold, and the anti is left alone.
:Hamas (Arabic حركة حماس) is a Palestinian Islamist organization, and is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union[1], Israel, and the United States, [2] (but not by Russia) and is banned in Jordan.[3].
:Created in 1987 by Shaikh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas is known chiefly for its suicide bombings [4] and other attacks directed against Israeli civilians, as well as military targets. Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in force) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamist state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[5]
:According to the U.S. State Dept, Hamas is funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.[2] In a 2002 report, Human Rights Watch stated that Hamas' leaders "should be held accountable for the war crimes and crimes against humanity" that have been committed by its members. The same report quoted Reuven Paz, former head of research for the Shin Bet (Israeli intelligence agency), who described Hamas as "an authentic product of Palestinian society under Israeli rule, more so than the PA." (Palestinian Authority) [6].
:Hamas won 74 of 132 seats in the January 2006 Palestinian legislative election and is now the majority party of the Palestinian Legislative Council. Its popularity among Palestinians is in part explained by the extensive network of welfare programs it has set up throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
These elements have been juggled around constantly, I don't think they have remained in the same positions for more then a couple weeks at a time at most, and usually much less.
My opinion on the matter is that the "correct" portrait of Hamas does include mostly anti information. However, the right balance is necessary.
At the moment, I believe the bottom paragraph regarding their involvement in the Palestinian Legislative Council should be featured more prominently towards the top. This is important information, and likely an issue that someone looking up this article would be looking for information on.
I think the fact that they are categorized as a terrorist organization is important and should go near the top, but it shouldn't be the opening sentence, as it simply isn't the most relevant information at the moment. I don't believe though that "(but not by Russia)" is necessary to mention. It might be appropriate if the sentence said "listed as a terrorist organization by the worlds superpowers", and it deserves to me mentioned early when this topic is discussed later in the article, but not in the first sentence as it is currently written.
It also doesn't seem appropriate that it's said to be chiefly known for its suicide bombings; I see why some would want to have that information prominent, but I simply don't think that's true at the moment. That is indeed a major part of their identity which should be mentioned, but right now they are also associated with the current controversy, which does not center around their suicide attacks.
Finally, to touch upon a well worn topic, I think the word militant is justified. Their very nature is based around violence; Suicide bombings, rocket attacks, an AK-47 toting militia (militants) known for firing their guns into the air (admittedly not a unique trait among extremist organizations in the area) show-of-strength street marches. I think that there should be a defining word that expresses that. To a lot of readers, "Islamist" for all intents and purposes is interchangeable with "Islamic".
This is just one mans opinion. I would love for others express their own opinions on the matter. si»abhorreo»T 08:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "but not by Russia" part, which was insterted a couple of days ago. It hasn't been listed as terrorist organization by literally 100 countries.  There no particular reason for singling out one country - all we need to do is mention the ones that actually have called it terrorist, not the dozens that haven't. As for it being primarily known for suicide bombings, that's exactly what the many references say.  The reason so many were provided was precisely because people kept claiming it wasn't true, but the references prove otherwise. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition of the opening section 

