Jump to content

Talk:Hamas/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

House Demolition stuff in Human Shields section

Can someone explain to me why there is a rather long, cumbersome, irrelevant sentence about house demolitions in the middle of the "Children as Human shields" section? If no reasonable explanation can be made, I will remove the sentence from the section within the next few days. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You were given a reasonable explanation in the reversion comment (both times). In reply to your claimed inablity to understand why house demolitions are mentioned...the children are only classed as human shields if the house demolitions were legal. If Israel makes a claim it is relevant to add responses to that claim from reliable sources per WP guidelines. Wayne (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
But Hamas uses children as human shields in more situations than just house demolitions. At best, the house demolitions thing should be a footnote or something unless it can be directly related to children as human shields in general.
Never mind, I see your point now. I'll let it slide, but that Norman Finkelstein nonsense has got to go. --GHcool (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. There's way too much (WP:UNDUE) of Finkelstein in the article. And from articles that were not published anywhere (i.e. fact checked), they are directly from his website. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Iran

Added Iran to the list of states that don't consider Hamas a terrorist organization, since Iran is not included in "the Arab nations". The source is this same page. Nekrorider (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Editor Qualifications =

I did not have to read much before seeing bias. Knowing there are paid Israeli editors editing wikipedia, would it be prudent to require editors of this and similar articles of probable bias to make it known who they are as is relevant to the article? Not to amplify conflict but rather to discourage editors having inherent bias they themselves may not realize even subtle. Or perhaps place the standard disclaimer link directly after the dispute notice. 98.92.63.190 (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Canada's designation of Hamas

A "not in citation given" tag was added to the sentence "Under the Anti-Terrorism Act, Hamas is described as a terrorist organization."

The citation from Public Safety Canada reads "Hamas ... is a radical Islamist-nationalist terrorist organization ..." Why doesn't this support the sentence?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Because that page is not part of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The page also lists, among others, al-qaida and al-aqsa, neither of which are called terrorist organisations in their descriptions so it is obviously not a RS for the term. The page clearly states that it is for "reference only" and directs the reader to the official document which states:The listing of an entity is a public means of identifying a group or individual as being associated with terrorism...It is not a crime to be listed. The reason "entities" are not actually called terrorist becomes clear when you read the entire Act. It allows the freezing of assetts for entities and individuals who are not terrorist if they are accused of providing funds to terrorist organisations. If you read Canadian newspapers you will find that Hamas is only designated for some of it's affiliated charities allegedly funding the Brigades. In 2006, Canada blocked entry of Hamas supporters for violation of the terrorism laws, it was appealed and the courts overturned the ban. Here is a reference which says that specific ministers may call Hamas a "terrorist organization" but states that "Canada considers Hamas an organization associated with terrorism." It seems clear that "terrorist organization" is a personal opinion while "associated with terrorism" is the official designation. Wayne (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
You're right, those descriptions aren't part of the List of Entities created by the Anti-Terrorism Act. The citation supports something like: "Public Safety Canada describes Hamas as a terrorist organization." or more generally "The Canadian government describes Hamas as a terrorist organization."--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The section is called International designation of Hamas and the official designation is that Hamas is "associated with terrorism", not that it is a "terrorist organization." The lead already gives the governments description. Wayne (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Which official document are you reading that designation in?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I've already given you all the references you need here and in the edit itself so please stop filibustering and justify your version.
Can you also justify this reversion where you used the comment "more informative" when in fact your version is less informative as it consists entirely of a false claim due to the implication (through using elipses) that Hamas is part of the list of "included" organisations. The sources in both cases are clear that Hamas is listed for financial reasons, not for actions. Please note that you have violated the articles 1RR and I advise you to read WP:DRNC. Wayne (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
If I may, Canadian law provides for absolutely no distinction between "terrorist entities" and "entities associated with acts of terror/terrorism." (I argue that groups "associated with terrorism" are essentially terrorist organizations anyway, but my personal opinion has no bearing on Canada's official listing of designated terrorist entities) The Anti-terrorism Act is but ONE of SEVERAL pieces (meaning, it is not the ONLY piece) of legislation that dictates Canada's overall anti-terrorism "strategy." The Act itself does NOT list ANY terrorist organizations/entities but rather simply takes aim at "terrorists and terrorist groups" (lists of whom are provided to the Department of Justice -- the purveyor of the Act -- on behalf of and in collaboration with the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness/DPSEP, Canada's intelligence service -- CSIS, the RCMP, etc) and helps Canada meet the challenges presented by terrorism. Therefore, because of overlap (which is present in ALL governments I might add) what one department classifies as "terrorist entity" while another remains silent is irrelevant and has no bearing on Canada's official designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. This also invalidates your claim that because this reference is not officially part of the Act, it is somehow null and void. The flawed logic behind this would mean that Canada does not list ANY groups/entities/organizations as being "terrorist" in nature. I can assure you, Canada maintains this partial list of groups/entities it considers to be terrorist organizations (Hamas is on par with the likes of Al Qaida, Abu Sayyaf, Hezbollah, etc). Perhaps as a compromise we should mention that Canada's DPSEP officially lists Hamas as a terrorist entity on par with many other global organizations. Hopefully, it is understood that this department is one of several federal government agencies responsible for Canadian counter-terrorism strategy, national security, and domestic public safety in general. Alas, such wording would be cumbersome and based on the Department's status as a federal agency (similar to the U.S. State Department -- though the State Department's core functions obviously differ from those of the DPSEP), it would seem entirely reasonable to conclude that merely "Canada" classifies Hamas as a terrorist entity/organization. Also important to note that this outdated CBC reference is the work of journalists often unfamiliar with the complexities of both domestic and international law. I too can find sources that support my case (and you'll soon notice that most other internet sites correctly identify Canada's classification of Hamas as a terrorist organization): http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-hamas.htm Factcolony (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Your interpretaion is WP:OR. The official government sources say that the public safety list is for reference only and that the actual designation is "associated with terrorism". The designation has only affected Hamas affiliated charities, not Hamas. Hamas took the Canadian government to court when the designation was applied to them in order to block the entry of several of their officials into the country and Hamas won. Outside views on what Hamas is are irrelevant, for example, our Prime Minister calls Hamas a terrorist organisation in media reports yet Hamas is not listed in our official list. Wayne (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
BTW. Mention that Canada's Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness officially lists Hamas as a terrorist organisation is weasel wording and also brings with it another problem, you would be cherry picking. Canada's Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness does not describe al-Qaeda as a terrorist organisation in it's listing. This listing is not a RS. Wayne (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you're engaging in selective reading. Hamas has NEVER successfully sued the Canadian government. I'm afraid you're gravely mistaken. Again, Canadian law provides for absolutely no distinction between "terrorist entities" and "entities associated with acts of terror/terrorism." I believe you hail from Australia? Canada is not Australia. I can't (and will not) speak for what Australian politicians may or may not say -- that's hearsay. I do know that Australia classifies Hamas's military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization whereas Canada classifies the entire organization, Harakat Al-Muqawama Al-Islamiya -- HAMAS, as a terrorist entity (not just any affiliated charities). Concerning your claim that the "official government sources say that the public safety list is for reference only," this too is incorrect (not to mention irrelevant; an advisement of "reference only" does nothing to alter the fundamental validity of a statute or policy). The WEBMASTER, and not the federal government, advises that the "website" is for reference only (as is every website arguably). This is done for legal purposes but also to remind individuals that the list is incomplete and more holistic research should be conducted by consulting other relevant acts and policy note publications -- hence my above pitch. I actually have consulted the most relevant acts, have you? In fact, have you read anything at all? Like I said before, your flawed interpretation implies that Canada does not list ANY groups/entities/organizations as being "terrorist" in nature. With all due respect, it's evident that your knowledge of how governments work is inadequate (I suggest rereading my first statement to gain insight into how governments -- and more specifically, Canada's -- operate). You accuse me of WP:OR, yet you use the outdated work of journalists (again, many of whom are often unfamiliar with the complexities of domestic and international law) in the form of CBC articles to advance what you incorrectly believe to be true. This is sheer hypocrisy and further delegitimizes your thoughts.
P.S. Canada's DPSEP absolutely lists Al Qaida as a terrorist organization. It's number four on its list: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-eng.aspx Perhaps I should refrain from being so formal but I feel formality makes for conciseness. The Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is Public Safety Canada's legally incorporated name. To help you better understand, think of Australia's official name, the "Commonwealth of Australia." I haven't "cherry picked" a thing. Factcolony (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
And actually, if you want to get really technical, Canada's list of officially designated terrorist entities is reviewed by relevant authorities (including the Minister of Public Safety and the Attorney General) in collaboration with the Chief Justice of Canada. Public Safety (DPSEP) is one of a handful of outlets that merely publishes updated versions of the list. Factcolony (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Factcolony, I see you are a new editor. I reverted your edit. Your comments above with several unhelpful and irrelevant personal remarks, statements about what you think you know and others don't, without reliable sources to support your statements, does not mean that you have resolved this issue and can proceed with the edit to the article. Have some patience. You need it to work on articles like this one. What we think we know and others don't really has little value here. We aren't the reliable sources referred to by the WP:V policy. You might want to consider completely re-writing your comment above, removing all personal comments and anything that isn't directly supported by a cited reliable source. That would be more consistent with the talk page guidelines and it will make it much easier for other editors to work with you to improve the article based on published reliable sources and Wikipedia's policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, you now need to self revert. I reverted your edit. That's it. You must then stop and continue the discussion to gain consensus. You don't restore your edit. Can you confirm that you understand this process and that you will self revert ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You need to respond and self-revert. The reason you need to respond is because if you don't self-revert I am going to file a report at the edit warring noticeboard, something that wastes my time, administrator's time, and may result in a 24 hour block for you. I would rather not do that. This article is covered by a WP:1RR restriction precisely to prevent the kind of editing you are engaged in. There is a large and very prominent warning at the top of this page. Editors are only allowed 1 revert per day on this article and indeed any article related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You have made 2 reverts.
  • Your first revert here was a revert of this edit made by WLRoss at 06:42, 2 November 2012, that added the failed verification tag. The issue has been discussed in this section since then. You are well aware of that.
  • I reverted your removal here because discussion of the issue is ongoing and you do not have consensus to proceed.
  • You made your 2nd revert within 24 hours here, to remove the failed verification tag again, with an odd edit summary about my opinions which you have deduced using magic, "So according to you, Osama bin Laden wasn't a "terrorist" but rather someone vaguely "associated with terrorism"? I don't think so".
So, what is it going to be, a self revert+continued discussion or a report at editing warring noticeboard that may result in a block ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, I've been editing for quite some time but have only recently felt the need to open an account. What I find particularly troublesome is that common sense is clearly not prevailing here. From what I can see, Canada's wiki classification of Hamas as being a terrorist entity was perfectly acceptable from 2010 until now (November 2012). There was absolutely NO rationale (or need) for altering this to begin with. I find it disconcerting that I'm being called inappropriate and impatient when the initial edits that sparked this "debate" were allowed to proceed unchallenged. Furthermore, Wayne makes a number of incorrect statements that need to be checked -- i.e. Hamas successfully suing the Canadian government, Canada's DPSEP not listing Al Qaida as a terrorist entity, unlearned interpretations of how Canada's Anti-terrorism Act (and therefore laws in most countries) is administered, etc. I don't need to cite any more material because I've used the only source that matters -- the DPSEP's Officially listed entities. Both the United States and the United Kingdom have similar lists the only difference being Canada perhaps uses different language (this is irrelevant though because the U.K. uses different language from the U.S. as does Australia). I've not made any unsubstantiated claims in regard to the core issue at hand -- does Canada classify Hamas as a "terrorist organization"? Yes, absolutely, on par with Al Qaida, Hezbollah, ETA, etc. I will say, I can appreciate the obvious attempt at critical thinking here but I fear we're now getting caught up in a tomato tomahto-type debate over precise wording and language. Based on the flawed argument trying to be put forward, Osama bin Laden was not a terrorist but someone vaguely "associated with terrorism." Similarly, Al Qaida is not a "terrorist group" but rather a group vaguely "associated with terrorism." This is wrong as the Canadian government (and most -- if not all -- Western governments) considers Al Qaida to be a "terrorist organization" and bin Laden to have been a "terrorist."

You need to refrain from what I call reflexive reverting. I've spoken with enough editors to know that people who indulge in your kinds of tactics are frowned upon. It's considered bad form. Can you confirm that you have read the entire discussion and will refrain from reflexive editing? Thx. Factcolony (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, file a report. I'll simply file one against you for uncouth bullying. Factcolony (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
My "revert" involved sourcing. I didn't add or remove anything substantive. Furthermore, the edit(s) I did make were related to the ONE issue. That issue of course being Canada's designation of Hamas as a terrorist entity. Factcolony (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
hmmm...it seems you have no idea what you are dealing with. I'm not interested in the content issues. You are trying to reason with me. Don't bother. You have broken a rule in this topic area designed to prevent the kind of editing you have engaged in, which is called edit warring. Breaking rules in this topic area must have a cost to editors. This is much more important than the content issues that concern you. I take it you are not going to self revert so I shall file a report. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be uneducated regarding Wikipedia's policies that deal with the kind of offensive bullying you obviously resort to. I too shall file a report WP:BULLY. You also say "content issues" are immaterial to you yet that's not the impression you gave in your first statement. I can't keep up with you. What's the issue? My reverting (I only reverted your reflex revert once) or the supposedly inconsequential content issue? Factcolony (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The section is about the international designation of Hamas so "what everyone knows" and what newspapers say is irrelevant. The infobox should say what the official designation is. A cultural difference in terminology is a straw man. That the current wording has been longstanding is irrelevant. I accepted the wording untill I read something recently that led me to actually read the sources provided, which I found did not support the claim. The official documents discuss the purpose of designation and Canada's designation allows the listing of non terrorist organisations for the purposes of freezing assetts. That they have not descriminated between terrorist and non-terrorist organisations is irrelevant. "Associated with terrorism" is the correct designation. Wayne (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The only mention in the book says: The second decision [increasing aid to Palestine] came in response to the surprising victory [in the 2006 elections]...of the political wing of Hamas, which Canada after great reluctance had designated a terorist organisation in November 2002. I'm not sure how Hamas was designated in 2002 but it is irrelevant. The current 2006 designation is "Associated with terrorism". Wayne (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest I checked to see what the 2002 designation was: List of Entities pursuant to section 83.05 of the Criminal Code...[a] package of federal regulations implementing the International Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by General Assembly.
83.05 of the Criminal Code defines a "listed entity" as: (a) the entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity; or (b) the entity is knowingly acting on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with an entity referred to in paragraph (a). You can see how the "associated with" fits in.Wayne (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I also checked up on what the book meant by "great reluctance". Apparently the Cretien government opposed putting Hamas on the list but ware pressured by a conservative party media campaign. Wayne (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
You're saying that Canada's designation of Hamas changed in 2006? Please explain.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually I do not care what you have checked, we do not use primary sources here nor draw our own inferences from them. I have given a reliable secondary source which clearly says Canada considers Hamas a terrorist group. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I take issue with a number of Wayne's unsubstantiated claims, contradictions, and theories. Of foremost importance, before anything can be changed in this article, a consensus should be reached. Wayne independently altered the section pertaining to Canada’s designation of Hamas without achieving the required consensus. I mention this because Factcolony was rebuked for their unilateral revert to the correct Canadian government classification. How can a rebuke be issued to one user for independent correction while none is offered to another for unilaterally altering the pertinent section to begin with? Forgive me for not understanding the raison d'être behind this at all. If Wayne felt uncomfortable with the sourcing provided, a discussion should have ensued here prior to a course of initial unilateral action.
Secondly, Wayne makes a number of unsubstantiated claims and contradictions. Among other things, Wayne offers an irrelevant personal opinion on the matter, “it seems clear that ‘terrorist organization’ is a personal opinion while ‘associated with terrorism’ is the official designation.” To lend support to this theory, Wayne utilized a simple news article from 2007 that muddied the wording of Canada’s classification list—a flagrant contradiction from their most recent claim that “what newspapers say is irrelevant.” Further to the editor’s unsubstantiated claims, Wayne states “I accepted the wording untill (check spelling, please) I read something recently that led me to actually read the sources provided, which I found did not support the claim.” Where is this grand “something(s)” that supposedly challenged Wayne’s worldview vis-à-vis Canada’s periodical cataloguing of terrorist organizations/entities? Darkness Shines makes an excellent point by stating that no personal inferences should be drawn from the use of primary sources (primary sources Wayne does not even list to begin with).
The issue can be resolved succinctly and neatly. Canada clearly classifies Hamas—in its entirety—as a terrorist group alongside a number of well-known international movements. What Canada’s Anti-terrorism Act, or any other corresponding Act, says or does not say is of little consequence. As mentioned previously, the Act deals with "terrorists and terrorist groups" that are retrieved, in part, from the above given “Currently listed entities.” Factcolony is entirely correct in their assertion that Canadian law does not discriminate from “terrorism” and “associated with terrorism.” If Wayne can supply appropriate sources verifying his theories, thus proving me and every other contributing editor here wrong, I will accept that. Otherwise I am formally petitioning for Wayne’s unilateral citation warning in International designation of Hamas to be removed. I will not hesitate to escalate this further if necessary. It seems consensus has already been reached with the sole exception of Wayne, who has based their opinion upon unreferenced distortion of the facts. Bon et Copieux (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure Wayne, or his brother, if his account is hacked by his brother, will respond in due course. The answer to the question "How can a rebuke be issued to one user for independent correction while none is offered to another for unilaterally altering the pertinent section to begin with?" is that Wayne didn't break the revert restriction rules. It's as simple as that. Just accept the rules and abide by them. Resistance is futile. Regarding "I will not hesitate to escalate this further if necessary", that is not going to be a productive way to convince people who hold different positions from you that your solution is better than theirs from a policy perspective. Focus on arguments based on what the reliable sources and policy say and you are much more likely to persuade people. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I feel it important to mention, Hamas has never won (never mind having never even instituted) legal proceedings of any kind against the Canadian government as per Wayne's claim. Bon et Copieux (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
That may be a perfectly valid argument, but the argument needs to be made by a reliable secondary source in order to have any validity here. As I said, focus on arguments based on what the reliable sources and policy say and try to avoid arguments based on first principals or your own reasoning. It's important. That way things are more likely to go smoothly here. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, your personal views on my usage of language are immaterial to me, young man. Consensus has been reached here and I have no qualms about referring this to mediation if necessary, though I hope it will not be. As per Factcolony's rebuke, I am not referring to their discipline received for violating the article’s WP:1RR policy. That was both understandable and justified. Factcolony was forewarned, the warning went unheeded, and a course of discipline was rightfully handed down. No, I am referring to this exchange:

· (cur | prev) 11:40, 22 November 2012‎ Sean.hoyland (talk | contribs)‎ . . (209,412 bytes) (+709)‎ . . (Undid revision 524338964 by Factcolony (talk) doesn't work like that. you wait for consensus.)

· (cur | prev) 11:37, 22 November 2012‎ Factcolony (talk | contribs)‎ . . (208,703 bytes) (-709)‎ . . (→‎International designation of Hamas: For all intents and purposes, Canada considers a "group or individual associated with terrorism" to be a "terrorist" or "terrorist entity." Osama bin Laden's "association with terrorism" made him a terrorist.)

