Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Hamas and the Taliban analogy - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nableezy (talk | contribs) at 01:49, 5 November 2010 (→Hamas and the Taliban analogy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:49, 5 November 2010 by Nableezy (talk | contribs) (→Hamas and the Taliban analogy)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Hamas and the Taliban analogy

Hamas and the Taliban analogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No such analogy has ever been claimed. This is clearly an article created to prove a point, as part of the longstanding attempt to disrupt Israel and the apartheid analogy; this article even copies the structure of the latter. RolandR (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of what a "primary source" is is curious, to say the least. Scholarly articles with citations are secondary sources, not primary sources. News articles based on interviews with other people are also secondary sources. Opinion articles are primary sources, but the policy clearly states that they are admissible as a source regarding opinions of the author. Marokwitz (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It depends on how you use the source. They are secondary sources for what they actually are covering, but you arent using them like that. You invented a topic, this "analogy", and then used sources that are using the analogy, not covering it. The sources here are the subject of the article, not secondary sources covering the subject. And using the word "scholarly" for a source list that has the WND website cited 7 times and a book published by WND books also cited goes beyond absurd into just funny. nableezy - 13:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep At least for the moment. On first glance it looks like your typical Sharks.-vs.-Jets-I/P coatrack. It is but there are a slim few scholarly papers on the topic (which the article might want to reference). It needs some serious editing as there's a hell of a lot of SYNTH but there is some meat here. Sol (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why is it not surprising that same person who insisted to keep "Israel and the apartheid analogy" is also insisting on deleting "Hamas and the Taliban analogy"? The article is much better sourced than Israel and the apartheid analogy, and the overall topic is more notable. The specified reason is not a policy based reason for deletion. As the 37 rock solid references attest, the topic is widely covered by both scholarly and journalistic sources from nonpartisan parties as well as both sides of the I-P conflict. All the provided sources specifically make an analogy or deny the analogy between the Hamas and the Taliban. Marokwitz (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there a single source discussing the "analogy"? Just one source actually discussing it and not using it. nableezy - 12:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Clarification -- per Malik's statement in his !keep vote regarding "the value of the article", and per Sol's statement in his !keep vote that "there are a slim few scholarly papers on the topic (which the article might want to reference)" and that "there is some meat here".--Epeefleche (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Name one of those sources you say exists. nableezy - 12:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
There are many given in the article, for example "Hamas, Taliban and the Jewish Underground: An Economist’s View of Radical Religious Militias", "The Talibanization of Gaza: A Liability for the Muslim Brotherhood", "The Hamas Enterprise and the Talibanization of Gaza", "Palestine: Taliban-like attempts to censor music", "The Fundamentalist City?: Religiosity and the Remaking of Urban Space", "HAMAS AND GLOBAL JIHAD: THE ISLAMIZATION OF THE PALESTINIAN CAUSE", " Fears of a Taliban-Style Emirate in Gaza", "Gaza turns into a Taliban state", In addition this article contains explicit uses of the analogy by Israeli, Palestinian, and other officials such as Dan Meridor, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mark Regev, Samir Mashharawi, Richard Kemp. More than enough to establish notability, far more so than 99% of the articles on Misplaced Pages. Marokwitz (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Ive read 3 of those, working on the rest. The problem is they dont discuss an analogy, they use it. To combine sources using the analogy into an article on an analogy is synthesis of primary sources. In other words, original research. nableezy - 13:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The sources provided discuss the analogy, list supporters of the analogy, rejections of the analogy, as well as voice opinions regarding the validity of the analogy. Marokwitz (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you quote a single source that actually discusses the analogy as opposed to just using it? nableezy - 21:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The notability guideline is "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The topic is "Hamas and the Taliban analogy". Now let's see if we have significant coverage of the analogy by reliable sources independent Hamas or the Taliban. Let's take for example professor Nezar Alsayyad, who writes in her book "The Fundamentalist City?: Religiosity and the Remaking of Urban Space" that a growing number of analysts have denounced openly the "systematic, massive and explicit efforts" at Talibanization led by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. This is a direct reference to the fact that other scholars are making the analogy of the actions of Hamas and Taliban. Or take Berman, a world renown economist from UC San Diego National Bureau of Economic Research, who noted that both groups gained support by providing providing social welfare, and developed into effective and violent militias; both received subsidies from abroad; both underwent increases in stringency of practice as they gained power; both require members to undergo a costly initiation rite of personal sacrifice; and both changed their ideologies drastically and at great cost to members. Both of the above books are most certainly not primary sources, they are secondary scholarly sources based on dozens and hundreds of citations. Should I continue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marokwitz (talk • contribs) 06:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you should, up until the point where you actually quote from a source covering the analogy and not just using it. The sources you mention re secondary sources for the article on Hamas, but here you are using them as primary sources. They are covering Hamas, not an analogy. nableezy - 13:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