message: Reading :Category:Terrorism,
:This category deals with topics relating to events, organizations, or people that have at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc., including state terrorism.
Hamas is an organization that is relating terrorism. Hamas activists are considered to be terrorists in the US and the UN. Hamas was and is referred more than once as terrorist. Hamas' policy from western perspective could be could state terrorism.
Then why isn't Hamas in this damn category? Psychomelodic (people think  edit) 01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamas is now in the NPOV ":Category:Organizations accused of Terrorism" (which is a subcategory of terrorism and contains a large number, 49 or so, of other such groups.)  There is also a ":Category:Terrorist organizations" category but I'm not up for the fight that can go with putting gruops into that category.  --Ben Houston 19:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WHAT THE FUCK! So let me get this straight, Hamas is not a terrorist organisation but Meibion Glyndŵr who have never even be accused of killing a single person,THEY ARE! I'm going to put it in that category, as it should be, if the word terrorism is de-facto POV then there should be no category but its there so hamas are joining it. So should most of the others such as the Irish Republican Army, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and Al-Qaeda.Hypnosadist 20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should calm down a bit.  Also these groups should go into the category "Terrorist organizations", which is a subcategory of "terrorism" - this keeps the main "terrorism" cat clean and manageable.  --Ben Houston 20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry for my language but the Meibion Glyndŵr thing was to much. I do think they are terrorists as they where using violence for political ends, and if they are Hamas sure are.Hypnosadist 20:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes are being reverted -- this is the battle I was talking about.  Why not move your Meibion Glyndwr into the "organizations accused of terrorism" cat?  --Ben Houston 21:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If the article fits the description of a category, it should probably go in it. If you think the category itself is POV, then you should discuss it on the categories page, not here. si»abhorreo»T 00:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The category "Terrorist organizations" has gone now. We now only have those accused of terrorism, now if i can only find the right place to post to find out what you need to do to be an actual terrorisst group.Hypnosadist 10:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Terrorism]] 

message: A new category was created for so-called designated terror organizations, but if you go to that category page, you see that the US and the UK are considered as powers that have the right to designate organizations of being in that class. This page has now also been aded to that category, i.m.o. this cannot be justified.
Perhaps the category itself should also be placed on the AFD list.
Count Iblis 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to new terrorism category 

message: I merged Al Fateh into the Other subspection of Activities.  The original article was very stubby, so the proposed merger made a good bit of sense.  However, I do not follow the controversy surrounding Hamas, so please make sure the content I merged is in line with good NPOV with respect to the rest of the article. Kevin_b_er 06:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF This needs its own article and much more info, i'm on it.Hypnosadist 22:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Al Fateh]] 

message: I didn't see the need to label it as a terrorist organisation right in the first sentece since this is discussed in the next sentence.
--69.119.50.159 18:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  terrorist organisation 

message: In this section there are anti-Zionist position described as anti-semite ones.
Examples:
*The Covenant cites The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, describing it as "the embodiment of the Zionist plan to usurp Palestine". 
*Hamas categorizes the Freemasons, Lions Club, and the Rotarians as organizations promoting "the interest of Zionism." It accuses those organizations, and the "Zionist invasion" in general, of being "behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds."
--Pokipsy76 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Be bold. This inclusion is doubtlessly because some are keen on identifying anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Please do make an appropriate "Anti-zionism section". Tazmaniacs 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So we could split the section in two: anti-zionism and anti-semitism, does anybody object to this change?--Pokipsy76 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The protocols are classic anti-semite propaganda being writen over 40 years before the existance of the state of Isreal, that this lie is about the creation of Zion does not make it anti-Zionist, it was used to persecute all jews(and by hamas still is). While i understand and except there is a clear difference in criticising the actions of the nation state of Isreal and the view all jews are evil, hamas clearly does not. As for the second piece of evidence, it would be more appropriate to put it in a section on the delusions of Hamas's founders.Hypnosadist 20:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-semitism section 

message: In the intro there is the statement that Hamas is not on the UN's list of terorist organizations.  I was unable to find said list.  Does it exist?  And please, don't point me to the "UN list of individuals and entities associated with al-Qaida or the Taliban" because that is not a comprehensive list of terrorist organizations, and never claimed or attempted to be.  If that list is the source of the statement, then the statement needs to be revised to be accurate.70.115.211.122 11:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone source this please 