It is incredibly clear that no such rebuke was issued when Canada’s designation of Hamas underwent the initial unilateral change (to which Factcolony reverted and you undid). There was—and indeed is—no initial consensus to justify the current citation warning. Canada considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization. Period. I advise owning up to your rationale lapse, i.e. contradictory nature, so as to facilitate harmonious and credible exchanges between yourself and others in future (I say this to your benefit). Otherwise, you run the risk of not being taken seriously. Good day to you. Bon et Copieux (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, I advise you to start asking Wayne to produce reliable secondary sources that lend credence to his unfounded theories, considering everyone else here is in agreement and Wayne is the outlier. As of now, you have yet to ask. Your credibility is at stake. Bon et Copieux (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the "young man". Yes, unilateral change is allowed, see WP:BRD. I didn't create the rules and I can assure you they would be quite different if I had. You keep shooting the messenger. It's not right. You should stop. I'm almost not capable of a "rationale lapse" but I can make errors and I don't mind not being taken seriously. People are too serious here. They should probably learn to stop wanting things and appreciate what they have. I also have no credibility here that I care about. I don't think I made an error in this case. Factcolony (or his sibling)...and note I'm not saying you because that episode is over...reverted long after the discussion had been initiated and did it again. That was an aggressive move and indicative of potential future problems that can escalate in my experience, which would not be good for Factcolony or the project. If Wayne or anyone else can't substantiate statements with sources than the statements have no validity here but I really don't want to get involved in the details of this discussion. I would like to see it resolved in a policy consistent way to everyone's satisfaction. My actions and comments should be seen in that context with that objective. I've seen these things spinning out of control hundreds of times before. It's easily avoided by just following the rules and going step by step. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Behold The Globe and Mail, one of Canada's most respected--if not the most respected--media outlets, as of November 26, 2012, correctly referring to Hamas as a terrorist organization in the eyes of the Canadian government. Harper took steps to stifle Palestinian statehood bid This is in full congruence with Canada's list of terrorist organizations. Sean.hoyland and Wayne, as Malcom Forbes once said, "victory is sweetest when you've known defeat." The time has come to concede defeat and move along. Consensus with regard to this issue was achieved long ago. I expect the unfounded citation warning regarding Canada's classification of Hamas to be removed as soon as possible. I will request mediation otherwise. Bon et Copieux (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good source. Remember, I have zero interest in the content issue, the outcome doesn't matter to me as long as it complies with policy. It's about the article contents, not the editors, and this is not a battlefield so victory is not possible. Good luck and try stay out of trouble. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"Factcolony (or his sibling)...and note I'm not saying you because that episode is over...reverted long after the discussion had been initiated and did it again." Sean.hoyland, are you implying that I am Factcolony? I am most certainly not, and without proof, Wikipedia considers your words a personal attack. I advise you to perhaps consider rewording your unfounded insinuation. Bon et Copieux (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Sean.hoyland, if unilateral change is allowed, why did you undue Factcolony's revision by saying consensus must be achieved beforehand? (cur | prev) 11:40, 22 November 2012‎ Sean.hoyland (talk | contribs)‎ . . (209,412 bytes) (+709)‎ . . (Undid revision 524338964 by Factcolony (talk) doesn't work like that. you wait for consensus) I am afraid your contradictory nature renders you null and void of any credibility whatsoever. And in future, the onus of demonstrating proof is to be placed on outlying editors like Wayne and not on everyone else consistently maintaining the verified truth in unison. I will ask you one final time to consider altering your insinuation that somehow Factcolony and myself have some kind of connection. I may file a report otherwise. Bon et Copieux (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I won't be rewording anything. If I wanted to file a sockpuppet report or do anything that might terminate editing privileges I would have already done it. I was ready to walk away and let you be but you continue to give me cause for concern. Regarding "if unilateral change is allowed, why...", as I have already explained, a revert long after a discussion has been initiated, followed by another revert, was an aggressive move and edit warring. No one can aggressively impose their content preferences while a discussion is ongoing because they think they have won the argument and no one can edit war, especially in this topic area. It is disruptive, it's been proven to be disruptive hundreds if not thousands of times in the topic area, and the aggressive editor always pays the price eventually. Take this advice to heart and move on productively. And if you are foolish enough to come into conflict with editors, over and over again, walk away because this isn't the place for you. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Factcolony broke a rule. Sean.hoyland was generous and gave him several opportunities to correct his mistake but eventually had to take action. I don't think there is anything more to discuss, but if you must, please discuss it somewhere else like Sean.hoyland's talk page.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is very simple. The section is International designation of Hamas. Secondary sources reporting what people think is irrelevant regarding the designation. Primary sources reporting the actual designation take precedence. I'm pretty sure you can find countries that consider Hamas a terrorist organisation that have not designated them as anything. Are you suggesting we add those countries as well based on what selected media reports say? Wayne (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:SECONDARY. If we can agree on how to interpret primary sources, we can use them. Perhaps we need to define what we mean by "designated."--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
So you are saying that if a secondary source misrepresents what a primary source says Wikipedia must use the secondary? Wayne (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Wayne, as was mentioned to you before, you are not permitted to use primary sources and deduct an uninformed opinion from them. A number of relevant questions have been posed to you by other users (such as where are the sources consulted that supposedly challenged your prior acceptance of Canada’s cataloguing of known terrorist entities?), and you have not addressed them. Your interpretation of Canada’s list of terrorist organisations and subsequent distortion of the facts in the form of tenuous opinions, without providing any current, reliable, or substantive sourcing whatsoever, is most disheartening and unacceptable. I am utterly shocked that your initial edits were allowed to proceed unverified from the get-go, and I am even more appalled that any dissenting voices here have been silenced or accused of unsavoury behaviour. I have a good mind to report Sean.hoyland for contravening WP:FIVE. Despite said user’s supposedly being uninterested in ‘content matters,’ it is clear Sean.hoyland does care—a great deal one might add.
This list, and primary source, is not open to personal interpretation. Canada clearly lists Hamas as a terrorist organisation alongside other groups. In fact, if you look at Hamas’s listing, Canada reconfirmed its status in December 2010, thereby invalidating Wayne’s earlier vague incoherence about an out-dated mystery 2006/7 source. Advancing support to Canada’s current classification is this current source, Harper took steps to stifle Palestinian statehood bid, that unmistakeably says Canada, as of November 2012, considers Hamas to be a terrorist organisation. That is it. The issue is resolved. Most editors here are in agreement with the exception of Wayne. An article’s factual integrity cannot be hijacked for a single dissenting editor’s opinion. The citation designation in Canada's classification of Hamas should be removed. Canada's position is clear. Sandy.Dickens (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlike yourself, I have made no deductions, no interpretations nor have I based anything on my opinion. I report exactly what the source states in black and white. The reference you keep refering to specifically states it is for reference only and to consult the original source for the actual designation. The section is about how the primary source (the Canadian government) designates Hamas, not how we should interpret that designation. If you want secondary sources supporting the "associated with" designation, try this, this, this, this, this, this and this. I've made my case based on what the primary source states which is supported by many secondary sources. Your case rests solely on contrary secondary sources and a "what everyone knows" arguement. You need to specifically refute my claim that the primary source says "associated with terrorism". Wayne (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

· Wayne, this is the first time I have interacted with you on this matter so please show some restraint. It is very important that you follow along here, so try to do so by affixing your ‘smart hat’ and by demonstrating reasonable comportment.

I have read the above discourse thoroughly and happen to agree with the other editors—you appear to be in the minority. The ‘reference advisement’ on Public Safety Canada’s website pertains to the ‘website’ and not to its academic content. A ‘reference caution’ at the top of a website does not alter the site’s core informational validity—in this case, a listing of ‘entities’ Canada in effect describes as terrorist/associated with terrorism (I will address this important wording later and your responsibility with regard to it). Most any source used to corroborate a concept, be it an online resource or one from a more formal environment, is indeed utilised for reference. If I were to consult the appropriate Acts, the Canada Gazette, and the annual Statutes of Canada as per the website’s caution, that in and of itself would also be ‘referencing.’ This is common knowledge that requires no citation partly because no such reference exists, save for perhaps Oxford’s definition of what it means to ‘reference.’ Others have tried to inform you of this and you have blithely ignored them (or not understood them, either which way I have no idea—hence my prior request that you affix your ‘smart hat’). I have to forcibly refute the suggestion that you have not made any deductions based on opinion—your responses to questions and other postings here are littered with unwarranted opinion, contradictions, and factual inaccuracies. I would like to thank the other editors for making my job easier here by already having pointed out the most obvious breaches. And so, I shall start at the beginning so as to inform you and any other reader of what I mean:

First, you gave notice of change by warning '"not in citation given" tag was added to the sentence "Under the Anti-Terrorism Act, Hamas is described as a terrorist organization."' When questioned as to the reasoning behind this you answered, ‘Because that page is not part of the Anti-Terrorism Act.’ When it was explained to you that the Canadian Anti-terrorism Act does not list entities but rather determines appropriate state recourse to sought out general national security threats—by relying on collaboration between domestic law enforcement, intelligence agencies, Canada’s list of ‘entities associated with terrorism,’ et cetera—you conveniently abdicated from a coherent response. Why? Only you know, but could it have something to do with your deficient ‘opinion’ of how government works? Perhaps you are unaware that personal deductions cannot be composed from the use of primary sources—which is exactly what you did. In continuum of this concept, you also remained silent when your inaccurate ‘opinion’ of Hamas successfully suing the Canadian government was justifiably disproven. No citation can be given for this, simply because none exists. Sources are never devised for events as having never occurred—Hamas has never implored a Canadian court on behalf of its membership. To further my point though (and perhaps most damaging to the claim that you have not indulged in personal assumption) on 3 November, you stated ‘It seems clear that "terrorist organization" is a personal opinion while "associated with terrorism" is the official designation.’

