Talk:Hamas/Archive 1

message: Shouldn't this say "Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by many countries, including ..."  We'd have to add Canada and Australia for example.
: Pointed taken, change have been made. MathKnight 21:36, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: as I'm sure you are aware, www.jewwatch.com is a racist website. As such, there are very few people who could really consider this 'information' - 'propaganda' would be more appropriate 82.22.1.134 12:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Hamas Charter, all of Israel is "occupied" land. I am in total agreement with you, the recipe for peace in the middle east is simple: Jews must leave the holy land. Without any Jews in Palestine there would certainly be peace. For that matter, without any Jews on the planet, there would no longer be anti-semitism. The Jewish Question would be solved, and all would live in peace and harmony. (Is it necessary for me to point out that all the above was sarcasm?)Loomis51 18:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Read the article, follow the link to Hamas convenant where they deny Israel the right to exist and announce their goal to "raise the banner of God over every inch of Palestine". ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other countries?

message: If the following sentence refers to the recently assassinated "sheik", then it implies that the sheik was not merely a spiritual leader. I'd like the 2 articles on Hamas and Ahmed Yassin to be congruent, i.e., don't say one thing in one article and another thing in the other. Either Yassin ordered killings or he didn't. Ordering killings is either consistent with spiritual leadership, or it isn't. Someone who orders killings is generally regarded as a political leader, aren't they? Or is someone saying that Hamas had a leader higher than Yassin, to whom Yassin was subordinate? Let's get this straight, if possible. --Uncle Ed 13:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The organization's political current head is unknown,as his position cannot be replaced per se.
He was both a spiritual leader and a political leader.  The extent to which he controlled the organization in its daily business is disputed, though it is clear that he gave it the general direction.  It is not only "the supporters of Hamas" who use the phrase "spiritual leader", unless you think that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and the New York Times are Hamas supporters.  (I guess some people do.)  Even the Israeli description goes somewhat in this direction by calling him "the godfather of the suicide bombers" rather than the father. --Zero 13:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Political or spiritual leader?

message: I made some radical changes to the beginning of the article. I guess I better wait a couple of hours before making any more changes. No point adding text, if it's just going to get reverted. Let's try to find a way to incorporate all relevant facts and POV accurately and neutrally. --Uncle Ed 14:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is always usefull and in fact also suggested by Wkipedia, that in such cases, you provide a minimum of explanation of why you changed someone else's contribution. You probably have good reasons, but why not share these with us?   --Rudi Dierick 17:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Goals and controversy

message: We need more info about Hamas's relationship with PLO.
:This position has brought it into conflict with the PLO, which in 1988 recognized Israel's right to exist.
First of all, the PLO "recognition" of Israel's right to exist seems a bit flimsy. Is it widely regarded as sincere? I heard that it was just a bit of PR to get critics of their back, and that the PLO would L-O-V-E to push Israel into the Mediterranean Sea, just as much as Hamas. Am I misinformed, or what?
Let's research the various reasons Hamas has conflict with PLO, then put the above sentence back with repairs. --Uncle Ed 19:08, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wether it seems flimsy or not is irrelevant, it's the official line and should be stated so. Americas interest in a Palestinian state also seems a bit flimsy but they officially say they are committed to it.--Omar 11:41, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: To anonymous: I have not added this garbage, in fact I deleted it and moved it to the talkpage. It seems that somebody has messed with my comment on the talkpage. The paragraph I have deleted actually included these lines you are blaming for writing. Anyway, I certainly agree that such statements have no place at the Wiki. Whether or not they come from New York Times I will leave on the conscience of the person who posted it to the article with such an attribution. Watcher 22:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