No, sources "using" the analogy based on an what other sources say, are still secondary sources. They are directly discussing the analogy between Hamas and the Taliban. Berman is not affiliated with Hamas or Taliban and describes the similarities between them based on primary sources, in a scholarly article that was published in the peer reviewed Journal of Public Economics, and was widely cited in other works. The article is not covering Hamas, it's about an economic model for understanding the behavior violent miltias. Claiming that he is used as a "primary source" is simply ridiculous. And Alsayyad, (Who is the editor of the book) is clearly not "using" the analogy, she is discussing the increasing use of the analogy by other analysts. Marokwitz (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - of course it is offensive that someone would compare any people to known terrorists, but people do so. Misplaced Pages is a mirror of society. Whether this is notable is not so clear to me. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
not that it makes a difference really, but which one of the two do you consider "known terrorists" that the other may be "offended" by the analogy?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article contains much information showing that the nomination rationale, "no such analogy has ever been claimed", is false. The comparison with Israel and the apartheid analogy is valid, but this article comes out better in the comparison because it describes a significant POV, as opposed to the other one, which describes a fringe POV. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Sources state over and over that such an analogy exists, and then proceed to confirm or deny it. Motives for deletion are more than suspect.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: it is an impressive looking article, all nicely formatted with inline citations to sources that look respectable. But that is just a facade that if wiped away reveals serious problems with this article regarding original research. For example, the first source cited, The Talibanization of Gaza: A Liability for the Muslim Brotherhood, cited six times throughout the article, never once uses the word "analogy". The article (which oh by the way gets some very basic facts very very wrong) does not one time discuss such an analogy, it says that Hamas is guilty of what it calls "Talibanization". That is, the article uses this analogy, and from this, and sources used in exactly this way, we create an article about an analogy. The sources dont discuss this analogy, they use it. The article then synthesis those separate sources using such an analogy into an article that is supposedly covering an analogy. There arent any secondary sources actually dealing with the supposed topic of the article. Yall can have your lil article, but dont bring that questioning of motives here. If you want to question motives, the article's creation is a good place to start. nableezy - 05:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Nab -- you're just repeating yourself. Clearly, everyone else who has commented with a !vote here -- everyone -- sees it differently. I doubt your repeating yourself will sway the overwhelming consensus here to shift to your side.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Not "everyone". I certainly agree with Nableezy's comments, as should be obvious from what I wrote when I submitted this AfD: that this was a pointy article and that no such analogy had ever been claimed. RolandR (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Everyone who !voted. The response to your nom, absent his !vote, has been a 100 per cent, snow rejection.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
In my language, "everyone" means "every single person, without exception". Yoy clearly speak a different variant of English. RolandR (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I wonder what variant of English would read "everyone else who has commented with a !vote here" to include someone who did not in fact comment with a !vote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. This is not a vote, and it is abundantly clear that I have called for the deletion of this article. RolandR (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Roland -- again. You nominated the article. Others then !voted. In my variant of English we actually read the words "who !voted". We don't insert a period, where there is none, after "everyone". And ignore the words "who !voted", which are written in wiki's variant of English. Or substitute the words "called for deletion" for the words "!who voted". Hopefully that clarifies somewhat my use of this strange language called English, with which I am struggling to gain some measure of confidence.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
That wasnt a repetition, that was an expansion. I covered a specific source used extensively in that article. I dont think what we have is a representative sampling of the community and I can only hope that those uninvolved in editing the topic who have yet to look at the AfD read the comments and then read the sources and make a determination as to whether or not this impressive looking article is actually entirely OR based on synthesis of what are effectively primary sources. I may do so the same for other references used. I might be less tempted to do so if I dont have to read half-assed questioning of motives. nableezy - 05:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Do not tempt Nableezy. Who knows what could happen! This place is so funny sometimes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment/Weak Delete: WP:POINT is strengthened by the absurd title used here (Israel and the apartheid analogy was a disagreeable compromise constantly under requests for renanaming). The real subject is Comparisons of Hamas and the Taliban. And not all common comparisons are notable. Per the unsigned comment quoting the notability guidelines ("a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), the subject here is analogies/comparisons between Hamas and the Taliban. Anyone who makes such analogies (not just the Taliban and Hamas) is part of the subject; the question for notability is whether third parties find this analogy notable. Someone refuting point and notability concerns must produce one or more reliable source doing just that. Until that happens, I'm in favor of deletion.--Carwil (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Epeefleche. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to have a multitude of sources? InternetIsSeriousBusiness (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - This topic may be notable, and perhaps should be covered in this encyclopedia. However, in topics that are contentious like this, secondary sources are required. That means that it is not enough to have 100 sources that say "Hamas is like Taliban". Instead, we need a few scholars or pundits who analyze the analogy, such as: "Professor Z discussed person A (who said 'Hamas is like Taliban') and professor Z said blah blah". I scanned through the sources in this article, and most appear to be primary sources (the people that actually made the analogy in the first place). The bottom line is this: if we cannot find scholars and pundits that are analyzing the analogy, then it is not noteworthy enough to be in the encyclopedia. Can some editor find some secondary sources? --Noleander (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If few secondary sources are available, one option is to merge this Hamas/Taliban material into Human rights in the Palestinian Territories. A precedent was set for such mergers in Summer 2007 when quite a few "Apartheid analogy" articles were created in response to Israel and the apartheid analogy. Those articles were all nominated for AfDs (a list is here... China, France, Jordan, etc.) It looks all were deleted, although a few were merged into "Human Rights in ..." articles. So that raises the question: should this Hamas/Taliban material be merged into Human rights in the Palestinian Territories? --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • delete/merge. This is a propaganda piece pretending to be an encyclopedic article, created to make a WP:POINT, with a preposterous title, no doubt inspired by Israel and the apartheid analogy. The best contribution here so far has been from Carwil, who is correct in saying that no-one has yet provided any reliable secondary sources actually discussing the subject of the article (the "analogy") as opposed to using it (that is, making comparisons). The article, if it is to be kept at all, clearly belongs under another name such as Hamas and the Taliban, but only if such a comparison is notable, that is if sufficient sources can be found discussing the comparison. I think a much better solution would be to merge any worthwhile content into another article (or articles) as Noleander suggests. On the subject of comparing the two, one might look at the juxtaposition of the two shahada flags at the top of the article. This is like comparing two churches by displaying pictures of their respective crosses, non-notable and a blatant example of OR and synthesis. A bad start, which sets the tone for the rest of the article. --NSH001 (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Per reasoning of many of the above. Greg L (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Hamas and the Taliban are both Islamist groups so it is expected that there are similarities that have been pointed out. But I'm not sure that we should create an encyclopedia article. I could probably create an article on American Beer and the Water analogy if that was enough. I think Noleander makes a good point about the necessity of secondary sources. But even then I could write an article on Canadian Federalism and the Belgian analogy or the Canadian Federalism and the Swiss analogy without any trouble. Journalists and academics make comparisons all the time. It is the easy thing to do. But I'm not sure that every one justifies a WP article. I won't "vote" or non-vote or whatever it is called because I'm not sure what convention is. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It does not seem an outlandish comparison in a number of aspects as shown in the article. The criticism section is rather one-sided at the moment, probably because the pro-P editors only try to have the article deleted at the moment, but that's something that can be fixed through editing. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The article also lacks parallel comparisons with other Islamic states in a number of these critical aspects, for example Saudi Arabia also has a "morality police", and so does Iran for that matter, even if it's called something else . Those issues should be added for a WP:NPOV perspective. See also Hezbollah, Hamas United by Tactics, Syria is no different from Hamas or Hezbollah, and Hamas, Hezbollah are part of a global Left for other aspects; if the last one sounds too implausible, see Islamist-Left Alliance A Growing Force for details. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as irretrievably POV. This article is NOT sourced properly. If you check the sources, most sources that are used repeatedly are conservative and/or Pro-Israeli. For example, the publications of the Hudson_Institute are used several times - which is more or less a neoconservative organisation. World Net Daily, CBN News, a writer from the Mossad-founded International Institute for Counter-Terrorism and so on are all conservative if not something stronger. There is reliance on non-experts - the World Music Forum, a blog, an economist and people who should never be used as a source in an encyclopedia on any topic, like Melanie Phillips. Many articles make a comparison with the Taliban, but very few make a detailed comparison. They use "Taliban" as a shorthand for strict conservative enforcement of Islamic law, as becomes apparent if one actually checks the sources. Saudi Arabia enforces Islamic law strictly and conservatively. There is simply not enough academic, independent analysis to support this article. Israel and the apartheid analogy is just a case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • And we treat articles as notable as AfDs based on sources such as Electronic Intifada. The fact that a source may have a "bent" does not mean, ipso facto, that it is not an RS. Even if the "bent" is other than yours or mine. And othercrapexists, as the guidance states clearly, indicates that such comparisons are fine to make, as long as they are not the sole reason proffered. Which is not the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, this article is POV in the sense that it describes the different POVs on the topic. There are plenty reliable secondary sources in the article, perhaps take the time and check more thoroughly. Freemuse is an international human rights organisation, not a "forum". It's just as reliable as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty, as is - reliable for their own opinions. This article cites them for their opinion, not for factual material. Marokwitz (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If the topic as framed is not POV, it should be possible to replace most of these sources with more neutral ones. There are lots of topics where one side of a divide choruses a theme without it (a) being properly represented in neutral sources or (b) meant to be a serious analysis, and these are precisely the kinds of articles we shouldn't have. When sourcing comes almost exclusively from one side, with a few independent looking non-experts (World Music Forum?) to cover one's blushes, it's a red flag. I have no idea what your reference to electronic intifada is about - it sounds like you're annoyed at something that happened somewhere else on wikipedia. Let's stick to this article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I apologize for not being sufficiently clear. Let me keep to one point. If the source is an RS, or an RS for it view, then that's that. We don't say: "Oh, it's a liberal rag -- no good on this issue". Or the opposite. We don't say -- the Village Voice is NG, the Wall Street Journal is NG, Al Jazeerah is NG, we need a blend between The New York Times and The Boston Globe. That's not how it works. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • reply to Marokwitz You've not got POV policy correct there. An article is never considered POV because it mentions various POVs. It is POV if it promotes a particular point of view that misrepresents consensus or is undue. This includes how we name articles. Unacceptable examples would be Similarities between Barack Obama and a communist, Welsh deviousness and Friends shot by Dick Cheney, all of which would have opinions cited in supposedly RS sources to back them up. There are lots of Misplaced Pages articles on insinuations about Palestinians, Israelis, Muslims and Jews out there waiting not to be written on the same grounds. I feel this article, as it is titled and currently sourced, is one of them.
You ask me to check the sources more thoroughly. I am, and have been, checking the sourcing thoroughly. Here is a survey of the first third or so: The first source is by an official of the Israeli anti-terrorism unit. The second is published by the Fatah Palestinian authority and compares Hamas to other Islamists in general, not particularly to the Taliban. The third is from Freemuse, which may do sterling work, but they're a minor human rights organisation, and they're not experts on shades of Islam, let alone Islamism. it would be no problem if it's cited once or twice, but the Freemuse piece, along with a piece from a right wing website by Aaron Klein, who thinks Obama, funnily enough, is a communist (is this what you meant by good secondary sourcing?), is the most cited in the entire article - seven times. The fourth is - hey presto - a book from a mainstream publisher. It is used to source statements that the analogy is false. The fifth is a congressional report - not bad. It sources a statement that the analogy is false. Sixth Xinhua - good source, stating opinion that Hamas will not be like the Taliban - that the analogy is false. Seventh is AP - good. Article covers the rejection of the analogy. Eighth is Bloomberg - very good. Nothing about the Taliban, only about Islamisation. Not a support. The next few are Haaretz and Jerusalem Post, all respectable RS, but which don't make any connection between Taliban and Hamas. Then there's HudsonNY, which isn't RS, frankly, and then an economist, who isn't an appropriate expert, and who doesn't make an analogy at all, but the stunning proposition that the Taliban and Hamas are both Islamist, and that as Islamists they may follow a similar logic. The list of people is a hodgepodge - it's OR to put them together and to say that they represent a significant, coherent body of opinion. We need secondary sources for that for this to be an independent article.
The academic books presented do not support the analogy at all. The book Crossovers only cites that well-known Hamas supporter Mahmoud Abbas; the writers themselves do not validate the comparison, and do not appear to consider the comparison noteworthy. The OUP book The Taliban Phenomenon is too old to be relevant to this debate. Hamas: The Islamic Resistance Movement does not make any comparison, but it cites a few people (Hamas supporters Netanyahu and Mark Regev) making the comparison, as well as academics disputing it, but most notably, does not have a section in the book at all making the comparison. The book The Fundamentalist City?: Religiosity and the Remaking of Urban Space appears to mention Hamas and the Taliban in the same breath once. It mentions both Hamas and the Taliban lots, but not together. Hamas in politics: democracy, religion, violence, from Columbia University Press makes no comparison. Indeed, it is used to source a denial of the comparison. In short, as far as I can see, not a single academic imprint presented makes any analytical attempt at an analogy, and barely any decent RS cited - just people quoted by them in passing. That should ring huge alarm bells to any genuinely interested in preserving NPOV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
reply to Epeefleche You seem to be implying that if a source is RS, then it is as equally valid as any other RS. That is actually how it doesn't work. World Net Daily barely gets into RS (I personally wouldn't touch it), CBN News probably not, the Hudson Institute is only RS for its own views, not as a statement of academic opinion and so on, and the problems they present in terms of bias on this topic all lie in the same direction. It's simply not intellectually honest to ignore such an issue. This is how it actually works with RS: Time Magazine's opinion on Hamas is quite a good RS, but not as good as, say, the Professor of Middle Eastern Politics at Harvard's latest book. RS depends on context. I refer you to my reply to Marokwitz: the better RS doesn't go into the analogy or has people denying it as often if not more often than people asserting it, and the best RS doesn't seem to mention it at all, save for individual quotes someone can find on google books. This article assembles quotes (it's funny how all the books are available on google) and tries to turn it into an encyclopedic topic. POV and RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Switch to full delete Misplaced Pages is extremely thin on political comparisons, because compare and contrast between two things is generally not very encyclopedic. Where they do exist they go across entire categories, unless the comparison itself is highly notable. Marokwitz seems to have been the only one to seriously respond to the request for outside sources discussing the analogy, but the problem several of us have mentioned remains. Numerous other comparisons of Hamas to Hezbollah, Iran, and (to a lesser extent) Saudi Arabia, exist, and there is no special reason why this one is more notable. Suggestions: salvage notable material and merge it to a section of Hamas#Criticism or Islamization of Gaza (in the short term) and ideally eventually to Comparison of Islamist movements.--Carwil (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but highly notable. Offensiveness is not a guideline for inclusion/exclusion, but notability is.--Carwil (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I very much agree with the idea to have a Comparison of Islamist movements article as an aim, as a way of salvaging what material there is here. I also agree that Islamofascism is a good example of when controversial articles should exist because of conceptual notability. (As a pedant, I have to point out that Islamofascism is not an analogy, it's a portmanteau, and is not intended as a comparison, but as an identity.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete (or Merge into Islamization of the Gaza Strip) - Several requests have been made above, asking for secondary sources. None have been supplied. The WP Arbitration Committee has repeatedly stated Misplaced Pages articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context.... Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In contentious articles, secondary sources (that analyze the primary source speakers) must be the basis of the article. After a few reliable secondary sources establish notability, then primary source quotes can be included in the article. I will switch my vote to Keep, if someone can provide some secondary sources. --Noleander (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge into Islamization of the Gaza Strip. The supporters of this article seem to want to arbitrarily restrict what comparisons can be made by slicing the topic too thinly. I don't think we need separate articles on every pairwise comparison/analogy of radical Islamist movements as proposed. The supporters of this article sometimes cherrypick only the Hamas-Taliban aspect from sources which make a broader comparison. The {{POV title}} template would adequately describe the issue with the current article. Rather tellingly, the article on the Islamization of the Gaza Strip is about half the the byte size of this one. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this merge proposal is wrong for the following reasons:
  1. The analogy of Hamas and the Taliban has been done based on other factors unrelated to the Islamization or to the Gaza strip. For example the way they gained power, and similarity of tactics and strategy.
  2. The article about Islamization of the Gaza strip includes attempts of Islamization by groups unrelated to Hamas. Marokwitz (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The articles cover mainly the same topics, making this one a WP:CFORK. The forking is largely obtained by instantiating the Taliban as the reference fundamentalist Islamic movement. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
As I showed above, there are other similar comparisons on the same grounds, with Hezbollah in particular for warfare tactics and social plans. It would be silly to create an article for each pair of movements as you argue. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps some Misplaced Pages context and history might be valuable here as I make a final point in the last paragraph of this post.