Seems clear to whom? You? A sibling? An extended member of your family? Your words are the words of a personal opinion.

This horrendous 25 November violation of English spelling is also another unverified opinion, ‘Apparently the Cretien government opposed putting Hamas on the list but ware pressured by a conservative party media campaign,’ as are the same day words of ‘You can see how the "associated with" fits in.’ Opinion, opinion, opinion! Jean Chrétien, by the way, was a Liberal Prime Minister whose majority government du jour paid little attention to ‘conservative media campaigns.’ (A vague statement on its own)

Now, to the conclusion and ‘meat’ of my response—to put it bluntly, the only two reasonably credible, published sources you supplied were the CBC and Toronto Star articles (I say reasonably credible because both are outdated having been produced in 2006 and 2009 respectively).[1][2] Please review policies concerning WP:OR and more specifically, the sections pertaining to use of quality secondary sources. With regard to your other questionable choices, especially these[3] and [4], I urge you to familiarise yourself with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I have a more up to date 2012 CBC publication that unambiguously states ‘Canada also lists Hamas as a terrorist organization.’ I also have another extremely strong 2012 source from Macleans, one of Canada’s leading political and current affairs publications, that also correctly lists Hamas as a ‘terrorist organisation’ in the eyes of the Canadian government.[5] (And no, these excellent sources do not misrepresent anything the primary sources say—again, an unverified personal opinion. Tsk tsk)

This brings me to my ultimate closing (and one I sincerely hope you pay attention to). It is most evident that Canadian publications consider the terms ‘associated with terrorism’ and ‘terrorist organisation’ to be synonymous with each other. This is evidenced by the CBC’s using ‘associated with terrorism’ in one article while preferring ‘terrorist organisation’ in another. In light of this, the ‘tomato tomahto’ analogy you immediately dismissed as being a ‘straw man’ argument is absolutely relevant to this discussion (you are in no position to singlehandedly interpret the case law traditions of Canada). Regarding your derisory assertion that I need to specifically refute your ‘claim’ (i.e. opinion) regarding a primary source, I need accomplish no such thing. Again, am I not the third or fourth person to tell you that Wikipedia generally disallows personal deductions being made from primary sources? The real issue here is your assumption that Canadian law somehow differentiates ‘associated with terrorism’ from ‘terrorist organization’ (based on the wording of many questionable sources). For the umpteenth time, Canadian law provides for no dual legal standard between the two terms. No citation available because, as mentioned previously, sources are never produced for actualities as having never even occurred in the first place. The responsibility falls solely upon you to clearly demonstrate—through the use of legally robust sourcing—proof of your incorrect assumption as to a duality paradox within the Canadian legal framework concerning ‘associated with terrorism’ and ‘terrorist organisation/entity/group et cetera.’ You have made this so much larger than a simple choice of words. The onus is on you to prove an entire theory that nobody else has even considered let alone proposed. Good luck. Sandy.Dickens (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep this simple as I'm obviously arguing with someone who is having difficulty being civil. All you need to do is point out where in the Anti-Terrorism Act it states that those listed are all terrorist organisations. Wayne (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Wayne, in addition to missing the point here, you need to read everything being said to you carefully. As was pointed out to you before, the Anti-terrorism Act alone does not list any terrorist organization(s) whatsoever. Rather, it is a statute that allows the government particular powers in dealing with general threats, both real & perceived, to Canada’s national security.[6] Although the Act itself makes no mention of any “entity” or anyone/anything as being “associated with terrorism,” the Act is pursuant to Canada’s list of Currently listed entities and vice versa[7] hence the wording, “Under the Anti-terrorism Act, Hamas is described as a terrorist organization.” Familiarize yourself with the jurisprudent concept of precedence in common law environments if you need further clarification.[8]
The bigger picture though is your baseless assumption that a fundamental difference arises between the terminology organizations “associated with terrorism” and “terrorist organizations” (or entity if you prefer, though neither word choice changes the fundamental premise; color/colour. If you feel word choice matters in this context, you need to prove it). You do assume a difference exists otherwise you would not be embroiled in stubborn debate that increasingly sees you retrench further into your corner. Again, Canadian law provides for no difference between organizations “associated with terrorism” and “terrorist organizations.” The principles—in the eyes of Canada anyway—are indistinguishable from each other explaining why some publications use “associated with terrorism” while others use “terrorist organization.”[9][10] If you disagree (and you do), you need to prove this by using sourcing that clearly demonstrates the difference—from a Canadian legal context—between organizations “associated with terrorism” and “terrorist organizations.” That is how you convince your peers.
P.S. I’m not going to inform you of who I am and what I have studied because that would be pointless. Wikipedia disallows it. WP:CAI 173.180.204.198 (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I dont give a hoot who you are or what your expertise is. All I know is that you appear to be familiar with Schopenhauer and WP:Wikilawyering. Wayne (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Public Safety Canada's legal name) clearly states, "The definition of an entity includes a person, group, trust, partnership or fund, or an unincorporated association or organization. The Anti-Terrorism Act provides measures for the Government of Canada to create a list of entities."[11] So, like I have said, you now need to prove your opinion regarding the supposed legal difference between terms organizations “associated with terrorism” and "terrorist organizations." Your sourcing should be from a legal Canadian context so as to clearly demonstrate the statutory differences you presume exist. 173.180.204.198 (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The Anti-Terrorism Act also says that being listed is not an indication that the "entity" has done anything illegal. As an act of terrorism is an illegal act the list deliberately does not differentiate between terrorist/non-terrorist organisations. That's not my problem. It is up to legislators to clearly state within the Act itself the "legal context". It is not Wikipedia's place, nor are we here to determine the "legal context" or "legal differences". We are here to report neutrally what the sources say. I have to prove nothing. The Anti-Terrorism Act (the source) says “associated with terrorism”. Wayne (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Almost everything you say is the result of misinterpretation and twisting. I think you have a problem being objective despite your claims otherwise. "The Anti-Terrorism Act also says that being listed is not an indication that the 'entity' has done anything illegal". WRONG, again. Public Safety Canada states "It is not a crime to be "listed" (much like it's not a crime to be merely arrested). This is entirely different from illegality of action and has no effect upon an organization's being listed as terrorist in nature.[12] Why are you always so wrong? (And that's not an opinion. Reread everything you've posted from day one, your hearsay has been consistently refuted) For the 50th time, the Act itself does not list "organizations" but rather allows the Government of Canada to create a list of terrorist organizations that in turn is used under the Act's provisions if and when necessary (say if Hamas--a listed entity--were elected, for example, the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act would oversee and guide the federal government's response. And indeed the Act's provisions did guide the federal government's response to Hamas's election. Read up on them if you're interested. I'm done giving you sources you discount as irrelevant). The Act and "Currently listed entities" are pursuant to each other.READ THIS; VERY IMPORTANT Why is this so hard to comprehend? The Canadian Bill of Rights is pursuant to the Charter despite not being formally enshrined within it. If an individual violates the Bill of Rights, a Charter violation by default has also occurred. This is the hallmark of any common law jurisdiction but perhaps because Australia's constitution lacks the uniquely American fixture of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you have difficulty understanding both Canadian jurisprudence and this country's legislative uniqueness. I'm seriously stretching my brain to try and understand your rationale here (which, again, is why I'm starting to question your purported objectivity). "As an act of terrorism is an illegal act the list deliberately does not differentiate between terrorist/non-terrorist organisations" -- What are you smoking? Where are your references to prove this? Again, another unfounded subjective opinion. Every group/individual named to Canada's list of terrorist entities is a terrorist organization/terrorist. The list does not "deliberately" do anything.
Re. "It is up to legislators to clearly state within the Act itself the "legal context".
1. Canadian legislators and jurists have clearly stated Hamas is a terrorist organization pursuant to provisions of the Anti-terrorist Act.[13] The problem lies with you, not with Canadian lawmakers. Other than you, nobody in Canada or in any other foreign government is confused as to Canada's position. Accept this. Outstanding current secondary sources have been provided to verify this and you continue to dismiss them (referring to them as misrepresenting the facts).[14][15][16][17] Says who? You?
Re. "It is not Wikipedia's place, nor are we here to determine the 'legal context' or 'legal differences.'"
2. Then why are we having this discussion? Why have you singlehandedly opined there to be a "difference" between the terminology organizations "associated with terrorism" and "terrorist organizations?" Forgive me for sounding like a broken record but Canada considers two terms to be synonymous with each other.LIST OF TERRORIST ENTITIES Your statement of "It is not Wikipedia's place, nor are we here to determine the 'legal context' or 'legal differences,'" directly contradicts your assumptions here and violates too many Wiki principles and guidelines to mention; I can't be bothered to list them all at this point but quality fact-based entries are the preferred standard (sometimes a little investigating needs to happen to arrive at a quality conclusion). Nonetheless, and despite your being wrong, I've asked you to cite the statutory difference, from a Canadian legal perspective--because we're discussing Hamas's classification as relates to Canadian law--to validate your presumptions. Simply put, you need to explain and justify the difference between organizations "associated with terrorism" and "terrorist organizations." You need to do this by using sources that deal specifically within the Canadian context of this (you can't take the reality of one country, and stick it to another). Otherwise, your opinions here have no basis on which to stand.
At this point, I'm almost certain I will request mediation in this. You seem to be the only one who still doesn't get it. 173.180.204.198 (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

From the reference you cite:

The Government of Canada, pursuant to the Anti-terrorism Act, maintains a list of entities that

  • knowingly have carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in, or facilitated a terrorist activity; or
  • knowingly acted on behalf of, at the direction of, or in association with an entity that has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in, or facilitated a terrorist activity.

The first applies to terrorist organisations while the second does not. Whether Canada considers [the] two terms to be synonymous with each other is irrelevant because the Anti-Terrorism Act does not say this.

  • Quote: Why have you singlehandedly opined there to be a "difference" between the terminology "associated with terrorism" and "terrorist organizations?"

Because the Canadian Anti-terrorism Act is applied to both terrorist and non-terrorist organisations without any diferentiation, listing them all as "associated with terrorism". The act does not use the term "terrorist organizations" for them.
If the Anti-Terrorism Act designates them as "associated with terrorism" then Wikipedia must as well. We can't use a designation the source does not use.

  • Quote: You seem to be the only one who still doesn't get it.

So far you are the only one to oppose my arguement.
Perhaps it's you who does not get it. That the political wing of Hamas is a terrorist organisation is a minority opinion so why are you so upset over a suggested change that complies with wikipedia guidelines? Wayne (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Quote: “It is not Wikipedia's place, nor are we here to determine the 'legal context' or 'legal differences.’”
Talk about hypocrisy. Who are you to determine, “The first applies to terrorist organisations while the second does not” re: knowingly have carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in, or facilitated a terrorist activity; or knowingly acted on behalf of, at the direction of, or in association with an entity that has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in, or facilitated a terrorist activity. You have deducted this opinion from the use of a primary source.[18] How many times have you been told this is not allowed? Find reputable secondary sources that support this, and I’ll accept your premise (until then, it remains an unhelpful opinion). STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON PRIMARY SOURCES.WP:OR WP:PRIMARY
Quote: Whether Canada considers [the] two terms to be synonymous with each other is irrelevant because the Anti-Terrorism Act does not say this.
Fair enough, but you can’t then turn around and say “associated with terrorism” is the only term that matters when the Act itself, for the billionth time, makes no mention of any organization and countless publications correctly refer to Hamas as being a terrorist organization in the eyes of the Canadian government (and no, the reputable publications cited do not misrepresent anything, if you feel they have, prove it).[19][20][21] Primary sources can be used so long as no deductions are made from them. It is not my personal opinion that the Canadian government clearly states, “The Government of Canada, pursuant to the Anti-terrorism Act, maintains a list of entities…” It is also not my personal opinion that the Government of Canada states, “The list of terrorist entities 'TERRORIST ENTITIES' is posted on the Public Safety Canada (PS) website. The PS website also provides an overview of each organization, including name variations.”[22] I have made no deductions whatsoever from these words. Hamas, as you well know, is a listed entity.
Quote: Because the Canadian Anti-terrorism Act is applied to both terrorist and non-terrorist organisations without any differentiation.
SAYS WHO? Where are your reputable secondary sources stating this? This is another personal assumption. I’m awestruck by your continuing to advance opinions as though they are truth. PROVE IT! “The act does not use the term ‘terrorist organizations’ for them.” Again again again, the Act itself makes NO mention of ANY specific organization. Your point is superfluous. Remember, Canada defines “entity” as “a person, group, trust, partnership or fund, or an unincorporated association or ORGANIZATION.”
Quote: That the political wing of Hamas is a terrorist organisation is a minority opinion so why are you so upset over a suggested change that complies with Wikipedia guidelines?
Your imposed changes do not support Wikipedia guidelines. You continue to advance opinion as the truth, mainly by deducting from primary sources. I absolutely agree that the opinion of Hamas’s political wing as being a terrorist organization is a minority one. For right or wrong, Canada is among the minority on this (the others mainly being Israel and the United States). Under the Conservative government, Canada has emerged as one of Israel’s most vociferous allies.[23][24][25] Even Al Jazeera has noted this.[26] Australia, for example, clearly lists Hamas’s military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization while making no mention of its political unit. Canada, one of only a handful of countries to have done so, has listed the entirety of the organization. Understand this. 173.180.223.100 (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Quote: “The list of terrorist entities 'TERRORIST ENTITIES' is posted on the Public Safety Canada (PS) website.
It says no such thing. The word terrorist is not used. Wayne (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Please try to be civil. It's a simple case of the actual wording used. You still have not addressed this apart from "what everyone knows" and "I don't like it" arguments. I see no point in continuing the argument so I have asked for an RFC. Wayne (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The Canadian government does not need to insert a preamble explaining the likeness between ‘organisation associated with terrorism’ and ‘terrorist organisation.’ You have been informed ad nauseam that Canadian law does not differentiate between these two terms (i.e. no explanation is required to differentiate a ‘woman’ from a fellow ‘female’—the concepts are indistinguishable from each other despite differing terms, ‘woman’ and ‘female’). You, nonetheless, continue to assume there is a difference. So in the spirit of even-handedness, what is this difference and how does ‘associated with terrorism’ differ from ‘terrorist organisation’ in a context of application under Canadian law? Very important that sourcing used is from a background relating to Canadian law, as this is the focus of the current discussion. Essentially you need to showcase a clear difference (again, from Canada’s point of view) between an organisation associated with terrorism and terrorist organisation.
Finally, should I call myself a ‘citizen associated with the United Kingdom’ or would ‘British citizen’ equally suffice? The two concepts are one and the same; you presumably disagree, though why is anyone’s guess. A word of advice to you, don’t get bogged down by simple trivialities. I’m almost positive I could pick apart and twist the wording of other nations’ laws and I have no doubt you could as well. In situations like these, it’s best to focus on the bigger picture versus the trivial wording. It's clear that Canada considers Hamas, in its entirety, to be a 'terrorist organisation.' [27][28][29] Sandy.Dickens (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Claim: It says no such thing. The word terrorist is not used.
Wayne, the words 'terrorist entities' are clearly visible and absolutely used. 'The list of terrorist entities is posted on the Public Safety Canada (PS) website.'[30] Please read the sources carefully. Sandy.Dickens (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Dishonestly altering another editors post as you did here to make it seem they are making a false claim is indefensible. I can no longer assume you are editing in good faith. Wayne (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yet again, you deflect from the real issues at hand. I have never altered any of your postings. I am not 173.180.192.115. It's clear you have a problem following Wikipedia protocol and being neutral in regard to this issue -- evidenced by your being instructed to self-revert in relation to your violating the WP:EW rule in the article Operation Pillar of Defense.[31] I don't think anyone here has ever assumed your edits have been done in good faith. Sandy.Dickens (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
FYI. Check the facts before you make false accusations against an editor. On the Operation Pillar of Defense article I made an edit, another editor reverted me (using an erronous excuse) so I reverted him. That is a single revert. I self reverted only because the editor indicated on my Talk page that he thought I had violated 1RR and I was in a rush to leave so didn't have time to post a reply. Wayne (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
You'll have to excuse my suspicions. Four or five accounts seem to be using similar editing style, language, lack of civility and convoluted arguements. In one case you yourself have even used the same words in a sentence, in the same order and containing the same abreviation as one of the anons. I'll have to accept that it is simply coincidence. Wayne (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Split or no split?

Does Haniyah recognise Mashal? 128.69.129.169 (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

172,000 two years ago, 210,000 now.

It was already absurdly long back then ... just sayin'. The history section could be greatly shortened, since there is a separate entry on that.Haberstr (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

One other suggestion: delete if repetitive or move final two paragraphs of enormous introduction section to 'history' section.Haberstr (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I support moving or deleting most or all of the final two paragraphs of the lead.

Is Russia an Arab nation?

This article implies that Russia is an Arab nation in the second paragraph. Is that true?Jwhester (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No the predominant religion is catholic see Religion in Russia Darkness Shines (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I guess you mean "Arab nations, Iran, Russia,[14] and Turkey[15] do not". It doesn't imply that Iran, Russia or Turkey are Arab nations. Obviously they aren't, nor is Arab a religion. The sentence could be written "Russia, Turkey, Iran and Arab nations do not". Same thing. Go ahead and change it if you like. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines, apart from the fact that "Arab" is obviously not a religion, the article you link to states that in Russia the Catholics are less than 0.1 percent of the population, so your statement is somewhat remarkable. Paul K. (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I meant Russian Orthodox, which is Orthodox Christianity. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Making a false claim through ommission

I deleted some text refering to the recent Human Rights Watch (HRW) report. The HRW report speaks specifically about the Hamas Izz el-Din al-Qassam Brigades (who have their own article) and specifically excludes Hamas from actions taken by the Izz el-Din al-Qassam Brigades or any other Palesinian group. User: ‎AnkhMorpork reverted with the comment; HRW was referring to Hamas as evidenced by other sources. The other source he is talking about is the Jerusalem Post which reported on the HRW report, mostly in direct quotes. Where the HRW report says "Izz el-Din al-Qassam Brigades" the Jerusalem Post printed "Hamas" which is a lie through ommission. The text is actually accurate as it says Palestinian instead of Hamas or the brigades, but this text is about the brigades and does not refer to Hamas so is irrelevant here. As I break 1RR if I revert this bad faith edit again I have added tags with reasons to the text until a neutral editor can delete it. Wayne (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The brigades are part of Hamas, aren't they? So this info is relevant here. The Jerusalem Post seems like a reliable source - you can take it to the reliable sources notice boardDixy flyer (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The HRW report treats them as two separate organisations as do most world governments. Australia for example has stated that since 2007 the only connection that remains is an "ideological affinity". Hamas has no control over the brigades firing rockets so it is dishonest to ommit who fired them in order to implicate Hamas the political party. This issue has been brought up several times and there was a loose consensus to say the brigades when the source says brigades instead of writing only "Hamas". We actually had the rediculous situation a few weeks ago where Wikipedia said that Hamas was responsible for a bombing and that Hamas condemned the bombing. Wayne (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
What you are saying here is simply wrong. The HRW report says "Hamas' Izz el-Din al-Qassam Brigades" - note the possessive 's. It does not treat them as separate organizations with just a "ideological affinity - it treats the Brigades as something that is part of Hamas. What is dishonest is to pretend that Hamas is not responsible for actions carried out by one of its departments, and it is especially dishonest to do so when the very HRW report being used as reference for this claim in fact goes even further and says Hamas is responsible for ALL firing , by all groups as the ruling party: "Hamas, the ruling authority in Gaza, is obligated to uphold the laws of war and should appropriately punish those responsible for serious violations". Dixy flyer (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hamas is being used as an adjective (this is called a noun adjunct) in the report and as such does not indicate possession. The brigades have not been a "department" of Hamas since at least 2007 if not longer. The report does not state that Hamas is "responsible for ALL firing", it says Hamas is responsible for punishing those who violate International law in regards to the firing of rockets. Your view that Hamas is responsible for the brigades actions is a minority view and little more than propaganda. Wayne (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Wayne: Most world governments treat the Brigades as part of Hamas, including the Brigades article itself and this recent Reuters news article The November 2012 article, written from Gaza, specifically claims that they are the military wing of Hamas SimplesC (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that the brigades are not the military wing of Hamas. Being the military wing does not make them the same organisation. That Reuters article is lazy journalism at best. If you read down the page it makes at least two claims that are true for the brigades but false for Hamas. Since when has Mohammed Deif been chief of Hamas? From reading other articles from al-Mughrabi he apparently has a pro Fatah leaning in his reporting. Wayne (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree you can't just replace 'Al Qassam Brigades' and replace it with 'Hamas'. But can't a reasonable compromise be reached, in which Qassam Brigades is referred to in this Hamas article as "the Hamas-affiliated Al Qassam Brigades" or some such? 'Affiliated' is ambiguous enough to cover the range of possible relationships between the two organizations. None of us has special knowledge regarding the real relationship and RS is divided.Haberstr (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

terrorism cats

Thanks DS, you're right, I didn't mean to remove the other cats. As far as including it in a Terrorism in Israel category, we already have the neutrally named Category:Palestinian militant groups. Further, the category Category:Terrorism in Israel is for articles whose subject is actual terrorism in Israel. No other group is listed there, at least they werent until somebody added a bunch of articles to it. nableezy - 04:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Broken Citations

Is there a generally accepted way to fix broken citations? Chani916 (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If you mean broken in the sense that the URLs no longer work, using archive.org is accepted. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

official website

Marco 2 en (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Goals

I invite User:Wickey-nl to this page to explain the mass changes he tried to (and is now edit-warring) into article. Thank you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sure you are not really interested, but I explained already at my revert. In fact there is not so much new. I broke up the section to make clear that there are different goals. While the mainstream supports the two-state solution, beginning with the replacement of Israel followed by incitements is a non-starter.
I added a clear explanation with the right reference about the 1967 borders, but the wrong citation in it. By the way, is it OK to state that most Israeli leaders would support the destruction of the Palestinian Territories and replace it by Israel? Not so unrealistic.
Apart from this, the following charter section is one big incitement, meant to demonize Hamas. I want to add, that I do not glorify Hamas, nor promote terrorism. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"By the way, is it OK to state that most Israeli leaders would support the destruction of the Palestinian Territories and replace it by Israel? Not so unrealistic"
ARE YOU SERIOUS!? Do you now see why we require to propose drastic changes to an article at the talk page before proceeding?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hamas stated decades ago it wanted to destroy Israel - must be highlighted; Israel states it wants to destroy Palestine - must be kept out of wikipedia. These editors are as frightful as the nation they support. Sepsis II (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about. If someone said something in an official capacity on behalf of Israel, which you believe is relevant to Israel article, go there. Here we are talking about the Hamas charter, which include the movement founding principles, which is obviously a thing of note to this article.--PLNR (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@Wickey-nl, As noted before, there are several obvious problems with your major edit. You provided no edit summary, then you tried to pass it as just differentiating goals and chronological order. Which is far cry from what I can see, this edit is riddled with minor additions and adjustments, which are very hard to notice due to the restructure, thus my reason for requesting you to break it down and explain each step so we can easily review it. Among the changes there are at least two unreferenced additions with vague statements, which you placed as section leads:
While there are different views among Hamas leaders, many of them[who?] support a two-state solution, that is an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel. In past years, a number of Hamas leaders have plead for a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.
Some[who?] Hamas leaders call for the destruction of Israel pursuant to Hamas' 1988 charter, which calls for the replacement of Israel and the Palestinian Territories with an Islamic Palestinian state.
Other than that your restructuring seem to follow your blunt POV from your comment above. So instead of trying to present how Hamas Goals has evolved since its foundation in chronological order, you just took couple of paragraphs you don't like and moved them to the back, starting with more "favorable" statement Hamas has made since 2006. --PLNR (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
True, the original text was already in chronological order. About the order of sub-sections we can discuss, relevance or chronology. Why begin the section with the Charter and follow with a whole sub-section about it? The two-state solution is a very relevant issue that deserves a sub-section. Your suggestion that my added leads have weasel words is wrong; they are followed by examples. I can imagine that the reference to the UN Partition plan is confusing, though truely the basis for Palestinian resistance.
Now the basic questions. Is Hamas an organisation of present-day people with different ideas, or is Hamas the Charter? Accordantly, are Hamas' goals the goals of that people, or the goals in the propagandistic Charter?
Having said that, it violates WP:NPOV to use in the text citations of statements that are used as propaganda. Like and stated that he dreamed "of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it.", or and stated that Hamas will never recognize the "usurper Zionist government" and will continue "jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem". The latter without knowing the meaning of "never recognize", containing an incitement, and containing the controversial term jihad. This to be distinguished from serious citations like "The question of recognizing Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people.", or "We would never thwart efforts to create an independent Palestinian state with borders [from] June 4, 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital.". --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the Hamas affiliated military wing, has launched attacks on Israel, against both civilian and military targets"

This is the first sentence of the fourth paragraph in the lede. Can anyone point to exactly where in any of the sources listed there is attribution for the claim re "military targets." Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

e.g. "Since 2005, however, the majority of the terrorist activity conducted by the Brigades has consisted of small-arms fire and rocket and mortar fire directed at Israeli military assets and communities in the vicinity of Gaza"."Hamas's Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades". Australian Government Sean.hoyland - talk 06:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think this is an issue. Of course they've attacked military targets. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

notable tid bits

Here are several tidbits which are notable in relation to Hamas:

as momentum is building toward peaceful resolutions on the region's most intractable crises, Palestinian extremists are preparing to return Gaza to the limelight of conflict. Just three weeks into 2014, Palestinian militants have fired more than 20 rockets into Israel, compared with roughly 40 total during 2013. On Jan. 16, six rockets were fired at the city of Ashkelon. An Iron Dome anti-missile battery downed five and prevented what would undoubtedly have been a major escalation.

As the roar of rockets and jet-engines returns to the skies of Gaza, it seems as though Hamas may not mind another escalation—so long as it is not blamed for triggering it. Under the watchful eye of Israeli and Egyptian intelligence, the group has made preparations to outdo itself during the next confrontation with Israel. It has test-fired numerous long-range, homemade M-75 rockets, which can reach Tel Aviv's high-tech centers and Jerusalem's holy sites. It has dug massive tunnels throughout the Gaza Strip and across the Israeli border.[2]

In June, 2013, due to Egyptian pressure, Hamas deploys 600-strong force to prevent rocket fire into Israel from Gaza. Over the following months a dramatic decline in the number of rockets fired at Israel have been noted.[3] As of February 2014, Hamas has removed most of its anti-rocket force it employed to prevent cross border attack into Israel. Hamas's move is likely to be interpreted as a green light to fire on Israel by the various terror groups in Gaza. In the wake of of several incidents of rocket fire into Israel of recent weeks, Israeli minister already warned IDF may invade Gaza if attacks don't stop.[4]

According to Israeli defense sources, Hamas initiated or inspired 45% of terror attacks in the West Bank.[5] The rise in terror attacks in the West Bank, is linked to a noticeable decline in the Palestinian Authority's ability to maintain stability in there.


The Israeli Security Agency reported that there were 1,271 attacks in the West Bank in 2013, compared to 578 attacks in 2012. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4481793,00.html

The Israeli Security Agency has arrested 16 "prominent operatives with Hamas in eastern Jerusalem and members of its operations branch, and among the leaders of its activities at the Temple Mount". The Islamic Movement was operating educational courses on the Temple Mount and paying people to maintain a presence there in order to "increase the tension and cause disturbances, especially during Jewish holidays."[6]

Hamas political violence: http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/4119.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.101.105 (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Main problem is COI sources for the specific claims. The first item is irrelevant as they are talking about the brigades and not Hamas, the subject of this article. The second item is POV as Hamas already had a policy of preventing rocket attacks prior to 2013. Third item needs better sources. Fourth is POV. Fifth is POV. Wayne (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It depends on how you use it and where you use, I did said the are notable in relation to Hamas.
1. brigades are the armed wing of the Hamas... it also provide rocket fire stats for 2012, 2013.
2. Whatever hamas policy, this is clearly notable WP:RS about Hamas getting result when they want and how their recent policy may cause an escalation.
3. better sourcing? since when Ynet is not WP:RS ?
4. What POV about Hamas activites inside Israel and actively trying to incite?
5. What POv about direct quotes of Hamas political violence?
It seems to me that you have a POV... --84.111.101.105 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2014

In the "Milatary Wing" section, Sinn Fein is referred to as a "Northern Ireland political party", aside from being poor grammar it should read "Irish political party" due to the fact that Sinn Fein operate and stand for election in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and due to the fact that members of Sinn Fein would, without exeption, consider themselves to be Irish and not Northern Irish. It could in fact be argued that this is the reason for Sinn Fein's entire existence. Thank You. 82.4.222.235 (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done - albeit that I removed all mention of Irish, because the cited source does not mention it, and it is fairly obvious from the juxtaposition with Irish Republican Army. - Arjayay (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

>> Egypt court bans all activities by Hamas(Lihaas (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)).

Cherry picking from a survey

In the section on "Public opinion about Hamas", information from a Pew survey is quoted, however they only quote the figures from countries were support of Hamas was highest. There is no reason to only quote the numbers in Arab countries, and not include the information about Pakistan and Turkey where the same survey found only 18% and 9% holding favorable views. Picking to report only on these countries in which support was over 45% constitutes bias, and I believe the article would be slightly more balanced if it included additional figures. Current form: "A 2010 Pew Global Attitudes Survey found that 60% of Jordanian Muslims and 49% of Muslims in both Lebanon and Egypt held a favorable opinion of Hamas.[409] Suggested addition The same survey however has only found 9% holding views in favor of Hamas in Turkey, and 18% in Pakistan. I also suggest deleting the title "Views in Arab countries", as there are no sections for other areas, and there's no special need to concentrate on Arab countries. 94.230.86.12 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Canada's designation of Hamas

The argument is in regard to whether the wording used by the primary source [a designation] should be used in the infobox. Or that the article should use an interpretation of the primary source that is supported by some secondary sources. See section above for discussion to date.

Hamas has been a currently listed entity associated with terrorism since 2002. Being a "listed terrorist entity" by Public Safety Canada, a department of the Government of Canada, constitutes legal designation as "an entity associated with terrorism", and makes it a criminal offense to "enhance the ability of the group to carry out terrorist activities". Verbatim, the Government of Canada establishes that, "For listed entities, the fact of being listed establishes them as terrorist groups". [7]

Warsilver (talk • contribs) 16:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hamas Flag - there seems to be not really an offical one!

Currently we have a white calligraphy on a green wide-format banner mentioned as the "Hamas Flag". Actually when clicking on the image you will see its description on commons telling you that it is a general islamic flag that not only Hamas members are using on demonstrations and other events. Furthermore there is not translation at all what the meanings of the letters on the flag is. Thus I am in very doubt on the validity of including those image on those flag on such a prominent location without any additional expression for its questionable status. Rather I would tick removing it from there. If someone wants to keep that flag or even alternate flags a separate section might be adequate factual discussion the topic so the reader can decide on its own. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel and the early Hamas

Currently the article states:

Former military intelligence officer Shalom Harari said the warnings were ignored out of neglect, not a desire to fortify the Islamists: "Israel never financed Hamas. Israel never armed Hamas."

This makes you wonder why Harari is cited here at all. Presumably to dispel claims or the notion that Israel "supported" Hamas in anyway. However before possibly dispelling such notions they should be formulated and sourced first. The following sources might be of help here:

--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Lede

Rearranged the lede to better reflect WP:MOS guidelines, including joining two paragraphs which both continued to define the organization and switching sentences for smoother, more encyclopedic flow. Mercy11 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Too pro Hamas

In attempt to be NPOV this article minimizes he major terrorism that they engage in. Enough leading countries classify Hamas as a terrorist group.96.56.73.170 (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


I agree.209.252.250.6 (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. The word "terrorist" appears 49 times in the article (not enough?), there is a very large "criticism" section, and there is a listing of all countries designating them as "terrorist." And the "leading countries" you mention are actually not very numerous, are mostly western (North American or European, obviously; some, like the US, have themselves been terror sponsors such as in the Cuba or Nicaragua conflicts, thus draining their "terrorism" rhetoric of any real meaning -- the article airs their designation of Hamas without any attention to the obvious bad faith, and the article has a generally pro-US pro-Israel tone by repeatedly treating US and Israeli statesmen as credible sources), and are hardly representative of general international opinion. Not to mention that China and Russia (who view Hamas as fairly elected) are "leading countries" just the same, Turkey is a regional power, and the article even mentions the negative opinions of Jordan's and Egypt's rulers, without mentioning the good relations of Hamas elsewhere throughout the Arab world.

The article does call attention to things they should be fairly criticized for. Their brand of Islamization has implemented a draconian rule of law in Gaza where even hash smokers can be executed, and they bear responsibility for rocket attacks against civilians which is deplorable. But all that is already mentioned with due weight! If you think 49 mentions of "terrorism" is not enough, you're just tipping your hand, showing an obvious intent to introduce a slant from a US/Israeli perspective which, surely you know, is hardly the dominant perspective in the world. 71.167.107.243 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Totally Disagree that this article is overly-balanced towards Hamas. If anything, 49 mentions of 'terrorism', would seem a fair indication that this article is anti-Hamas. The reason countries call Hamas as a 'terrorist' group is because they are under pressure from their Uncle Sam to maintain this lie. Does not calling Hamas a 'terrorist' group help deflect attention away Israel and its' terror tactics? For, despite targeting schools and killing children, the US government avoids any mention of Israel's War Crimes. WHY? 88.107.51.86 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

I rectified this yesterday, but it was reversed: 'The Arabic word Hamas also means devotion and zeal in the path of Allah.' I can confirm that this is inaccurate. The Arabic word 'Hamas' means enthusiasm, zeal, alacrity, eagerness, and so on. 'In the path of Allah' is definitly not part of the definition of the Arabic word, nor can 'Hamas' mean 'devotion' in any context. Also note that the source is not a reliable source, it is clearly a hasbara-related book that is being quoted. Whomeyeahyou000 (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it safe to rectify the 'Etymology' section without having the changes made reversed? Whomeyeahyou000 (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you remove a bogus objection?

In the section on Hamas launching rockets near civilian areas, someone has added the tag "not in source cited." But if you read the source, the citation is in fact, right there, and the Wiki text is almost a word-for-word paraphrase. So if something IS in the source cited, how do you get rid of those misleading tags? Theonemacduff (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Quotations from the Hamas charter

In the quote from the charter there are comments from the author(killing the Jews) (evidently a certain kind of tree). These should be removed. Why have they not been removed before now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesmondE (talk • contribs) 15:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014

Ron Paul an American Politician describes how Hamas was supported by Israel to oppose the Fatah political group. The US pushed for a democratic election and Hamas was elected.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152616249410910

Homous888 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done – View that US pushed for election must be sourced via secondary sources such as journals and books written by scholars or journalists. This is simply one politician (out of many) speaking his mind. – S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2014

"International designation of Hamas" "Jordan" One reference link is dead and second link only says "Jordan refused to open their office in Jordon"

"Egypt"

One Link is dead and second list does not say Hamas is a terrorist organization

Please remove these two countries as their reference links prove nothing!

117.244.40.4 (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done – More specific information is needed. Which link is dead? Which says "Jordan refused"? (You might designate by footnote numbers.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly biased article

This article is clearly biased to benefit the Israeli position. It discusses only attacks made by Hamas, but does give any indication about the equally atrocious acts committed by the Israelis. The article makes it sound as if Hamas is just randomly attacking Israel for no apparent reason. While the authors may not agree with Hamas, the article should still include the reasons Hamas gives for making the attacks. Most of the attacks on both sides are mostly retaliation against each other for various incidents and that is not made clear in the article. Also, I think it is unfair to label a group as "terrorist" just because one does not agree with them. The United States could also be called "terrorists" for their acts of aggression in the Middle East and North Africa. It's a matter of perspective. It is fine to indicate that "these countries believe this group to be a terrorist organization", but it is unfair of the authors to label the group as a terrorist organization based on their own government opinions. Please modify the article and make it more objective and less sensationalized. This is not The National Enquirer. These articles are supposed to factual and without bias. Thank you.99.126.154.138 (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)R. Westwood

Have to say "nope" - very well-sourced and balanced article. Your objections do not coincide with the vast majority of scholars and journalists on the issue. We rely on Reliable Sources, not personal opinions.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Please feel free to make the edits you believe will improve the article. Sepsis II (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It is very biased in many parts, obviously it has gone through the Hasbara machine, much like every other Israel-Palestine related page on Wikipedia. You can try and change it if you like, but chances are your changes will be reversed. A whole lot of effort will be required to correct this piece. If you have the time, feel free to correct it. But I wouldn't worry too much, as it is becoming increasingly apparent that Wikipedia is not a trusted source when it coms to this issue. Whomeyeahyou000 (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


The following statement and citation under "Social Welfare" is very inaccurate. I'd have made changes, however the article is locked. "Since the 2008–2009 Israeli military operation in Gaza, Palestinian public opinion polls have shown Hamas steadily increasing in popularity with 52% support compared to 13% for Fatah. All public opinion surveys conducted recently have supported this trend.[62]"

The citation referred to is from 2005, and recent polls show Hamas with significantly less support than Fatah which is now supported by the vast majority of Palestinians. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/gaza-public-rejects-hamas-wants-ceasefire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.228.94 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

America is a terrorist supporter? Don't be ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.42.58 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

How are defensive acts atrocious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.107.150 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

hamas blamed for attacks they didn't commit

although hamas was initially blamed for the kidnapping, it was later revealed that they had nothing to do with it. also, the rockets are mostly being launched by islamic jihad and smaller extremist cells. hamas didn't launch any since 2012 until about 2 weeks into operation protective edge and that was in retaliation for targeting civilian authorities in their homes breaking ramadan fast with their families using banned munitions. in 14 years, those rockets have only killed 28 people. the israelis killed that many in one strike dozens of times in the last month.

this article in times of israel pretty much admits to demonizing hamas.


[8]

"While Israel has maintained it holds Hamas responsible for all rocket attacks, officials have said that smaller groups, such as Islamic Jihad, are usually behind the rocket attacks, while Hamas squads generally attempt to thwart the rocket fire."

TommyTooter (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Hamas charter under "Charter" section

Sentence 3 of the Charter section reads "The charter ... calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel." The charter does not suggest the dissolution of Israel but insists on obliteration thereof quite plainly in the first section: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it." [9]

Fooaz (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Hamas Charter is in Arabic, not in English, so you can't argue about nuances of meaning on the basis of a translation. Another translation I have uses "nullify". Zerotalk 10:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Assuming Zero is correct, that would mean that no translation of the Hamas Charter from Arabic should be used. Now where do we go? Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Tunnel evidence

Prelude, Paragraph 4: Quote - "After a four-month calm, the conflict escalated when Israel carried out a military action with the stated aim of preventing an abduction planned by Hamas, using a tunnel that had been dug under the border security fence, and killed seven Hamas operatives. In retaliation, Hamas attacked Israel with a barrage of rockets.[43][44]". In the two quoted references I see no evidence that this was a tunnel dug under the border fence into Israeli territory with the intention of kidnapping IDF members. All I see is a verbatim reiteration of a claim by the IDF, one of the protagonists in the conflict. I am new to Wiki, but I have problems believing that a statement by the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades would be accepted as the sole unsupported evidence on such a crucial issue as the breaking of a 4 month ceasefire. So why allow the IDF claim? There are no photos, no excavation on the Israeli side revealing the tunnel; no interviews with credible reporters who saw it. In fact exactly the opposite is true. The Carter Institute is on record that it was a simple defensive tunnel (of which there must be hundreds in Gaza)[10]. Discuss? Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

Please change the section stating when the bodies of the Israeli teenagers were found and the identity of the murderers of the three Israeli teenagers. The information currently provided is factually incorrect Israeli authorities knew the teenagers were dead on June 13th (not June 30th) and the two suspects were not Hamas members. The source is the Jewish Forward.

http://forward.com/articles/201764/how-politics-and-lies-triggered-an-unintended-war/

Suggested revised text should be:

IDF initiated an operation in the West Bank aimed to find them. Evidence suggests Israeli authorities knew the teenagers were dead by June 13th but withheld this information until the bodies were discovered on July 1st. Israeli authorities named two individuals as prime suspects: Amer Abu Aysha and Marwan Kawasm. They further allege at least one of the two suspects, Amer Abu Aysha, was associated with Hamas. Hamas, however, denied responsibility for the killings and that these individuals were members. Israel nonetheless arrested and detained approximately 500 Hamas members in response to the murders. The increased tensions soon escalated, and a full military operation began on July 8. Cognosco2000 (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Due to the history of the page, a discussion about this is probably better than me leaping in. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There are respected news agencies out there who reported that Israeli officials knew the teens were dead three hours after their abduction - Aljazeera,[11] and Haaretz[12] good enough? Now ... given that .... why did Israel find it necessary to pretend that they were being searched for, for two full weeks. Some good impartial analysis of THAT question should be interesting. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Memri as a source

Even if the information is probably true, MEMRI is not an acceptable source for this topic. I transfered here some information until a WP:RS is found :

The August 2, 2010 [[Rocket attacks on Eilat and Aqaba]] sparked rage in Egypt at Hamas and [[Iran]]. The Egyptian press stated that the firing of the rockets from Egyptian territory by Hamas or by organizations cooperating with it constituted the crossing of a red line. The Egyptian position is that Iran is employing local proxies, such as Hamas, to escalate violence in the Middle East and to sabotage the Palestinian reconciliation efforts, as well as efforts to renew Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations.<ref>[http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4568.htm Rage in Egypt at Hamas and Iran following Rocket Attacks on Eilat, Aqaba], MEMRI Special Dispatch No.3200</ref> Later that year, the Egyptian government daily [[Al-Gumhouriyya]] also slammed Hamas's firing of "primitive" rockets at Israel that, according to the writer, serve only to prompt a deadly response from Israel. He blamed Hamas for turning the Gaza Strip into a "big prison" isolated from the world, where the residents suffer poverty while the leaders live in luxury.<ref>Al-Gumhouriyya (Egypt), October 22, 2010. By Abdallah Al-Naggar. translation by [http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4715.htm MEMRI]</ref>

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Kirton, John (2007). Andrew F. Cooper, Dane Rowlands (ed.). Canada Among Nations, 2006: Minorities And Priorities. McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 45. ISBN 978-0773531642.
  2. ^ War Looms in Gaza, Wall Street Journal, 23, Jan, 2014
  3. ^ Hamas deploys 600-strong force to prevent rocket fire at Israel, Times of Israel, June 17, 2013
  4. ^ Hamas has removed most of the 900-strong force it employs to prevent rocket fire into Israel from Gaza, Times of Israel, February 1, 2014
  5. ^ 2014 could be even worse, Ynet, 01.27.14
  6. ^ Shin Bet, police arrest 16 Hamas activists in Jerusalem, jpost, 01/28/2014
  7. ^ "About the Anti-terrorism Act". Department of Justice, Government of Canada. September 12, 2013.
  8. ^ ttp://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-fired-rockets-for-first-time-since-2012-israeli-officials-say/
  9. ^ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
  10. ^ http://www.cartercenter.org/news/editorials_speeches/gaza_010809.html
  11. ^ http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/israel-hamas-palestiniansconflictunitedstatesinternationallaw.html
  12. ^ http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.602281

The bottom line

Why is Israel assailed for things when other governments&#151;MANY other governments&#151;do such things, and far worse, every day?

I'll tell you why: Jews are evaluated against a much higher moral and intellectual plane.

So, despite frantic "politically correct" attempts not to demonstrate that Jews are superior, we end up demonstrating just that: that Jews are superior.

It's funny how these things work. When scientists conduct a detailed study and determine that Ashkenazic Jews have an average IQ eighteen points above the average, those groups at the bottom, like Hispanics, are all up in arms. Gosh, if the Hispanics found themselves placed at 118, THEY WOULDN'T BE SO QUICK TO COMPLAIN!

What's good for the Goosenstein is good for the Ganderberg! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.49.1.133 (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

→I suggest deleting this section. It is not directly linked or germane to the page under discussion. Burressd (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Switzerland as a country that recognize Hamas as a legit group

Please add Switzerland as a country that recognize Hamas as a legit group (non-terrorist).

Sources:

Fbarriga (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: I don't see where these sources say Switzerland recognizes Hamas as a non-terrorist group. The 1st just says the Swiss met with a delegation from Hamas, the 2nd says they recognize Palestinian National Consensus Government, which I think is jointly formed by the PLO and Hamas. I dont know enough about this sort of thing to read between any lines and the lines I read say nothing explicitly about them recognizing Hamas as anything Cannolis (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2014

May I have a one-time authorization to edit this page. I just would like to add detailed information regarding the topic/article. My wikipedia account is actually new and reason I didn't manage to make 10 edits for automatic authorization is exactly because I just made the account to contribute to the page.

Hjexo (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

Cleanup / POV check of the history may help: unexplained removals / unsourced additions on Hamas and Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades (and related). Edits from User:Marco 2 en need further scrutiny, including those incorrectly marked as minor. Widefox; talk 10:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

When you talk about anything you should bring the information from correct sources which belong to it. NOT from it's enemy, all the sources as we see are Israelis sources. So it's NOT Neutral point of view. We should go to HAMAS websites and books and collect the information from there. thanks. Marco 2 en (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources. The issue is WP:NPOV (and WP:WEIGHT) where we use SECONDARY and TERTIARY sources. Anyhow, blanking content, repeatedly changing titles and POV pushing is not allowed, strictly so with this article under DS. Widefox; talk 11:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Title

The Official title from the official website is: The Islamic Resistance Movement[1] shorten Hamas . When i change it u User:Darkness Shines + User:Widefox delete my changes. and blocked me !! Marco 2 en (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Official title from the official website
You are not blocked, and need to read WP:UCN Darkness Shines (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
What's about this.. look.. . And about the official name where we can put it? Marco 2 en (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
UCN is a good start, and read WP:OFFICIAL "It should always be provided early in an article's introduction, bolded at its first mention and, ..". Keep the current common name, and use a reference. Pls read the top of this talk page especially "be bold, but not reckless". PS nobody has blocked you, and as long as you discuss these bold changes before making them, they will not be reckless. Also worth seeing WP:CONSENSUS. Widefox; talk 12:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Overflowing with unnecessary references

The article is Overflowing with unnecessary referencing. ex: Five references for just one line!!!, it's make it heavy unreadable. I can't delete them b/c u scare me with ur rules. Marco 2 en (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you detail which and gain consensus here (for example by replacing multiple ones with fewer better ones) before removing any references. Note from your comment above that you're self identifying as WP:POV pushing. See WP:NOTADVOCATE Widefox; talk 13:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Funding

"...In August 2011, the U.S State Department threatened to cut 100 million dollars in aid it sends to the Gaza Strip if Hamas continues to insist upon auditing American foreign aid organizations after Hamas suspended operations of the International Medical Corps following the group's refusal to submit to an on-site audit."

This Sentence is poorly worded, and difficult to follow. Could someone please clean it up? --69.27.242.194 (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Is Hamas Sunni?

I'm not saying it isn't, but I can see nothing to support this definition in the references cited. Although Hamas emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood, I'm not sure that any scholar of Islam would regard Hamas as mainstream Sunni. If it sits within a particular branch of Sunni, maybe that could be stated with an appropriate reference? Kirker (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No response, so I've taken out main references to Sunni Islam. Kirker (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamas/Archive_15&oldid=1079504033"