Talk:Hamas

Quotes in citations

As per the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 19#Quotes in references and per WP:COPYVIO I will remove the quotes within the citations. This will also make the article a bit shorter (especially the references section) and easier to edit.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.07.2008 06:18

However, its founding charter, writings, and many of its public statements[7] reflect an incontrovertible evidence of Anti-zionism.

Was Hamas created in 1976, 1987, 1988?

1976

The Oxford World Encyclopedia: "Hamas¶ The Islamic Resistance Movement founded in 1976 by Sheikh Yassin Ahmed, with the aim of creating an Islamic state in the former Palestine. "

1987:

Wikipedia: "Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha of the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada."

The Corporate Security Professional's Handbook on Terrorism: "Hamas was a splinter group of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and was created as a separate organization in 1987."

1988

http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/HAMAS2006.PDF: Hamas is a creation of the Palestinian branch of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood movement. The organization was created in 1988 by the late Sheikh 11 Ahmad Yassin, the Hamas ideologue and founder who was then a preacher of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood movement in Gaza. In concurrence with his teachings, Yassin and his followers formed Hamas as the “military wing” of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood. 86.68.157.246 (talk) {BG}; edited: 86.68.157.246 (talk) {BG}

Section removed from 2008-2009 Israeli-Gaza conflict

I've put this here, as it was inappropriate to a discussion of International law on the other page.

Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued. The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters. A Hamas representative in the PA legislative council this year expressed pride on Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas) in the fact that women and children are used as human shields in fighting Israel. He described it as part of a "death industry" at which Palestinians excel, and explained that the Palestinians "desire death" with the same intensity that Israelis "desire life."

Hamas is a terrorist organization that attacks civilians. This article has been locked and I cannot take the word "alleged" of of one of the sub titles. Please look up "terrorism" in a dictionary and remove the "alleged" from the heading.

22nd Anniversary of Hamas

A couple of links to the big Hamas rally on the 22nd anniversary:

• In a long, defiant speech on Monday afternoon, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said that gaining control of the Gaza Strip was "just a step toward liberating all of Palestine."- includes video from BBC. Jerusalem Post

• "This movement, with the help of the militant factions liberated the Gaza Strip, and we say, brothers and sisters, we will not be satisfied with Gaza," he said. "Hamas looks toward the whole of Palestine, the liberation of the strip is just a step to liberating all of Palestine." "In a long, defiant speech, Haniyeh pledged Hamas would never lay down its arms, nor recognize Israel." Hamas rally shows it still has strong Gaza support AFP

Hamas' status in the UK

1) The link in reference 265 results in a 404 page not found response. The UK web site has apparently changed the link to

http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/legislation/current-legislation/terrorism-act-2000/proscribed-groups.html

2) Within that reference, Hamas itself is not listed a proscribed group. On the list is "Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades"

caption for Izz al-Din Shuheil al-Masri, the perpetrator of the Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing

"Hamas martyr Izz al-Din Shuheil al-Masri, the perpetrator of the Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing."

Is it really valid to call him a martyr? This article aspires to neutrality, and that is not a neutral title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.127.105 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the term "martyr" is definitely not appropriate. He committed a terroristic action against defenseless civilians, and in so doing (knowingly) killed himself (committed suicide). Not killed for refusing to change his belief or religion, as the term means. This should change to either ""Hamas terrorist Izz al-Din Shuheil al-Masri,...." or if the word terrorist is disputed or not considered nutral (which I think in this case it is not so), then any of this will do "Hamas activist/operative/agent/militant Izz al-Din Shuheil al-Masri,...." . --Nightseeder^(Chat). 21:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's inappropriate but not for the reasons you've stated. The term 'martyr' means Wikipedia buys into that religious meaning, and NPOV demands that we not do that. It's not Wikipedia's business to agree or disagree with the suicide bomber's understanding of what he or she is doing. I'm changing the term to 'suicide bomber'.Haberstr (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Settlers

These people are called "settlers" by the entire world, the operation took place in the Palestinian territories, so "settlers" is more appropriate then "civilian" [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Being a settler does not negate civilian status Supreme. Not combatants are still classified as civilians. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The entire world calls them settlers, the NYT source says "settlers" [2], the BBC [3] and Jpost[4] sources calls them "Israelis" so "Israeli settler" is the correct term. The fact that the text doesn't say that they were "soldiers" makes the reader understand that they are civilians, because if they were soldiers it would obviously say so. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

They are Israeli settlers and civilians. Like I said, being a "settler" does not negate civilian status. Their location is already made clear - so it is redundant to say they are Israeli settlers. Even B'tselem classifies Israeli settlers as civilians (usually Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians). Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Listen Wikifan12345, I think you know we're playing with words here. Re your edit summary; obviously targeting civilians or settlers or non-combatants or whatever you want to call them is wrong. But the only thing that matters from WP's view is that the RS uses "settler"; hence, we should too. NickCT (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources don't dispute the civilian status of Israeli settlers. The fact that they are settlers does not negate their status as civilians. Some persons speaking on behalf of Palestinians argue that, inasmuch as the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel’s security forces, it is permissible to attack settlers. This argument is groundless: the illegality of the settlements does not affect the civilian status of their residents in the slightest. B'tselem is an imperfect and IMO horribly biased source but it is widely-recognized by the wikipedia community as comprehensive and reliable when it comes to casualties in the I/P conflict. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The source for this attack says "settlers" no source calls these four people "civilians" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, please cease making the point that "the fact that they are settlers does not negate their status as civilians". Nobody is arguing this. Nobody is arguing that the fact they are settlers negates the fact that they are "human beings", but we are not going to call them "human beings" b/c that is not what the source calls them. NickCT (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

<- Wikifan, 'settlers' isn't a derogatory term in RS-world. It's not worth worrying about. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sean, edit warring is not cool. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"The entire world calls them settlers" - like I said before, this is irrelevant. The victims were Israeli civilians, the fact that they were residents of Israeli settlements does not negate their civilian status. Trying to replace civilian with settler is clearly POV. The settlement is already mentioned in the sentence so it is quite redundant to say "Israeli settler." Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, the entire world also calls this the operation ;) My impression is that the operation is discussed, by sources, in context of current round of US hosted I/P talks ceremonies. Sources talk about Egypt and Jordan involvement and Hamas tradition of opposition to such kind of festive events, the term provocation is easily sourced, also by primary Palestinian reliable sources. C'mon, Wikifan12345, you know better than that, this is just Wikipedia, rules apply. No one also negates the fact that those humans were residents of the Israeli colonies in the West bank, I think Sean would agree.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh? The dispute is whether or not to qualify the Israeli civilian casualties as "settler" (ambiguous) or the neutral, "civilian." This sounds stupid: "On August 31, 2010, 4 Israeli settlers, including a pregnant woman, were killed by Hamas militants while driving on Route 60 near the settlement Kiryat Arba." A settler can be a civilian or a soldier, in this case the victims were blatantly civilian and they happened to be residents of Israeli settlements. Pretty obvious editors want to deprive the victims of their civilian status by obfuscating the homicidal act committed by Hamas. I already included a B'tselem cite above which is paraded by partisan editors as the gospel of casualty data - so what's the problem? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty obvious editors want to deprive the victims of their civilian status by obfuscating the homicidal act committed by Hamas."...Wikifan, please, calling them settlers doesn't deprive the victims of their civilian status anymore than calling them Israelis or any number of other terms. You are overthinking this. We should just say what the sources say and move on. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

And sources describe the victims as civilians. 1, 2, 3. I don't understand why editors are so butturt over calling a spade a spade. I know pregnant woman are such a threat a future Palestine. Civilian? Please...they are evil Zionist settlers bent on genociding peace-loving Palestinians. XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain genociding isn't a verb. Settlers, people, Israelis, civilians, whatever but we can't pick words because we like them. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. We can't pick "settler" because editors refuse to ignore reliable sources that don't fit their narrative. Editors worship B'tselem as the gospel for casualty data, but conviniently ignore it if *gasp* doesn't completely tow the PA line. Please respect policy and restore my neutral edit. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As an aside wikifan has blatantly pasted his subjective point of view over here saying "deprive the victims of their civilian status by obfuscating the homicidal act committed by Hamas" + "pregnant woman are such a threat a future Palestine" The two wholly irrelevant to discussing the matter at hand, which is the addition of certain words.

Furthermore, WP:NPA asserts the attacks emanating from the lack of support for his cause such as "paraded by partisan editors as the gospel of casualty data - so what's the problem?" has no room here.

At any rate, he consensus is unanimously against him so until there is a modicum of controversy "settler" is supported by the rest.Lihaas (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So what if I "blatantly" pasted a "subjective point of view?" These people were civilians and they were hunted and murdered for being Jews. Mainstream sources refer to acts of violence against Israeli non-armed settlers as civilians. I posted reliable sources proving the deaths have been recorded as civilian. So instead of attacking me as an editor, why not focus on what I am saying? 3 editors whose POV's are widely-established is not a "consensus." Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's actually 4 editors, whose views I'm not familiar with, against 1 editor. My maths skills are not great but it must be about 80% support for settlers which seems to be a consensus to me. The arguement seems a little pointless anyway as most of the world clearly calls them settlers so arguing against it makes any alternative POV itself. Wayne (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Wikipedia's notion of consensus is a pile of crap unless the editor's positions are policy compliant and the output of the consensus process increases policy compliance. Many times they aren't and it doesn't. In this case though it should be easy to resolve by simply sampling a bunch of sources rather than arguing about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Kommentar Based on sources provided in this and other discussions we could describe those Israelis both as settler and as civilian. If we look at this from Hamas official POV, those are settlers, i.e. legitimate military targets. Israel POV is that Israelis living in the West bank are civilians unless they are members of security forces. There are also cases of unlawful combatants, though I personally don't see strong indication of such possibility in this particular case. So NPOV probably calls us to describe this issue from all angles. However at this level of details we might need to start to spin off sub-articles to make the whole as manageable. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could always try something like Intranetworkcrosspolymersynergism or simply use whatever China Daily said. I think, forget the POVs, sample the RS, pick the word, don't worry about what it is. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you guys are so outraged by the word "civilian." I provided several reliable sources that describe the dead as "civilian" - namely', B'tselem, one of the most prominent and widely-cited rights group in Israel. So what if 3 paragraph BBC article calls them settler? Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused, what is the name of the chapter, in which this content is discussed? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

uh? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Settler is just fine. It's not pejorative and implies that the people are civilians. Sol Goldstone (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is outraged by the word "civilian". I could just as easily ask why you are so outraged by the word "settler". It's basically a case of complying with the most recognisable and common term. Any other term may imply a bias depending on the ideology of who wants it. For example would you accept Hamas' term for them? Using that is only slightly less legitimate than your preference.Wayne (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wayne, this has nothing to do with me. Sources refer to the victims as civilians. Their status as civilians is already stated by their residence - saying "settler" is simply redundant. A soldier can be a settler hypothetically. Better we go with B'tselem. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the Hamas clearly make the distinction in his statements (claiming that settlers are legitimate targets), the additional clarification that these were indeed settlers is relevant. Eyalmc (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamas is unreliable source. Palestinian leaders are habitual liars - read the Guardian editorial where Mashal says he'll make peace with Israel if it returns to 67' borders. But then read an Arabic-Gaza newspapers and he'll be saying Hamas will never negotiate with Israel. Some Palestinian groups explicitly call for targeting settlers only, but Hamas has never differentiated between Israelis in the WB and Israelis in Israel. Settlers are simply easier targets because Hamas is no longer capable of infiltrating Israel proper like it used too. Reliable sources like B'tselem make no differentiation between settlers and Israelis in the Israel. Neither does international law when it comes to their civilian status. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Palestinian leaders are habitual liars" explicitly tells us where you are coming from. Not a good place for an Wikipedia encyclopedia writer on Hamas or other 'Palestinian leader' kind of topics.Haberstr (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Response/reactions

The claim was made by the Al Qassam brigades with at least 1 Hamas source saying it was explicitly not sanctioned/supported by Hamas (political wing), though the military wing (the Brigades) may have acted on their own. There was also a statement by Hezbollah following the attacks. I cant find it now, but was wondering is someone else has read this? THey shouldbe added.Lihaas (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Settlers are legitimate military targets

"Israeli settlers in the West Bank are legitimate targets since they are an army in every sense of the word, a senior Hamas official told the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper on Saturday, adding that Palestinians were still committed to an armed struggle against Israel. " "Hamas official: Israeli settlers are a legitimate military target" JuJubird (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there some kind of international law that people under occupation have the right to fight against they're occupiers? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no right under international law to kill non-combatants. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That "occupied" land was acquired by Israel in a war it didn't start. Calling it "occupied" is a loaded term. Frotz (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No, occupied is the standard policy compliant term used by the vast majority of reliable sources one of which includes the Supreme Court of Israel in the case of the West Bank. Not using it reduces policy compliance. This has been discussed countless times. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I found a UN resolution: 2908, "Reaffirms its recognition of the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples and peoples under alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Palestinians are not colonial people. Their leaders started a war, then lost it. Your link doesn't work. Frotz (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It also says: "and peoples under alien domination". It works for me, you need PDF. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

How alien are people from just next door? Frotz (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no right under international law to kill non-combatants. UN resolutions don't trump the Geneva Conventions. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So according to the Geneva Conventions, you are allowed to kill soldiers occupying you but not settlers? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about details, but I heard some Texans have terrible time crossing into Canada, since they can not part with their guns. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See Handbook of International Law. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

But that text doesn't really focus on settlers on other peoples land. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes because international law applies everywhere in every conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this bordering on becoming a forum? JuJubird has quoted a news story but said nothing beyond that about whether a change to the article is being proposed or whatever. Adambro (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion discussion discussion

I'm concerned some editors are removing cited material under questionable rationales.

• This edit relies on a dead jpost cite. The section has zero to do with the Gaza war. It is merely a statement made by Mashal. It is original research for an editor to make the inference. Mashal's ties to the Gaza War is still being debated. He was not in Gaza at the time of the conflict and it is unlikely he had any control over their paramilitary during actual operations. But anyways, still nothing to do with the Gaza War so I don't understand the section title or its inclusion. Belongs in Khaled Mashal IMO.

We have Khaled Mashal stating the current Hamas position regarding Palestine/Israel peace, and mainstream U.S. disagreement on what exactly that position is, but you want to exclude that from the main Hamas article? Isn't Hamas's position on P/I peace and all that pretty darn important, well actually the most important thing objectively about Hamas? Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• What does this have to do with presidential and legislative elections? Absolutely nothing. I don't know why it was edited in. It has no place here.

This is a chronological history, and the paragraph is in exactly the right place in that respect. The subsection titles are markers of significant events and are not to be taken as indicating everything in that HISTORY sub-section will be about the sub-section title.Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• More cited material removed for no reason.

You jumped within the paragraph from 1987, where the chronology was, to insert 1992 information. Isn't it straightforward that that is 'wrong'? The added info is also redundant; exactly the same information (see 'Name' section) about the Qassam brigades is provided elsewhere in the article.Haberstr (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Connecting two sources that have no relationship. The source is not responding directly to Avner Cohen's report]. To say it "disagrees" is the editor's own inference. The French source was published 3 years before the WSJ story - so how could they possibly disagree with each other? The WSJ cite is more of a history of Hamas and Israel, whereas the French cite is more like an editorial that belongs in its own section - not as a response to documented history.

Tempest in a teapot: 'disagrees' can be understood to mean 'has a differing opinion'. If you can find something that makes you feel better, fine, make that minor change rather than excluding relevant information.Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Editor removes cited material providing a background of the PLO-Israel history. The source says nothing about a "take over" of Gaza from Egypt. The original version included a few sentences from the WSJ about the PLO's complicity in hijackings, terrorism etc - and the Islamist movements at the time had no territorial ambitions towards Israel or even opposed Israel's occupation.

Your link directs us to the preceding 'French' cite. In any case, I think it's clear that Israel 'took over' Gaza during or at the conclusion of the 1967 war. Unless you have some argument otherwise, the PLO's activities should minimally be in an article about Hamas.Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comparison prior to the edits. current version. I don't know why the Olmert quote was removed.

I don't know why it is included, it has no historical tie to 'birth of Hamas'. In other words, we have no idea whether Olmert is talking about the 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s. Anyway, redundancy is important when attempting to justify inclusion of information in an encyclopedia article that you would like to be 145,000+ bytes. Multiple mainstream experts and Israeli officials have accused Hamas of being tightly connected to Iran. That needs to be stated, but not more than once and, if in the history section it needs to have 'when it started' or 'when it is occurring' in the accusation.Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I spent a significant amount of time compiling reliable sources for the origins of Hamas section. I couldn't care less if editors want to rewrite it but removing cited material without a rationale and replacing the content with your own words is simply unacceptable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope you'll agree with my critiques above, but if not, please respond directly to them and maybe we can work something out.Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume 'After the Gaza War' is referring to events that occured after the Gaza War rather than events pertinent to the Gaza War. Here is the JPost source. I haven't read it but JPost links are always recoverable in my experience. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it. 'After the Gaza War' is pertinent to the Gaza War. Anything could be 'After the Gaza War.' Christina Hendricks married that guy from Super Troopers 'After the Gaza War.' The statements were made a good 7 months after combat operations ended and like I said before had nothing, nothing to do with the Gaza conflict. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That how I read it. It means anything after a chosen for no particular obvious reason moment in time/event. Why does it have to be pertinent to the Gaza War ? After Eight mints aren't about 8pm. Ernst's painting 'Europe After the Rain' is about after 'the Rain' rather than 'the Rain'. Confused. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor unilaterally reversed my contributions without explanation. A few edits can be discussed, but whole-sale removal of cited material under weak rationales like "POV by Wikifan" does not exactly scream neutrality and collaboration. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I explained them in the edit summaries. Anyway, more complete explanations are above. Please, by the way, will you get on board with the notion that this vastly inflated article needs to be much briefer, at least 25K bytes shorter?Haberstr (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No policy says space takes precedence over content. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamas encyclopedia article or a 145,000 byte 'complete case against Hamas'

The Hamas article should be an encyclopedia article rather than "the complete case against Hamas." The latter attitude is what has generated the now 145,240 bytes article [5] that Wikifan12345 now demands. It's not a matter of "everything I'm adding is well-sourced." We've got a bulging overweight article with lots of redundancy that needs to be trimmed. We _don't_ need to add more weight on here. So, let's use good judgment regarding what an encyclopedia article attempts to do: for example, use examples to make a point rather than writing down EVERY example that makes exactly the same point about Hamas.Haberstr (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with what you say there. You went and deleted a bunch of useful information that was not repeated in the article, just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It was correctly reference by Wikifan12345 and you did not make an argument to justify deleting it that is ok with wikipedia policy. Thanks. LibiBamizrach (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I went and deleted a bunch of irrelevant, non-useful and/or redundant information, that was added just becauseWP:IDONTLIKEHAMAS. The additions were correctly referenced by Wikifan12345, but that does not justify adding redundant or irrelevant information to an article that is 145,000+ bytes. Wikipedia policy is to try to get article close to 100,000 bytes unless you are handling a very rare topic that simply commands many more bytes than that. Finally, I did not make an argument to justify deleting the information that is ok with wikipedia policy in the edit summaries.Haberstr (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because the article is bloated does not mean editors can remove entire, well-sourced paragraphs and replace them with their own research. The article is rather long, so if you see certain sections that could be split into a new article, feel free to make suggestions. But targeting certain parts of the article and claiming they are "POV" without offering a slightest shred of evidence other than "Wikifan DOESNOTLIKEHAMAS" will not pass here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As you're aware, I've fully explained my reasoning in the section directly above this one. You haven't responded to any of the six specific arguments I made there.Haberstr (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to move your comments outside of my edits. This isn't a chatroom. I cannot respond to your explanations the way you posted them above. In fact I didn't even notice them until you told me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Haberstr. Some of the material is barely notable. Duplication of material should also be avoided unless it crosses categories or has special relevance. For example there are three separately bulleted paragraphs regarding the Holocaust, two use the same ref and have different people saying exactly the same thing while the third is a secondary source reporting on the same statements being said. Why cant both names and the secondary source be combined in the one paragraph? Wayne (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh?

Thanks, Wayne I've only scratched the surface of the repetition, please help if you feel like it. Wikifan12345, your reason for not responding to any of my specific responses to each of your points (logically located immediattely below each of your points) doesn't make sense, and I hope you'll reconsider your refusal to discuss your edits, which imho have added 7,000 unecessary bytes to the already overlong and repetitive Hamas entry. We're all in this together and on the same side, I hope: to improve and shape up the article.Haberstr (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Wikileaks12345?" Am I supposed to be offended or something? Like I said before, you need to move your post below my edit. You can easily use bullet points to refer to each issue. It is basic formatting etiquette. This is not a forum or a message board. In the event another editor wants to weigh in it will be very difficult for them to do it. Most of your complains can be directed to IDONTLIKEIT. You want to remove cited material under the rationale of "too many bytes." Yes, the article is long, so removing reliably-cited statements from mainstream history and basic history is the last thing we would do to shorten the article. I agree with Wayne on the holocaust issuel. this section is bloated and needs to be cut down significant." I don't see any serious redundancy, but the MERMI cite should be combined into one paragraph. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a mistake and I've corrected your name. The way I have written my comments is common sense reasonable. However, if you have a Wikipedia source that states I've violated basic formatting etiquette, I'll be happy to move things around. Rather than searching for such, though, in my opinion it might be more helpful and collegial for moving our discussion forward if you simply answer my points, in any common sense format/manner you desire.Haberstr (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request - I am unable to provide a third opinion on this, because there are already three editors involved in the discussion. If you would like to get extra input into your discussion, consider opening a request for comments. Cheers! Thparkth (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am 100% in agreement with Haberstr here. Unfortunately some people think the purpose of this article is to publish as much dirt on Hamas as possible. This is obvious a violation of Wikipedia policy. Zero^talk 00:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Zero, you nailed it.Haberstr (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Zero, you a hardly an uninvolved 3rd party. "The purpose" of this article it to "publish as much dirty on Hamas as possible." No, the purpose of this article is to include information that is supported by reliable sources. If editors are offended by the information, or think Hamas is being smeared, dare I say - tough titties. Seriously. If an editor wants to open an RFC, feel free to, but I don't think we need one. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, 'the' purpose of this article is not to include all well-sourced information about its subject. Such an article would be much too long for Wikipedia, which is why, for example, we use examples to make a RS point, but we do not have to describe large numbers of examples that demonstrate that point. Any Wikipedia article has many 'purposes', several of which are readability, not unecessarily over-long, not redundant, and not giving undue weight to one side in a dispute. In a nutshell, we're supposed to produce something that looks like an NPOV encyclopedia article. That's complicated and has lots of 'purposes' swirling around it.Haberstr (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If a group frequently does bad things more often than good, then it's hardly suprising that there's a lot of dirt on that group's Wikipedia article. Frotz (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting POV Frotz. I think it's safe to say though that as you have a bunch of Israelis writting this article on Hamas (a sworn enemy of Israel) the article is going to have NPOV issues. I support Haberstr and Zero's position. NickCT (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Being Israeli does not make someone automatically unable to edit Wikipedia according to the rules in a NPOV way, NickCT and you are very wrong to say something like that. If you have opinion like that, then really you are the one who has issue with editing in appropriate way. LibiBamizrach (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are these Israelis writing this article? And why would that matter? To say someone who is a citizen of Israel is incapable of writing in an objective manner and according to Wikipedia policy is very, very offensive. Back to the issue: An editor wants to remove cited material because he thinks it is "smearing" Hamas, and wants to replace it with his own research which will apparently make the article smaller. I think the article represents all POV fairly. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Note I didn't say "incapable of writing in an objective manner". Please don't put words in my mouth. I was suggesting more that Israelis are less likely to write with NPOV on articles involving enemies of Israel. This seems somewhat self-evident to me. I'm surprised it would be considered "very, very offensive" or "very wrong". Perhaps we should take this to AE if you guys feel that way. NickCT (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when? Are Americans less likely to write with NPOV involving enemies of America? And since when Is Finkelstein an enemy of Israel? He hates America just as much. So yeah, it is incredibly offensive and bad faith to assume Israelis are less objective than perfect editors like yourself. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

@Wikifan12345 - Re "Are Americans less likely to write with NPOV involving enemies of America?" - Yes.

"assume Israelis are less objective than perfect editors like yourself" - Again. Not what I said. NickCT (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to claims of oversized article

• First of all, the article readable text is not 145K . Wikipedia policy says that you should count only readable text, without references and tables. Please check again. Secondly, if an article is too long, the correct solution according to Wikipedia guidelines splitting the article to several sub articles, in WP:SUMMARY style, not go ahead and delete information that you don't like without first reaching consensus. Marokwitz (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

All of the information deleted was redundant, as I have amply explained on this talk page.Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to claims of biased articles

• As Wikipedia editors, we are guided by reliable sources and not by our personal opinions. Hamas, or it's Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, are classified as a terrorist organization by most of the western world. So it is hardly surprising that reliable sources include detailed information about the terrorism links of Hamas, and are quite sparse about the positive aspects. If you think this article gives undue weight to the terrorism aspect, the easy solution would be to censor information. The right solution would be to visit a local library, and search for reliable articles discussing the positive sides of Hamas, to restore due weight. Marokwitz (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We need also to be guided by WP:Undue Weight along with [[WP:RS], so editing is more complicated than you assert. I think we both agree that listing of every terrorist act allegedly committed by Hamas would be excessive weight, but where do we draw the line? To me, 'generalization + examples' seems the common sense way to go. Also, the world rather than the "Western World" should determine the balance we give things in Wikipedia.Haberstr (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems you didn't really read what I wrote, but never mind. WP:DUE clearly states that Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. The article is generally discussing the militant aspect with more details than, say, the welfare aspect, since there are fewer reliable sources (western or not) discussing positive actions by Hamas . If you disagree, then see my suggestion to dig up some more reliable sources, to expand those sections. Marokwitz (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems you didn't really read what I wrote, but never mind. WP:WEIGHT clearly does not state that Wikipedia simply aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. In fact, as I've repeatedly stated, WP:WEIGHT is more complicated than that. Please read the following from WP:WEIGHT: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." In that light, the article should generally be discussing the militant aspect with more details than, say, the welfare aspect, but not because there are fewer reliable sources (Western or not) for the non-militant aspects of Hamas. The militant aspects are simply considered of somewhat more importance to most international (worldwide perspective) readers. But that does not mean -- please read preceding WP:WEIGHT quote if you haven't already -- that we should give the negative aspects of Hamas ten times as much coverage as its non-negative aspects. If you disagree, then see my suggestion to make a case for 'negative stuff ten times more important', and then I may agree to keep the current proportion between negative/non-negative Hamas stuff in this encyclopedia article. Without that case being made, it seems to me this Hamas entry was much more NPOV prior to September 15, 2010.Haberstr (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

New changes add much more to "the case against Hamas" feel of Hamas entry.

A few of the mass of recent and completely un-discussed changes by Markovitz are appropriate, but the vast majority have a consistent, anti-Hamas POV, adding significantly to the already strong "the case against Hamas" flavor that I have criticized above (without receiving any response on that from any of the editors changing things in the 'anti-Hamas' direction). It would be useful for editors to review WP:UNDUE. Also, please note and consider imitating my methodology, of proposing changes on the talk page, allowing reasonable time for discussion/response, and only after that implementing changes to the article.Haberstr (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-Hamas POV." What does this mean? Is there is an on-going campaign to vilify a registered terrorist organization that I am unaware of? I haven't looked over Markovitz edits, but if you think they violate policy please cite them and refer to the policy you believe is most important. BTW, as far as I know there is no WP:ANTIHAMAS policy/guideline created......yet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, while you complained about my edits, you secretly went and reverted changes by many other contributors at once, making it appear as if I made them all. Please behave. Regarding my edits. There is absolutely no POV involved, I categorically deny it. I corrected factual errors based on academic, reliable sources, and removed an issue where the lead focused on recent events in violation of WP:RECENTISM. I added some information about the meaning of the word Hamas. This and all the other additions are cited to reliable sources. Additionally my edits included adding a more reliable source citation to one fact, and removing another citation which failed WP:V. For convenience of other editors, I broke my edits into many small changes and gave a clear explanation to each. So please show likewise courtesy and if you have any issue with any of my changes based on Wikipedia policy, discuss them here individually. Blanket reverts of positive contributions since you don't like them, are unacceptable. And your edit description "after refusal to talk about changes" is ludicrous, who refused to talk? Am I required to be online 24 hours a day? Marokwitz (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand what is going, it is a major anti-Hamas POV effort, featuring 40-50 hurried edits in a row to create 'facts on the ground' that are nearly impossible to review one by one. This POV effort damages the encyclopedia-like quality of this entry. What we need is a rescue from an administrator.Haberstr (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You violate constantly WP:AGF over and over again and show that you refuse to collaborate with editor in appropriate way. Maybe we do need rescue from an administrator. LibiBamizrach (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for violating WP:AGF. However, I continue to be baffled as to why Marokwitz has decided to make an enormous number of editing changes to a long-time very stable Hamas page, without discussing any of his/her changes here on the talk page. Frankly, he has inserted a great deal of ESL English into the entry, and a great deal of glaring anti-Hamas POV. I would like to check and repair the mistakes he may have made, but the sheer number and speed with which he has made them make that very difficult. What was the rush!? The fact that he has done this in 68 edits between " 14:19, 15 September 2010" and "12:14, 16 September 2010," not one discussed on this talk page, made me suspicious of his/her motives.Haberstr (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I've seen that editor do similar things on other articles. Makes 20 edits with only 1 or 2 having POV issues. Slightly dubious practice. NickCT (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I never made any POV edits. All my edits are strictly based on reliable sources, and I try to use academic ones rather than news sources whenever possible. You must be mistaken. As I explained earlier I always make improvements to articles in many small edits in order to make it easier for you to follow my edits, and this enables me to give clear explanations for every change in the edit summaries. Wikipedia policy encourages bold edits and there is absolutely no rule saying I need to discuss every change. I will not tolerate personal attacks. If you continue violating AGF and attacking me personally, I will take this to the administrators. Marokwitz (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Islamic fundamentalism cat

I see that the Islamic fundamentalism category was just added. However, there is no mention of this in the article. Do they describe themselves as an Islamic fundamentalist organization or do other reliable sources describe them that way. If so it should be in the article, If not the cat needs to go. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources do describe them that way. It is mentioned in the lead of the article. There was one source cited and I now added another. Marokwitz (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh you mean the giant, highlighted, very obvious word 'fundamentalist' in the lead that I didn't see. Yes, that will do. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

:) Marokwitz (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring/revising lead section

Below are explanations of all changes to Marokvitz version (note that he/she did not discuss any of these changes on the talk page before making them), many of which involve restoring the "04:16, 16 September 2010 " version by Haberstr. I suggest that before making changes to long-time stable and consensus material we discuss that civilly and collegially.

PARAGRAPH 1 OF LEAD

Sentence One

Changed Islamist > Islamic (Islamic is non-controversial, Islamist is difficult to define, has negative connoations that Islamic does not, is not a label Hamas applies to itself)

Removed Fundamentalist. (The word has negative connotations, Hamas has not imposed Shariah or anything remotely similar to the social rules imposed in, for example, Saudi Arabia, and Fundamentalist is not a label Hamas applies to itself.)

Sentences Two and Three

Restored "Since June 2007 Hamas has governed the Gaza portion of the Palestinian Territories, after it won a large majority in the Palestinian Parliament in January 2006 and then defeated rival Palestinian party Fatah in a series of violent clashes. The European Union, the United States, and three other countries classify Hamas as a terrorist organization."

Removed "It's origins are in the Muslim Brethren movement, which was active in the Gaza Strip since the 1950's and gained influence through a network of mosques and various charitable and social organizations, until the 1980's, when it emerged as a powerful political factor, challenging the influence of the PLO. In 1987 it adapted a more nationalist and activist line and embarked upon a new course under the name of Hamas."

• Readers want to know the quick version of "What is Hamas?" from the lead paragraph. A vital part of the answer is that Hamas is the governing power in Gaza, and also that many important nations consider it a terrorist organization. The historical origins information is of far less importance to most readers here; they would want and expect that info, of course, to be in the history section.
• Marokvitz's 'terrorism' sentence is incorporated into end of restored paragraph one. The terrorism information fits, since it also provides important information in response to the number one question on encyclopedia readers' minds "What is Hamas?"

PARAGRAPH 2 OF LEAD

• I agree with Marokvitz that paragraphs 2 and 3 should be tightened up and shortened, and have done so when possible. Obviously the 'history' section's purpose is to provide a somewhat fuller account, and that's what a reasonable first-time user of the encyclopedia would expect and prefer.
• This paragraph is about the history surrounding the election and its aftermath, to explain very briefly why Hamas is in power in Gaza. So, Marokvitz's "During the 1990s and early 2000s, the organization conducted numerous suicide bombings and other attacks directed against Israelis." is logically out of place and gives undue weight to this historical information.
• I have kept most of the "election plus aftermath" information from Marokvitz's version, except that the unsourced statement, "In 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed the Palestinan authority national unity government, headed by Ismail Haniya." has been removed. I have also removed "words to avoid" like "exploited." See WP: Words to avoid. I have also removed Israel and Egypt's official statements on why they imposed a blockade on Gaza, because we don't know if those are the real reasons, and also because, if we include those official statements we then, for balance, would also have to include Hamas's official statements on why they think Israel and Egypt imposed the blockade. All of the preceding, of course could be placed into the Hamas history section.

PARAGRAPH 3 OF LEAD

• Mine and Marokvitz's paragraphs are identical, except that I changed his/hers "Scholars, journalists, and advocacy groups" to "some scholars and advocacy groups." Marokvitz's version implies a universal characterization of Hamas, and the word 'some' fixes that problem. And 'journalists' are less important as a RS than are scholars.Haberstr (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• you just went and deleted stuff because WP:DONTLIKE. it was referenced information. you say you dont like "islamist fundamentalist" label and hamas doesn't call themselves that. of course they do not! but reliable source did, and it is provided there. so you have no right to delete all this information. no censorship here. LibiBamizrach (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Islamist difficult define." That right there sums up your lack of understanding of wikipedia policy. Hamas is described as an Islamist organization by numerous reliable sources. No one describes Hamas as an Islamic organization. CAIR is an Islamic organization, the AMC is an Islamic organization. But Hamas is a Islamist organization. You want to discuss edits, yet you already made the changes and then demand users to debate them. I suggest you restore the original edits, and then we can focus on what you wrote above. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

CAIR is maybe Islamic organization but supports Islamist ones LibiBamizrach (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Haberstr

Your reasoning suggests that you may not be aware of key Wikipedia policies.

• You said: "Islamic is non-controversial, Islamist is difficult to define, has negative connoations that Islamic does not, is not a label Hamas applies to itself". Your opinion does not matter - the fact that Hamas is Islamist is verifiable using reliable sources. Check out WP:V - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Furthermore, the negative connotations are a result of your own cultural bias. Islamist is not necessarily a negative term. Islamism is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system, and that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically. Marokwitz (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• You said: "Removed Fundamentalist. (The word has negative connotations, Hamas has not imposed Shariah or anything remotely similar to the social rules imposed in, for example, Saudi Arabia, and Fundamentalist is not a label Hamas applies to itself.)" - In fact, WP:V clearly states - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.". Furthermore, the negative connotations are a result of your own cultural bias. Fundamentalist is not necessarily a negative term. Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to an established set of basic religious principles, sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life. Marokwitz (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• You "Restored' "Since June 2007 Hamas has governed the Gaza portion of the Palestinian Territories, after it won a large majority in the Palestinian Parliament in January 2006 and then defeated rival Palestinian party Fatah in a series of violent clashes. The European Union, the United States, and three other countries classify Hamas as a terrorist organization."" - You restored unverifiable factually wrong information that contradicts the article itself. There are more than three other countries. Furthermore, choosing only the US and EU and not naming other countries is a clear case of WP:SYSTEMIC. Why are the US and EU more important to list than Japan, Jordan, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada or Israel? And based on what sources did you reach the count of three countries? Marokwitz (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• You wrote "The historical origins information is of far less importance to most readers here; they would want and expect that info, of course, to be in the history section. " - Wrong. Per WP:LEDE the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. WP:MOS states that what is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each. See also WP:RECENTISM. Marokwitz (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• You wrote : "Marokvitz's "During the 1990s and early 2000s, the organization conducted numerous suicide bombings and other attacks directed against Israelis." is logically out of place and gives undue weight to this historical information." again, the order of specific sentences or paragraphs in the lead paragraphs is debatable, but per WP:LEDE the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article, and obviously this is a very important part of their history and identity, like it or not, any summary of this article would be incomplete without mentioning the militant operations against Israelis. Marokwitz (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• You removed "In 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed the Palestinan authority national unity government, headed by Ismail Haniya." - in fact this is written in the article itself, as well as in the wiki-linked article, and is easily verifiable. Another citation can be easily added, no need to remove. 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

So, my changes were all based on Wikipedia policies and reliable sources, and your reverts were rationalized solely by your personal opinions. You don't like the verifiable fact that Hamas is an Islamist fundementalist group, so you decide to whitewash or censor the article. I invite other editors to judge whether your accusations against me were fair, and which of us is trying to push POV. Marokwitz (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am aware of Wikipedia policy and I believe you misinterpret it. Again, we don't just stick in everything verifiable to an RS source, especially not in the introductory section. Some thought need to give to balance (from a world perspective), importance and bloated articles. I can't believe you don't agree with the preceding.

• Secondly, the material in the opening three sentences should be non-disputed characterizations of the group or person, unless the controversial characterization is vital to defining who that person/entity is, even in the 'simplified definition' space of the first paragraph. So, "Islamic" communicates nearly as much as the more disputed terms "Islamist" and "fundamentalist". It's baffling that you insist on including those two disputed terms but not the non-controversial and non-disputed "Islamic". Why?

Islamist and fundementalist are well defined and universally accepted characterizations of Hamas. These are the words used by reliable sources to describe the ideology of Hamas. In my extensive research I didn't see any scholar disputing that Hamas is a member of the Islamist and fundamentalist movements. This article used these terms way before I edited it. As far as I know, the only one disputing that these terms applies to Hamas is you, and unfortunately your opinion does not count as a reliable source. Marokwitz (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• "You restored unverifiable factually wrong information . . ." is false, as far as I can tell. You'll have to do more than just assert. Show me the evidence for this contention.

Read me explanation again. I wrote which part contradicts the article and is factually wrong. Marokwitz (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• For getting a quick grip on the who/what/why of Hamas, I think you're wrong to feel the old 1980s info would be considered more important to most readers than the 2006-2007 info on how Hamas came to power and the 2008-2009 info on the Israeli invasion of Gaza.

Again, Wikipedia policy says quite clearly that the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. Wikipedia is not a news source. Focusing on the events of 2006-2009 in the lead of an article about an organization was founded in the 1980's while completely ignoring the rest is not proper style for an encyclopedia article. Marokwitz (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for agreeing that putting things in incorrect chronological order should be avoided. The suicide bombing stuff is an important part of Hamas's past, but is subsumed under the fact, noted in sentence three of my intro, that Hamas is designated 'terrorist' by various countries/entities. But we perhaps should add a reference to "suicide attacks" into the 'designated terrorist' sentence.

• Thanks for agreeing that the suicide bombing stuff is an important part of Hamas's past. As you said it is important to put history in chronological order, so it should be in the paragraph summarizing the history. The designation of Hamas is in the present a different matter altogether from its historical actions. Marokwitz (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• The forming of the unity government appears never to have taken effect on the ground in either Gaza or the West Bank, was therefore essentially meaningless. In fact meaningless events should not be in the intro section.Haberstr (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• It did take effect, and it was far from meaningless. It was a key moment in Hamas history. According to the analyst Graham Usher in the Middle East Report, "the Islamist party had not come so close to reconciliation with Fatah since it emerged as a political force in the late 1980s ". I really cannot see why you are so keen to remove this non-controversial, verifiable and reliably sourced fact. Marokwitz (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Assassination of Hamas activists/officials

I'm unable to get an immediate grasp on the structure of this article with respect to where would be the appropriate place to include a mention of the most recent assassination (admittedly Israel says he was shot resisting arrest) of a high-ranking Hamas official, Iyad As'ad Shelbaya[6]. Can someone give me a hint? __meco (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this belongs in the article History of Hamas. Marokwitz (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Early Islamic Activism in Gaza" returned to pre-September 15 version, basically (with grammar/spelling fixes)

I have by and large reverted this section to the pre-September 15 version, when a massive number of what I consider strong anti-Hamas POV edits began at this entry. But I have made one minor addition and cleaned up spelling/grammar (it is basic etiquette, for those considering a simple revert of my changes, to instead incorporate my non-controversial changes into your revert). Note that the new version is 579 words while the post-September 15 version is 723 words. This is relevant since the Hamas article is presently 47K bytes over the 100K limit Wikipedia prefers (it prefers this limit because it takes a long time on older computers with relatively poor internet connections to download long Wikipedia entries, so limiting length when possible is a matter of courtesy to many Wikipedia users), and there is a History of Hamas Wikipedia article available. The following are the substantive contrasts with the present version:

• At the very beginning, changed "Israel hunted down Fatah and other secular Palestinian Liberation Organization factions ..." to "With its takeover of Gaza after the 1967 war with Egypt, Israel hunted down secular Palestinian Liberation Organization factions..." Mentioning the 1967 war is History Writing 101. Mentioning Fatah here is redundant: it is mentioned in the following paragraph.
• Deleted the following from the pre-September 15 version
• Deleted the following from the post-September 15 version: "When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel, unlike Fatah, which was responsible for hijackings, bombings, and other violence against Israelis." As I've said a short distance up this page, when you state one interested party's take on why it has done something, then for NPOV balance you must also state the other interested party's take on the matter; also, out of respect for WP:RS, would need to add the RS take on the matter. Such delving into the 'why' is best done on the History of Hamas page, in my opinion.
• In place of the entire "Claims of Mossad Involvement" subsection (199 words), which is redundant to paragraphs one through five of the "Early Islamic ..." subsection, the following sentence has been restored, immediately after the sentence in which the Israeli official states Cohen's warnings were ignored out of neglect: "In contrast, French investigative newspaper Le Canard enchaîné writes that Shin Bet also supported Hamas as an attempt to give "a religious slant" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to make the West believe that it was essentially between Jews and Muslims." (62 words). Note the contrast in WP:BALANCE between my way and the post-September 15 edit. In addition, the word "claim" is a WP:WordsToAvoid and it is particularly egregious to use that word as the title of an entirely superfluous and redundant subsection.

"it is basic etiquette, for those considering a simple revert of my changes, to instead incorporate my non-controversial changes into your revert" ? Interesting statement when coming from you. Marokwitz (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your response (and Wikifan12345's below) are 100% unresponsive to the substance of the changes I have made. Since they have not been defended here, I will again removed most of the post-September 15 changes. However, I will continue to wait patiently and I will frequently review this talk page; and if you defend your changes in an effective and rational way, I will incorporate those into our consensus version. By the way, your tone indicates you may need to review WP:Assume good faith. Remarks indicating otherwise are not helpful to the cooperative editing proces; instead, let's work together collegially and make a great Hamas entry!Haberstr (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

More of the same

"massive number of what I consider strong anti-Hamas POV." Cool story bro. Really, we've had this discussion numerous times. The material is supported by reliable sources. Deleting entire paragraphs and claiming "POV" is not a very challenging argument. The quote by Olmert is fine, I don't know why you are bent on deleting it. Here you removed not 1, not 2, not 3...but 6 sections of material. How are official statements from Israeli officials "POV?" Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've discussed your ideas in my entry above and you are making any directly responsive comments. For example, as I stated above, WP:Balance also is important and not just "everything that has a reliable source." This point hasn't been responded to by you in any way. Also, the quote by Olmert is not fine, but, as I have stated above, only (1) if it is in the appropriate sub-section of the history, which appears to be impossible, since Olmert does not indicate _when_ he is stating that Iran's support for Hamas began. And only (2) if it is balanced by a responsive statement from the opposing side in the conflict. Better yet, interested parties non-expert, non-RS theorizing should be excluded in preference to RS. You have not responded to any of the preceding. Let's work together; one of the best ways to do that is for you and Marokvitz to explain and defend on this talk page the large number of changes made post-September 15 to the Hamas entry. Neither of you has done that.Haberstr (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)