    We’ve once had an editor who was fond of going about Misplaced Pages and, whenever there was a link to Anwar al-Awlaki (the terrorist who has publicly stated that the score won’t begin to be settled until at least one million Americans have been killed), he would parenthetically write this after Anwar’s linked name: (a controversial conservative muslim scholar). As I recall, he was one of the early tag-alongs who came onboard with Jimbo. As he was also an admin, he must have felt some measure of insular impunity from the consensus of the community. In the wake of such behavior, he retired from Misplaced Pages, which is probably a good thing.

    I mention this because in all things on Misplaced Pages, we need only stick to the point and cite most-reliable sources. The editor who was fond of describing Anwar al-Awlaki that way liked to point to a op-ed piece written in Newsweek (as I recall) by a college student who was working on his Ph.D. in Middle Eastern Studies. In that op-ed piece, the student wrote about how Anwar’s connection to al‑Qaeda were, as I recall the wording, “more speculative than real.” But quite some measure of time had transpired since that Newsweek article was published; al‑Qaeda had since released a number of audio and videotaped threats of Anwar promising jihad. Nevertheless, that editor insisted that the student’s op-ed opinion (that the Western intelligence agencies must not have their facts straight and had jumped the gun in painting Anwar as a poopy-head deserving of being the subject of a targeted killing) be included in the article even though the op-ed piece was dated past irrelevancy. That editor’s actions clearly amounted to impermissible POV-pushing; it is not a new phenomenon on Misplaced Pages and terrorism and religious-related articles get more than their share.

    My point is that Misplaced Pages’s articles live and die by the strength, veracity, and timeliness/relevancy of its citations. We can’t have editors cherry-picking op-ed pieces by Kill the West Gazette nor by some college student club of young-Replublican Nazi sympathizers in a newsletter they pass out on the campus as the basis for creating an article, let alone using as a citation in an existing article.

    The issue here is whether the ‘Hamas and the Taliban analogy’ is an intrinsically non-notable bit POV-pushing. This question can easily be resolved by closely examining the first citation in the article, which is referenced five times in the article: “The Talibanization of Gaza: A Liability for the Muslim Brotherhood”, by the Hudson Institute, which is a notable international think tank. That Hudson Institute paper itself has 70 citations. Whereas I have little doubt that some editors here can find fault with the results of the think-tank article, that article is real and is the product of an RS. Nor can we allow ourselves to be dragged down into atomic-level nuances of whether the Hudson Institute article is flawed or not unless a complaining editor can prove that he or she is a notable original source who has been quoted in reliable secondary sources; we are all mere wikipedians. So… scrutiny of the Hudson Institute paper clearly shows that the concept of drawing analogies between Hamas and Taliban ideology is not some obscure, fringe concept formulated in a tavern by a couple of beered-up fools; the issue is obviously sufficiently notable and real for there to be a Misplaced Pages article on it. There are plenty of other articles on Misplaced Pages that are controversial, like Race and intelligence; that doesn’t prevent us from having an article on the subject. That explains my Keep vote, above. Greg L (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the existence of that paper implies the topic cannot be adequately covered at Islamization of the Gaza Strip; 70 citations is not much. I can find papers with thousands of citations, which don't have separate articles. E.g.: Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1126/science.1083968, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1126/science.1083968 instead. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The Hudson Institute paper is far more notable of an RS than those upon with many other articles upon which Misplaced Pages articles are based. The only difference here is the added element of being controversial. And did you think that establishment of notability stops at the first citation in the article? Seriously, I just laughed when reading your comment. It reads like “I don’t know why you say the Earth is ‘big’; just look at the Sun!” Goodbye; I’ve said all I need to say and your post just gave me an epiphany. Greg L (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not more notable than Science (journal) in my view. (Hudson Institute, seriously?) You seem to imply we need a separate article for every topic that appears in a title of a paper from the Hudson Institute. Such a position would be clearly ridiculous. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Greg, your arguments don't add up. Sorry to be grim, but articles by David Irving have lots of citations. It doesn't make them good or reliable. The Hudson Institute is not some well respected independent organisation (where on Earth did you get that from?). It's a neoconservative think tank that is generously funded by benefactors verging on the radical right, like Richard Mellon Scaife, PNAC funders the John M. Olin Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Earhart Foundation and so on. It's not a great RS on this topic, no matter how many times editors claim it is. Just as being pro-Palestinian/ anti-Israeli is de rigeur for large parts of the European Left, pro-Israeli (and anti-Palestinian) views are part and parcel of the American neoconservative make-up, such that we should treat such sources with far greater care than is being done here. For people not to acknowledge even a speck of a problem in using such sources is puzzling, if not downright odd. For you to laud it as good RS, well... As for controversy, it's true that controversial articles exist on wikipedia, but being controversial is not a criterion for inclusion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Why Republicans are climate skeptics based on Hudson Institute's latest paper . Tijfo098 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, "The Talibanization of Gaza" article is not in Google Scholar, and there are zero Google Books references to it. Where did you count the 70 citations? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable secondary sources have been presented that adress THIS topic in the requisite detail for an article. Writing our articles on the basis of highly unreliable WorldNetDaily is not acceptable and must stop. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Malik Shabazz. the article seems to present both sides of the issue, stating that hamas disagrees with the comparison. also, after reading through peoples !votes for deletion, the main theme seems to be questioning the sources. while many have expressed their opinions on the POV of some of the references used, none so far have debunked the sources themselves. i.e. people who agree with fox news may disagree with the BBC's POV, but that doesn't imply that the BBC cannot be used as a reference. many of the sources clearly draw links between hamas and the taliban, whether agreeing or disagreeing with the comparison, thus justifying the title and existence of this article. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
No, sources drawing comparisons between Hamas and the Taliban is not a justification for the title or existence of the article. It may be reason to include information on those comparisons in the articles on Hamas or the Taliban, but not for the making up of a topic. This comment demonstrates why this article is simply original research. The article takes as its sources articles making these comparisons and then says that the analogy itself is the topic of the article. There are not any sources discussing that topic, that is no source actually discussed such an analogy as a topic. This is why we have policies on original research, so these things dont happen. I suggest you carefully read WP:OR. nableezy - 23:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
"No, sources drawing comparisons between Hamas and the Taliban is not a justification for the title..." - Nableezy

Main Entry: comparison
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: contrasting; corresponding
Synonyms: allegory, analogizing, analogy, analyzing, association...


hence the title "Hamas and the Taliban analogy". WookieInHeat (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
anyway, if your argument is that the title constitues WP:OR, why are you pushing solely for deletion instead of a name change or even a merge? a WP:COI with the subject couldn't be clouding the venerable nableezy's judgement, could it? WookieInHeat (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Wookie, please avoid such pointless personal attacks (it's the second I've seen you make in the space of a day on this topic area), and please do us all the courtesy read the policies you link to. Unless you are making the quite extraordinary claim that Nableezy is a member of the Hamas or Taliban leadership, COI simply does not apply here. Furthermore OR is perfectly acceptable as grounds for deletion; it happens all the time. Your arguments for keep misrepresent the objections. The point about sourcing is that the sources which are not questionable do not present the analogy in anything other than solitary quotes from Hamas' opponents in a sea of words saying something else. If you read the sources, there is a clear argument that Hamas is islamising in Gaza (I wouldn't be against the merge proposal above), but that is not the same as "Talibanising". Gathering random quotes from people who don't like Hamas and putting them together without any secondary source uniting them is original research, as is a side-by-side comparison of Hamas and the Taliban, without reliable secondary sources doing the same thing. I suggest you read WP:OR carefully and then come back and explain how this article is not original research, citing policy. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
i've made no personal attacks, i think you are mistaking sarcasm for incivility. also, i am normally quite cordial, in fact i challenge you to find one other editor with a complaint about my civility in their dealings with me. nableezy is the exception, i merely feed the attitude he gives those he disagrees with right back to him; in this case his condescending remark that i "carefully read WP:OR".
secondly, you really should take your own advice and review wikipolicies before lecturing others on their content. WP:COI states right in its lede: "COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." nableezy displays his affinity for the palestinian cause, and by association hamas, on his talk page.
finally, as to my comments not addressing the issues raised for deletion. the very first sentence in my very first post here says "per Malik Shabazz" which covers WP:POINT; the only issue raised by the nom. the rest of my comments have been about my reasoning for supporting "keep". cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I dont care if I get blocked for this, the line nableezy displays his affinity for the palestinian cause, and by association hamas demonstrates that you are an idiot. nableezy - 01:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Categories: