Talk:Hamas government in the Gaza Strip

Old criticism

Oh great, yet another work of fiction masquerading as fact. As if Wikipedia didn't have enough of them already. 6SJ7 02:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific in your criticisms. As it is, your comment has zero value for improving this article. Eleland 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to improve this article. It is about something that does not exist. 6SJ7 23:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. There's a group, called Hamas, which has officials, a police force, military, etc, set up in the Gaza Strip, they're enforcing law and order, people have even jokingly talked about "Hamasistan" and "the three-state solution". Are you objecting to the name "Gaza Strip Government", which may be something of a neologism? Or do you just not want to acknowledge that a separate government exists, de facto, in Gaza? Eleland 01:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Start with the name. Just because something happens somewhere in the world doesn't mean it's necessary to create an article about something that may be the case for only a few weeks, with a made-up, original-research name. But it is a bigger problem than just the name. I have the same problem with the fact that someone added Gaza to the List of countries, which fortunately was corrected. I think people need to just relax a little and not try to write history while it's still happening. 6SJ7 02:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't really argue with that. There does seem to be a "frist psot!" mentality at work, which favors the immediate creation of an article for every single event. Do you think this information should be merged and redirected to Gaza Strip? Eleland 02:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be merged somewhere, or simply deleted. The name is unreferenced and it is unlikely that either Hamas or its opponents would use this name. The information in the article looks similar to and probably duplicates information in other articles on the recent conflict. --JWB 06:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Name change

I have changed the name of the article to "Governance of the Gaza Strip" and removed all references to "Gaza Strip Government". I hope this addresses some of the concerns mentioned in this discussion.

Dn9ahx (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge with PNA

I suggest any information unique to this page (which is not much) be merged into the article on Palestinian National Authority for the simple reason that Hamas has never claimed it is an entity separate from the PNA (and recognizes Mahmoud Abbas as the legitimate president). There do exist two separate governments that claim to be legitimate, but they both operate under the name "Palestinian National Authority". --Fjmustak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Nableezy (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense - See North Korea and South Korea - they both claim to be the "true" Korean state, and claim soveregnity over the entire Korean peninsula. Same Hamas and PNA claim the entire Palestinian territories, and claim to be the only "legitimate" representative of the Palestinian people.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

New Commentary

Please don't delete this without the due respect of reading (and even possibly commenting) on the content.

Hamas was elected to fill a majority of Assembly seats. They were not elected with the mandate of overthrowing the REST of the democratically elected government and institutions that legitmately existed and helped govern the Gaza Strip. This fact was not duly reflected until my edits were made. My edits allow for the fact that Hamas had legitimacy because of their election originally, and the questioning of that legitimacy after they violated their election mandate. It is patently one sided to not make note of this.Gamesformay (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

you are confused on a few things, Fatah attempted a coup in Gaza, Hamas repelled the coup. Gaza itself does not have elections exclusive of the PNA, so the 'democratically elected' bit is probably overplayed. But your additions are not appropriate, it is your own commentary on the situation. Please read WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. Nableezy (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

How can Fatah, which is the hand of the PLO (who is the ONLY legitimate voice of the Palestinian people, as voiced by many international declarations) attempt a coup??? The hamas won 45% of the vote, not a majority, only a plurality...and most certainly not a dictatorship. I paired down my edit. I have now only made the edit that hamas controls gaza and that hamas won a plurality of 45% of the Palestinian Assembly seats. This is no commentary on my part, zero.Gamesformay (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamastan

The article on Hamastan practically overlaps this one. Is there any reason not to merge it into the Governance of the Gaza Strip?Greyshark09 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps you also advocate the insertion of Zionist entity into the lead of the State of Israel as an alternative name. It is ridiculous and undue to insert a pejorative neologism into the lead of an encyclopedia article on the governance of a geographic entity. Also the source is clearly marked "analysis", from WP:RS:"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The reason we do not use them for statements of fact is that they contain unencyclopedic content such as pejorative neologisms not suitable for our articles. At best you could attribute the source, but I don't see why this one particular commentators opinions are suitable to be inserted into the lead. Dlv999 (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to do so with the Zionist entity a.k.a. Israel, and since your own removal of sourced mateiral is editorial analysis, i revert you back.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Per WP:RS Analysis articles are not suitable for verification of facts. Your edit is a clear violation of this policy. The analysis article could be used for the opinion of the author, but it would be massively WP:UNDUE to insert this opinion into the lead. Dlv999 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added another source if you want I can provide many more.--Shrike (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dlv, don't mix your emotions into it - not worth it.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with emotions, I am quoting policy. I would ask you to concentrate on a discussion of the sources and policies rather than soapboxing your own wrongheaded assumptions regarding the motivations of other editors.Dlv999 (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The info is well sourced, notable (especially in Egnlish sources) and should be here per WP:WEIGHT. End of story.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

First, Greyshark09, explaining this: I reverted the edit by AndresHerutJaim/sock puppet Bach Aria, as it is a blocked sockpuppet. That is a revert always allowed. It looks like you did not know this, esp after asking "who is blocked" in your es.

Second, I have developed an opinion: it should be out. Two sources from 2007, the one (Guardian) I could read says: what is now being dubbed "Hamastan" -- that is weasel, and not a source (but for his taxidriver). We do not have to reproduce every comedians wordplay. And this being 2012, the word did not stick, did it. -DePiep (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The version of lead, including mentioning of Hamastan existed for several months prior to current objection by Dlv, Andres' sockpuppet interrupted in the middle, he doesn't belong to the discussion.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And re my second remark? -DePiep (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hamastan is mentioned widely in 2007 and before, like in der Spiegel, Ha'aretz, Washington Post etc. However the term is used later, here are examples: YNET1,YNET2 in 2009; wide use up to June 2011 in Jerusalem Post. Yet, i do see your point, the term use is much less since 2007. I think we can move it from lead to the body of the article and mention that the term has decreased in utilization since 2007. Agreed?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Even the Jerusalem Post quotes are over a year old. And then, the JPost started using quotes around it. The fact that a politician is using the word does not say broad acceptance either. (I wrote "comedians" to the same extend). Haaretz is from 2007 and an op-ed. I can note that I am repeating, in different words, arguments mentioned above wrt WP:RS. The Der Spiegel, WaPo and YNET links are broken. So what do we have: another 2007 op-ed piece and two JPost quotes from politicians. The word-play did not stick. -DePiep (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of links - Der Spiegel 2007, Kuwait Times 2007Der Spiegel 2010 (Ge), WaPo 2007, Al-Arabiya 2009YNET 2009, YNET 2009 2nd, YNET 2011, YNET 2011 2nd. I don't understand why you don't want to reach a compromise on this. It is clearly sourced and notable.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

De facto theocratic dictatorship?

No need for much discussion here, I'm making this post because I forgot to give a reason for my revert in the edit summary. The aforementioned description that filled the "Government type" parameter in the infobox is supported by one highly unreliable reference. It's taken from a direct quote by an ex-CIA director James Woolsy who doesn't qualify as reliable neutral source. Here's the quote: Cooper noted immediate elections could thwart Egypt’s possibilities for freedom and democracy, because there really aren't many organized opposition forces, other than the Muslim Brotherhood. "Right, and that's what happened in Gaza," Woolsey said. "Hamas called for immediate elections, and we got one vote, one man – and it's now a theocratic dictatorship." Highly unworthy. Please do not reinsert. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, newsmax.com??? Are you serious? You really want to bring a patently unreliable source in an article? That's how you want to approach this? Is there a serious source that calls the government in the Gaza Strip either a theocracy or a dictatorship? Because I could give individuals who call Israel a theocracy. That doesnt mean I then add that as a fact to an encyclopedia article. Or hound your edits to do so. nableezy - 05:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Quote_from_former_CIA_official_in_Governance_of_the_Gaza_Strip nableezy - 06:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont think the latest from The Begin-Sadat Center qualifies as usable for an unattributed statement of fact in the article. The Carnegie Endowment source is however a very good source, so at least thank you, Shrike, for bringing that. But it is an extraordinary statement to claim that Gaza is governed under a dictatorship based on one obviously hostile position paper. That does not qualify for the extraordinary sourcing that such a claim needs. nableezy - 07:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its extraordinary statement as evident by two source nevertheless it could be brought to WP:RS/N--Shrike (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The only source for "dictatorship" that I see is the paper by Inbar. But wait a second. On another article, you are demanding that others go source by source to show that it is a reliable source, and say Per WP:ONUS he should explain it. Which is it? You can blanket remove tens of sources "per BRD" and others have to justify each source, or you can determine that a source is reliable with no justification? Those are two contradictory positions, changing based solely on whether or not you like the material being inserted. nableezy - 14:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there is no problem with "Carnegie" , now Inbar is expert in the field [1] - "Efraim Inbar is a Professor in Political Studies...His area of specialization is Middle Eastern strategic issues with a special interest in the politics and strategy of Israeli national security" So I don't problem with his paper either.--Shrike (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The rest of you comment have nothing to do with improving this article please so such comment is not appropriate in this talk page.--Shrike (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)