Talk:Hamas

Quotes in citations

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

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.07.2008 06:18

However, its founding charter, writings, and many of its public statements[7] reflect an incontrovertible evidence of Anti-zionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhizabr (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 January 2009

Was Hamas created in 1976, 1987, 1988?

1976

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

1987:

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

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

1988

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.68.157.246 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 4 January 2009

Enough of "POV"

Editors must be explicit in their reasoning. Blanket condemnation of "POV" is not sufficient for removing content. For example:

Per WP:POV "known to" is present tense.

• Known is past tense
• The source clearly states Hamas supports the families of suicide bombers. Just because suicide bombings have stopped does not mean financial support for the families of suicide bombers has stopped. Editors made that conclusion on their own without consulting the source. This isn't even about POV. It is about verifiability. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a common sense edit that doesn't need explaining to native English speakers. "known" on it's own may in some convoluted way be construed to be past tense but the sentence says "the party is known to..." which is present tense. If you want it to read past tense then it should read "was once known for" which also requires you to separate out the claim into it's own sentence as it is no longer applicable. HAMAS has not done this for five years so it is POV to imply they still do so and as their support is already mentioned several times in the article it would be irrelevant anyway. Just because something is negative doesn't make it's inclusion mandatory. Wayne (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the sentence:

The party is known to financially support families of those who have been killed (including suicide bombers) or imprisoned while carrying out militant action or supporting such action.

There is nothing to suggest Hamas has ceased supporting the families of those who have been killed by suicide bombers. Rather, Hamas has failed to pull of a suicide bombing in five years. Do you see the disconnect here? It would be POV (whatever that means) to remove cited information because an editor doesn't think it matches the current position of Hamas. But the source is explicit. It's about aiding the welfare of relatives/families of suicide bombers. Do those families suddenly go away when Hamas halted suicide attacks? No. Please restore the edit, the removal is without merit. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hamas has NOT "failed to pull off a suicide bombing in five years". Hamas renounced suicide bombings in 2006 and no longer supports such attacks. The edit remained in the article for five years despite being outdated so it was due for removal. Implying that HAMAS still supports suicide attacks is POV however you look at it. Here's a similar example that may be easier to understand, would it be correct grammar to say "Wikifan is known to wet his bed" based on it being true when you were a baby? We could now correctly say "was once known to" but would it be relevant? No, because it has become POV. Wayne (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said Hamas supports suicide bombings, no one is implying anything. You removed the edit under the premise that it was "POV" because Hamas has halted suicide bombings. HOWEVER, the source does not dispute this - rather, it says, as I quoted above verbatim, Hamas supports the families of suicide bombers and their relatives. Do you have a source that says something else? Do you have a source that says, explicitly, Hamas no longer provides welfare for the families of suicide bombers? No. Your removal was based on your own perspective, not what the sources say. So restore the cited edit unless you can find an RS that supports your removal. Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

pretty clear that it is a simple case of reliable source says 'x', so leave it in. and in any case, hamas continues with their suicide bombings - february 4, 2008, and with their terror killings of israelis - august 31, 2010, as seen in this reuters article. Soosim (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the Israel ministry of foreign affairs (MFA) suicide bombings since 2005 were carried out by Islamic Jihad or the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades which is Fatah not HAMAS. Quite a few sources say the February 4, 2008 attack was HAMAS and some say al-Aqsa and HAMAS both claimed responsibility but the Israeli government says al-Aqsa with HAMAS praising the attack. The closest I can find for HAMAS still being involved in suicide bombing is a statement made by MFA spokesman Yigael Palmor in June last year where he said "the separation barrier and the good work of the Israeli and Palestinian Authority security services is the reason there have been no suicide bombings (since 2005), the intent of Hamas is still there, their capacity has been neutralised." HAMAS renounced suicide bombings in 2006, 2008 and again in 2011. Wayne (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that, but Soosim is right. Source says "x" - no source has yet to refute it. The fact that there is a lull in suicide bombings by Hamas has nothing to do with Hamas financial support for the families members of suicide bombers. Get it? This has been repeated again and again and yet you respond with claims that editors are denying the fact that Hamas ended suicide bombings. This has nothing to do with actual terrorist acts. Is this making sense? Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The article already mentions HAMAS involvement in past suicide attacks in both the lead and body of the article. This edit is written in the present tense which implies that suicide bombing is still ongoing which is POV. Wayne (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the sentence implies nothing other than Hamas supports the families of suicide bombers. Nothing POV about it. Only thing POV is editors removing cited content. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The sentence still says HAMAS pays the families of militants killed which by definition includes suicide bombers. Do you also want to separate out the other types of militants to? Do we specifically mention militants who murdered Israelis and militants who were murdered by Israelis? The sentence is accurate, does not exclude suicide bombers and specifically mentioning one type of militant that no longer exists (in the present tense) appears to be little more than an attempt to portray HAMAS as negatively as possible. Wayne (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hamas is doing a great job portraying themselves that way. The source has no relationship with the lull in suicide bombings - your original reasoning for deletion. We have two editors in this discussion that have said, quite simply, the content is backed by a source. Do you have a ref that says Hamas no longer supports the families of suicide bombers? We as editors cannot come to those kinds of conclusions. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you bother to read what people write? You have not answered any of my concerns and made false claims regarding the edit. WP does not require everything in a source to be minutely detailed or you may as well copy/paste the entire article. My version does not exclude suicide bombers as you claim. You appear to support inclusion solely because it is negative information with no regard to NPOV. Answer my concerns or get someone who speaks better English to explain the grammar construction if you dont understand them. Wayne (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I read what you wrote. WP requires everything to be cited. Saying Hamas no longer supports the families of suicide bombers because there is a lull in suicide bombing is original research. Do you have a ref that supports such an edit? Two editors have asked you. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Point out where I said HAMAS no longer supports the families of suicide bombers. You ignore what is being said and then make false claims to avoid having to support your own view. My proposed edit still says HAMAS pays the families of militants killed which by definition includes suicide bombers. It avoids implying that HAMAS still condones suicide bombings. This is a grammatical edit not rocket science. Wayne (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Militant Wing/Social wing

Is there evidence that describes a unique "military" and "social wing" independent of each other? Numerous governments have recognized Hamas' militant platform as criminal/illegal/etc, but do not see the diplomatic wing in the same way.

But does the diplomatic wing=social "wing?" Gaza is heavily dependent on welfare from international aid organizations. Hamas fiscal contributions to the general welfare of Palestinians is almost entirely dependent on the support of foreign benefactors. I took the liberty of switching "social wing" with "social welfare" as none of the sources seem to refer to a "social wing." Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

HAMAS social welfare spending comes out of it's own organisational budget, not foreign aid (if we exclude Arab donors) and is separate from the domestic budget. The welfare comes from HAMAS the organisation. Wayne (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not according to the sources in the article. The UN and aid organizations are responsible for the vast majority of the social needs of Palestinians - i.e, supporting their refugee status. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing the HAMAS budget with the domestic budget. The UN and aid organizations do not contribute to HAMAS which spends the majority of it's budget on social welfare. The contributions of aid organisations to welfare is irrelevant outside of a summary in the domestic funding subsection as this article is about HAMAS. Wayne (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going by what the sources say. The section infers that Hamas (government) is responsible for all social needs, when in reality it contributes a fraction monetarily. Also, it's Hamas - not HAMAS. Per MoS, use Hamas in the article. Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That section is about work done using the HAMAS budget. HAMAS funding and domestic funding both have their own sections. HAMAS is an acronym so should be capitalised. I stick with the correct English through habit. Wayne (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying HAMAS? Hamas is not an acronym in the English language. MOS:ENGVAR. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What difference does it make what language the original is in? MOS:ENGVAR allows capitals for an acronym when it is the name of an institution. A google search shows both capital and lower case versions so both are used. Free English Grammar lesson: capitalisation: When a technical acronym becomes a common word in the English language it no longer needs capitalisation (ie:scuba). The most common capitalization scheme used with acronyms is all capitals. Acronyms of organisations should be capitilised (ie: CIA) however, acronyms longer than either three or four letters depending on the media organisations own MOS (the BBC MOS still requires all capitalisation) are usually written in lower case to avoid a jarring appearance in news articles (ie: Nato). Acronyms of organisations written in lower case should always be capitalised when used in a headline. That being said I'm not interested in requiring correct capitalisation in the article although I do find obvious or deliberately incorrect English little more than ignorance. However sentence construction is a different matter. Wayne (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Per MoS, Hamas is the correct word. The article cannot be littered with alternative spellings. Understand? Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The State of Israel's Right-To-Exist Issue

One of the core issues in public discourse on Hamas today is the Right To Exist of the state of Israel. This phrase should exist somewhere in this article (as it does rather prominently in the PLO article) simply and directly expressing what the past and current positions of Hamas were and/or are on this issue. Currently any statements on this issue are not phrased explicitly with the Right-to-exist language and are also somewhat hidden in a larger paragraph discussing the emotional ambivalence and/or hopes and dreams of their leaders for the Palestinian people. Hamas either does or does not formally and explictly acknowledge a right for the State of Israel to exist. The PLO does and reading the Hamas article literally doesn't let me know if Hamas has at some point explicitly (but that fact is merely missing from the article) or if they do only implictly (by some possible/theoretical inference of vague statements by their leaders) or rejects it explicitly (again with missing references to any possible statements of Hamas to this effect.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.151.83 (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a simple question but it should have it's own section in the article. Ignoring some Hamas members who are only giving their personal views, Hamas as an organisation publicly accepted Israel's "right to exist" in 2008 and Aziz Duwaik went even further last year by stating Hamas would also publicly nullify the charter. Khaled Mashaal had rejected this in 2008 by saying that although the charter was no longer relevant or enforced, nullifying it would lead to a loss of public support for Hamas. However, the recognition of Israel is based on a reciprocal recognition by Israel of a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital and a solution for the refugee problem. Despite pressure from the international community (with the notable exception of the U.S.) for Israel to negotiate with Hamas, Israel has a policy of not recognising Hamas as a legitimate mediator for the Palestinian people. Having said that, Israel is willing to negotiate if Hamas officially accepts Israel's "right to exist" unconditionally. This of course means Hamas would have to accept the legitimacy of the post-1967 borders which the Palestinian people will not accept. Wayne (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland

You probably can't read German, but if u could you would see that the article you provide clearly states, that Switzerland condemns Hamas terror action against Israel. Furthermore it states that a law against terrorism did not go through in 2003, hence Switzerland cannot forbid ANY organisation for being a terror organisation. However swiss law punishes terror acts. Switzerland has to be crossed out from the list, because it does not even have a legal basis for calling any organisation a terror organisation. --78.104.63.194 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)