message: I've removed the following text from the header:
However, Hamas is not listed as a terrorist organization by either Russia  or the United Nations, and some consider it to be an independence movement. 
"However" is a word to avoid, and there are well over 100 countries that do not list Hamas as a terrorist organization, so there's no particular point in singling out Russia - why not Brazil or China or Mexico or Argentina or Ghana or New Zealand or Nigeria or...? The list tells who does designate it as a terrorist organization, not the dozens and dozens who don't. Second, the claim about the UN is both unsourced and bizarre; does the UN designate any organizations as "terrorist"?  Third, the "some consider" claim is unsourced and weasel worded, and equally bizarre. What significant body has designated Hamas as an "independence movement"? And if Hamas is an "independence" movement, then what is it fighting for independence from; Lebanon? Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree I'll reword it for your sweety —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yas121 (talk • contribs) 
Could you please respond to the issue, and avoid violations of WP:CIVIL? Jayjg (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Attempts to reach a consensus on the intro were made earlier here. Only the countries members of the Quartet on the Middle East (including, of course, Israel) should be listed in the intro, as they are the only relevant parties involved. Funny that Jayjg's reversed my previous argument, mainly that we shouldn't list Australia & Canada here, as well as Britain (which is part of the UE, so we're listing it twice now), because in that case we might as well list all of the countries which list Hamas as terrorist org. There should be no need to be oversensitive on such a point, but stress is high on this page. Cheers everybody! Tazmaniacs 22:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't list everyone who doesn't regard it as a terrorist group; list the ones that do and you're by implication saying who doesn't. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not true at all, the reader could just assume you are only mentioning the important countries who regard Hamas as terrorist. It needs to be explicitly stated in the article which countries do and which countries do not regard Hamas as terrorist, even if you don't list them individually. It's also POV to go into detail which countries list Hamas as terrorist but not doing the same for the countrties that don't. Deuterium 00:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Over 100 countries do not list Hamas as terrorist and we couldn't possibly list them all; a small number do. We list the ones that do, not the dozens and dozens that don't. And it's POV to include just one of the over 100 countries which do not list Hamas as terrorist. Jayjg (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, we have listed everyone who designates it a terrorist organization; is there any country which has been left out? Any country not listed here does not list Hamas as a terrorist organization. Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: D, please stop this nonsense. We list the countries who say it is a terrorist organization. It would be absurd and impossible to list those who don't regard it as such. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not POV to include Russia as it's part of the quartet and thus it's views are relevant to the I-P conflict. And even if you object to mentioning russia, the article still needs to explicitly state that the countries listed are the only ones who mention it as terrorist because otherwise the implication is that there are more countries who list it as a terrorist organization that are not mentioned. Deuterium 00:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deuterium is obviously right, if he includes Russia. ONLY MEMBERS OF THE QUARTET ON THE MIDDLE EAST SHOULD BE NAMED IN THE INTRODUCTION (including of course Israel) BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY relevant PARTIES. There is no need, as Jayz himself as pointed out, to name Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Nepal and Erythrea. Stop with this non-sense, and stop portraiting people who don't fit your POV as fanatics. This is really sickening, and I don't know how you do it, but you do manage to disgust anyone with some encyclopedical intention to act here. If we're not here to put the next stupid (or murderous) thing done by Hamas, than we are Hamas  supporter. Is it with this kind of spirit that you support Middle-East peace efforts? If you can't even argue reasonably with people you don't know on Wikipedia??? Come on... Tazmaniacs 14:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would only the members of the Quartet be relevant here? It appears that they have been conveniently chosen as a criteria solely for the purpose of noting that Russia hasn't done something. Jayjg (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok i think that it is notable that Russia have not banned Hamas and for Three reasons, the membership of three groups of note ie The Quartet, the G8 and the UN security council. Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Nepal and Erythrea are not part of these groups.Hypnosadist 22:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, there are 272 nations, dependent areas, and other entities, most of which won't do us the favour of giving declarations on their stance on Hamas. It was claimed here that "some consider[ing] it to be an independence movement" should be mentioned. Would we mention the 200+ who don't? The article mentions Russia four times, it's position related in proper context. Asking for it's inclusion in the lead because of it's quartett membership is a random criterion that comes handy to some - will we mention that it's the Arabs World's favourite arms dealer as well? Guess not. --tickle me 23:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi all, 2 quick points. I agree completely it would be absurd to start listing all the countries that don't list Hamas as a terrorist organization HOWEVER as we are so adamant to quickly point out the countries that do we must also mention (as this is supposed to be a fair and unbiased Encyclopedia) A)that many countries don't list them and B)That Russia and China don't who are extremely important in international conflicts being members of the Security council with powers of Veto --Yas16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We list all the groups that describe it as terrorist; all others do not. It is original research to claim that the fact that they do not is significant. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  So I propose that we mention Russia, China and the United Nations, does anyone agree? Yas121 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The article lists only countries that designate Hamas as terrorist; all 200 other countries do not list it as terrorist. As for the U.N., the link you yourself provided points out "The only terrorist list the UN maintains was brought about by UN resolution 1267, and is devoted solely to individuals and organisations believed by the UN to be connected to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. If Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are not listed by the UN, it isn't because they aren't terrorist groups; it's because the UN doesn't see sufficient linkage between them and terrorism's Big Two."   So, no, we list the countries that call it terrorist organization, not the ones that don't. Jayjg (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Russia is part of the Quartet on the Middle East & should certainly be mentionned, more so than Australia & Canada. Tazmaniacs 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tazmaniacs, you have made an assertion, not an argument.  The reason Australia and Canada are mentioned is because every country that has listed Hamas as a terrorist organization is listed.  Admittedly, it is not a long list, but that is exactly why they are all listed. As well, Australia and Canada are not trivial countries; in fact, they are two of the largest trading countries in the world. Canada is part of the G8 nations, and Australia is one of the top 20 countries in the world in terms of GDP.  However, the Quartet on the Middle East appears to be completely irrelevant - exactly what have they done, aside from calling themselves as "Quartet"? Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, that is not a very good argument at all. You seem to think Russia and China are not worth mentioning yet Australia is for it's high GDP. Well let me just say that Russia and China are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council meaning they can effectively veto any resolution under International law. Meaning all major international resolutions concerning the Middle-East. Compared to this influence and power Australia and Canada are less than small-potatos!!--Yas121 23:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not wander too far afield here, comparing GDP or Security Council Votes. None of these things matter. Take a simple (I hope) example: Does Egypt label Hamas a terrorist org? Syria? Lebanon? Are these countries less important to the issue at hand than China? I think not. But we're not listing any country's lack of opinion on the matter, nor should we. IronDuke 23:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not my argument, though. Australia and Canada are significant countries, and are some of small number of countries that have listed Hamas as a terrorist organization. Since every country that lists Hamas as a terrorist origanization is listed here, Australia and Canada are included.  On the other hand, there are 200 countries that have not listed Hamas as a terrorist organization, and there's no particular reason to single out China or Russia - Security Council membership is another of those new excuses that seems to have conveniently popped up solely to try to include some names on the "doesn't call Hamas terrorist" list.  Furthermore, China's "terrorist" list seems completely self-serving; 4 alleged groups in Xinxiang province, 2 of which apparently don't even exist, and two others which are simply informational NGOs, which human rights groups say are not terrorist at all. Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia, UN, "independence movement" 

message: Why has the Paz quote been included in the lead? It's one quote, from one Israeli; what Human Rights Watch as an organization thinks is significant, but one one Israeli says is not. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you consider members of Shin Bet to be reliable, mainstream sources when it comes to articles about Hamas and similar organizations? Important enough that they should be included in the leads of those articles?  I want to make sure about this, because it will have very serious implications for the material included in these articles going forward. Or perhaps you want to re-think your poisition? Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See :Talk:Hamas#Finding_a_consensual_and_NPOV_decision_for_the_intro. Tazmaniacs 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that old discussion relevant? This is a wiki. Can you answer the question please? Jayjg (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Arguably, official Shin Bet declarations would have some clout. However, I don't know of any such declarations, it's the representative branches of the Israeli government mostly, that handle this business. Anyway, I can look up what individual SB members, past and present, have to say on Hamas, if I'm allowed to introduce it here as authoritatitve and reliable - presumably 99% of the material won't be "favourable" -  any goers? --tickle me 00:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi dear Jayjg. Don't try to turn a discussion about how to make a NPOV intro into a general discussion about the validity, in itself, of Shin Bet declarations. If you want a discussion about the general validity or not of Shin Beth, please go adress that in Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. This is not the place to do so, as this talk page is about Hamas, not Shin Beth. Have I answered your question? Tazmaniacs 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Shin Beth generally would not be considered an authority on Hamas, and certainly not enough for the lead. Furthermore, the report in question doesn't endorse Paz's views, it merely reports them. WP:NPOV does not allow "undue weight" to be given to any views. Please stick to policy. Jayjg (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paz quote 

message: I asked nicely, and was ignored, and am asking nicely again, after removing the statement.  If the UN has a list of terrorist organizations, it needs to be provided.  Until it is, I will continue to remove all references to Hamas and their not being on said list.  As an aside, the intro doesn't sound at all encyclopedic, but more like unrepentant equivocation.  Frankly, it sounds pretty damned stupid to list the countries that do not list Hamas as terrorists. 70.115.211.122 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. -- Szvest 22:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a good indication, we now need to find the exact UN list. Hope this helps  --Yas121 19:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That link you provided says this: "The only terrorist list the UN maintains was brought about by UN resolution 1267, and is devoted solely to individuals and organisations believed by the UN to be connected to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. If Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are not listed by the UN, it isn't because they aren't terrorist groups; it's because the UN doesn't see sufficient linkage between them and terrorism's Big Two." Yet you have inserted the exact opposite POV into the article. Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So like I said Hamas are not in the UN  list of terrorist organzations! which part is unclear? Yas121 23:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's deliberately misleading; the UN only lists groups or individuals linked to Al Qaeda or the Taliban, which Hamas and Hezbollah are not. The U.N. hasn't said Hamas is not a terrorist group. Please try not to POV articles by including misleading claims. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone PLEASE PLEASE source this 

message: what is wrong with saying 
a) ..."it is seen by its supporters as a legitimate fighting force defending Palestinians from military occupation"? and 
b) "Hamas was formed in 1987 at the beginning of the first intifada, or Palestinian uprising against Israel's occupation in the West Bank and Gaza"? 
a. is just highlighting that there are other opinions/views out there and b. is just saying why they were formed. Thanks in advance for your help --Yas121 00:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a better question; why do you keep removing the fact that Hamas is on the UK terrorist list? The UK is not the EU, and they keep separate terrorist lists. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please answer the above simple Qs. Thanks Yas121 00:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You first. Jayjg (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. First Intifadah is in the article now, and it links to what that was; we don't need your POV description of what it was all about in the intro to a separate article, that's what links are for. Jayjg (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, because it's a waste of my time explaining to you what the EU is and whom are it's members. Read. All I'll say is this is the only article on Hamas I've seen that lists the countries, who have Hamas on their terrorist list, so maticulously, (everywhere else US,EU and israel seems to suffice) yet has no mention of countries that disagree nor any other views on Hamas as if US-EU-Israel represented the entire planet.... and what a fair a balanced article this really is. What do you think someone in the Middle-East or Africa or in Asia reading this would think about Wikipedia? might not the F word come to their mind? It seems Widipedia is turning into just another tool for people to further their own agenda and distort history. --Yas121 01:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is more complete than the other articles, then. I don't see why that's a bad thing.  The UK is not synonymous with the EU, and it has its own list of terrorist groups. It has its own army too, which got involved in Iraq even though the EU didn't. It has its own currency too.  By the way, did China say that Hamas is not a terrorist group?  I thought not. Jayjg (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone PLEASE PLEASE tell me what's so Un-wikipedian about this that Admins don't like?