text: "Each Israeli killing only seems to enhance the popularity of Hamas on the street, particularly in its Gaza stronghold, where it draws recruits from a society that is extremely poor and deeply religious." NYT
I feel that putting it as another sentence in an introductory paragraph is not NPOV in that it gives undue credence to this claim, because the attribution is placed at the end of the sentence and is deemphasized. To make attribution of the point of view clear, it should say something like "And according to New York Times as of 200x" that's what is happening. 
Note moreover that "killings" is not a neutral term that has no place in the intro paragraph; a proper encyclopedic disambiguation may include "every Israeli assassination of a Hamas militant", or "every shooting of a stone throwing teenager" or "every housewife killed by a stray bullet during Israeli battle against Palestinian gunmen" etc. However, we obviosly cannot edit a quote from NYTimes, so if you want to keep this gem of insight in the article, you should move it to some place that is more appropriate, such as the outside world's view of events or Hamas recruiting in Gaza. Or better yet, just summarize what it is trying to say in a neutral manner. Nobody is going to ask you to provide sources here for self-evident statements. I look forward to constructive comments.
Also, please do not modify my comments on this talkpage any more, as it is rude and deceptive. I am not modifying yours, am I? Watcher 23:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict with PLO

message: These irregularities that you mention are very important to look at as they may give insight into how many view Hamas today.  As an "outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood" or chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood - more specifically the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood that was created in 1928 - Hamas has roots dated well before the 70s. The Muslim Brotherhood was one of the first forces that fought Israel in the war of independence in '48, '49. From the Muslim Brotherhood came Al-Mujamma Al-Islami, the social sphere which was registered with Israel in 1978 (a year mentioned by Wikipedia). It was primarily at this time in the late 1960s and the '70s that Hamas (muslim brotherhood/Al-Mujamma Al-Islami) was expanding its social activity and trying to re-Islamicize society in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza. At this time, Israel had to make a choice: Which organization would they allow to help the social needs of people in the occupied territories?  It was certainly not going to be the PLO and so Hamas was allowed and even supported by Israel to provide these social necessities - schools, hospitals, ect.  In the 1980s, the movement of Hamas became somewhat more militant. In this sense, Hamas really, as we know it today, came out of the first Palestinian uprising that began on the 9th of December, 1987 (another year provided by wikipedia). Hamas had a political and social evolution (in my view, not for the better) or the organization is a dicotomy in itself.  Hamas as they were in the 60s and 70s was a more social-concious organization and sadly what it is today is a suicide-bombing thorn in the side of Palestine and her effort for peace.- Annette 
There appear to be irregularities, can somebody clear them up? In the intro it states that it was founded in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, but later it states under history that it was funded in the 1970's and 1980's by Saudi Arabia and Syria.--Omar 11:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I know Wikipedia is a collaborative effort but you are making edits that add no significant value or new information apparently just so you can "have the last word". Control issues should be checked. Alberuni 05:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Alberuni, as I've requested several times now, please focus on the articles themselves, rather than on ad hominem statements regarding me. I will also point out that the charge of "stalking" is laughable, given that I was editing this page (and therefore it was on my watchlist) before you even joined Wikipedia, and that my most recent edits on Sept. 26 also precede your first edits to the page.  If there is any "stalking" going on, it's obviously not by me. Jayjg 05:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: After we had our Talk/Israel disagreements over whether Palestinians should have their demographic existence in OT recognized as much as the Israelis who live in the OT, you came to the Hamas page and made a series of totally unnecessary reversions to my edits, reversions to your reversions, etc regarding Israel's assassination yesterday and Hamas goals. Your edits added nothing and were, in fact, awkwardly worded and poorly composed. You made them out of simple spiteful editorial bias, to erase my work. You always want the final word and the article must fit your pro-Israeli POV. I suspect you are hoping to drive people away from Wikipedia who don't share your narrow views. It is immature and destructive behavior. I will continue working on various pages and hope for you to mature. Alberuni 06:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the history of the edits on the page; I had edited the article twice on Sep 26 before you appeared (for the very first time) and made your edits.  I then returned to the page a few hours later and continued to edit it, incorporating the NPOV material that you brought to the page, while excluding the highly POV changes you inserted.  I also have not changed subseqent NPOV edits you have made; my only concern here is maintaining NPOV.  In any event, I again strongly encourage you to restrict your comments to discussing the article contents, rather than continually and rather incessantly making ad hominem and poisoning the well comments about me. Jayjg 14:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jayjg please refrain from stalking and unnecessary edits 

message: You've made a number of good edits today, Alberuni.  If you continue in this vein we should have no trouble working together on articles in the future. Jayjg 17:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to hear it. Alberuni 17:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the vast majority of your edits on the article today were also good.  Thanks for making them. Jayjg 15:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good edits today