This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Haberstr (talk | contribs) at 20:41, 10 September 2010 (→Discussion discussion discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:41, 10 September 2010 by Haberstr (talk | contribs) (→Discussion discussion discussion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hamas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" should be avoided or used with care. Editors discussing the use of these terms are advised to familiarize themselves with the guideline, and discuss objections at the relevant talkpage, not here. If you feel this article represents an exception, then that discussion properly belongs here. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hamas. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hamas at the Reference desk. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | Hamas is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Quotes in citations
As per the discussion on Misplaced Pages 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 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:
Misplaced Pages: "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
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. 21:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's inappropriate but not for the reasons you've stated. The term 'martyr' means Misplaced Pages buys into that religious meaning, and NPOV demands that we not do that. It's not Misplaced Pages'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" --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" , the BBC and Jpost 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)
- The source for this attack says "settlers" no source calls these four people "civilians" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The entire world calls them settlers, the NYT source says "settlers" , the BBC and Jpost 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)
<- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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, Misplaced Pages'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)
- Comment 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)
- Comment 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)
- To be fair, Misplaced Pages'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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- But that text doesn't really focus on settlers on other peoples land. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- See Handbook of International Law. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:49, 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)
- 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)
- It also says: "and peoples under alien domination". It works for me, you need PDF. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:26, 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)
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)
- 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.
- 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 Hamas. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 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)
- "Hamas: Human Shield Death Industry". Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas.
- "Hamas: Human Shield Death Industry". Palestinian Media Watch.
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- Unassessed Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- Unassessed Terrorism articles
- Unknown-importance Terrorism articles
- Terrorism task force articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles