Talk:Hamas/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hamas is a terrorist organization and should be listed as such.

Comment The article mentions that some countries designate Hamas as a terrorist organization; that fact is

neutral point of view in such matters. Please refer to other entries (and archives) of this talk page for further reading. OhNoitsJamie^Talk

23:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment The fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization is in fact, verifiable. The entry for

terrorist organization

says:

"Non-state actor". Sic. If it wasn't that tragic, I would have laughed... Tazmaniacs

Organizations listed on this page have verifiably used or attempted to use terrorist tactics, by the above criteria.

Of which Hamas is included. It makes no sense to me that it is listed as a terrorist group (verifiably so, by their actions which easily fit that description) on that page, but on the main entry for Hamas, it is only "listed as a terrorist organization" by some countries - a much weaker claim.

Calling Hamas a terrorist organization is obviously a POV - indeed a legitimate and widespread POV, and must be mentioned as such. I do not believe that starting the article with a POV does improve the credibility of the article. Bertilvidet 11:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, then I suggest this article should list all of the suicide bombings and other attacks on Israeli civilians committed/claimed by Hamas. That is verifiable, and is a neutral point of view. I think this would allow readers to draw their own conclusions about whether Hamas is a terrorist organization. (unsigned comment)

Yes and it needs to state as well all the attacks that israel has lunched against civilians, and the occupations and the homeless peoples all such needs to be stated to have a neutral point of view, I guess this is not the place to discuss that. The

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a better place for that.88.111.3.40

17:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that more emphasis on the use of violance which target civilians should be added to the 1st paragrpah or even first line of the article. "terrorist organization" seems like a correct description. Zeq 03:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I also believe it could use it, but IMO more importantly, if Hamas is listed on the list of terrorist orginization's Wikipedia article, shouldn't this article be listed in that catagory by default? And if you disagree with this, that page is probably the appropriate place to argue about it, not here. Abhorreo 04:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I do understand that some people have very strong feelings against Hamas. But let's try to keep the cool and write a balanced and fair article about the organisation. In fact the organisation uses much more resources on social welfare than on terrorist activities. So it would actually be more adequate to label the group as a charity organization. I suggest however that we, at least in the introduction, avoid any value-ladden descriptions of the organization. Bertilvidet 07:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, could you please explain, in your opinion, an example of the neccesary criteria for something to be catagorized as a terrorist organization? It seems to me that matching the criteria on the Terrorist Organization page, being on the list, and being listed by many superpowers as one should be enough. If not, what is the point of the catagory? Abhorreo 08:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wether Hamas is a terrorist organization in my humble opinion, or not, is utterly irrelevant since this article not is the place to display my opinions. It is indeed relevant to mention that many states and international organizations regard Hamas as such. Please note that the Wikipedia articles about

PKK, ETA and Al-Qaeda do not label these organizations as terrorists - but mentions that many states consider them as such. I do find it harmful for Wikipedia to start an article by stating a POV as a fact. Bertilvidet

08:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, thats not what I was asking. I'm not asking if in your opinion they are a terrorist organization or not; I am asking what you belive an "example of the neccesary criteria for something to be catagorized as a terrorist organization" would be? In other words, what would make an article qualify to be listed in this catagory. Hope this clears it up Abhorreo 09:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To start a new subdiscussion, I myself was also nearly smashed for suggesting to add the word terrorist to the first sentence. I don't see the problem with this, since Hamas is (a few sentences further) already mentioned as considered to be a terroristic organisation by the better part of the free world. Certainly in the light of their, in the function of Palestinian government, explicit approval of yesterday's suicide attack. Can't we have one user, one vote poll about this instead of letting those who shout the loudest win? 1652186 13:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I could go either way on that, but I personally think the best way is not to say that they are "terrorists", but just make it clear in the beginning that they are considered terrorists by most of the world (as it is now). Bertilvidet, can you please answer my question? What I am getting at here is... If Hamas is on the list of terrorist organizations, and it meets the criteria listed on the page that defines terrorist orginizations, and it is in fact considered by most of the world to be a terrorist organization, what on earth is keeping it from going into the terrorist organization catagory?!

... If Bertilvidet or no one else enters the conversation to discuss an opposing view, I suppose I will make the changes myself... Abhorreo 19:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The "free world"? I suppose that includes the parts of the world that are preventing the Palestinians from gaining their freedom, and therefore maintaining the conditions for the development and success of organizations like Hamas? I personally oppose any statement privileging the idea that Hamas is a terrorist organization when nothing of the sort is said about arguably more terroristic organizations in the region just because they happen to be attached to states. Palmiro | Talk 21:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that other organizations that are engage in terrorism aren't correctly labeled, feel free to discuss it on those pages. Here, (in regard to the catagory, not in regard to saying in the initial description that they are a terror organization) Hamas meets the criteria for being a terror organization, so why should it not be in the appropriate catagory? Abhorreo 21:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am disinclined to support including anything in an inherently POV category such as Category:Terrorism. However, if Hamas was to be included in it, the correct approach would be to do what has been done with all other such organizations and include the appropriate lower-level category - in this case, Category:Palestinian militant groups, in which this article is already included, in the higher-level category. Palmiro | Talk 22:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Abhorreo 23:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say they can be included in the terrorism cat, because there are multiple reliable sources calling them that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone who thinks Hamas is not a terror organization?

Or anyone who thinks saying "Hamas is a Palestinian Isalmist terror organization" is POV?

The art is to find a neutral and balanced way to present this very controversial organization. Whether the article should endorse the wide-spread (and well-founded) accusations of being a terrorist organization has been discussed several times. So please take a look at the talk archives. I will object endorsing any view of Hamas - labeling it as a "terrorist", "resistance" or "charity" group. You can rightly argue for all three characteristics. No matter how much you hate Hamas - and might have good reasons for that - I can really not see any use of trying to use this article for anything else than drawing a balanced and neutral description of the organization. The readers are intelligent enough to make their own conclusions. I haven't familiarized myself with the relevant categories, so I will so far abstain from participating in that debate. Bertilvidet 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about my compromise? Of listing all of the suicide bombings, and armed attacks against Israeli civilains committed or claimed by Hamas? That is neutral, and verifiable.. and yet I think it will portray Hamas in the light that it needs to be.--72.56.10.196 21:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bertil. Though to answer your question, for what it's worth most of the population of the Middle East considers that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, rightly or wrongly. Palmiro | Talk 21:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with you, but would you mind saying where you know that from? Abhorreo 21:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

are true, and obviously they are a far cry from being a neutral party to the conflict, so that's hardly a good criterion.

-Sangil 21:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

From my neighbours, to start... And no, not everybody here believes the Protocols to be true, and since we're talking about the US government on one side, why can't we talk about most of the population of the affected region on the other? Palmiro | Talk 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Neighbors meaning who? As far as I know, a few of the surrounding arab contries support them, yes, but thats it. What do you mean by "not everyone believes them to be true" -- are you saying that a good amount of your neighbors do? No offense, but I think that would disqualify them... Abhorreo 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My neighbours, I mean people living in my district.. is that so obscure?! As for the Protocols, well, that is purely a red herring introduced by Sangil, and has nothing to do with whether Hamas is terrorist or not. As for "a few of the surrounding Arab countries", well, these are the countries that are actually involved with the issue, either because they are in a state of war with Israel (e.g. Syria, Lebanon), or because they are involved in negotiations with Hamas or with Israel (Egypt, Jordan), so they are far more germane than, say, Canada or Australia, which are practically irrelevant yet always seem to get mentioned in these articles, presumably because they are English-speaking. I'm not at all an enthusiast for Hamas, I'm merely trying to keep a sense of proportion here (actually, I was initially trying to merely answer an ill-informed question, and I don't want to make any more of it than it deserves). Palmiro | Talk 22:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

that is purely a red herring introduced by Sangil, and has nothing to do with whether Hamas is terrorist or not - but it has *everything* to do with the 'population of the Middle East' you refer to, since as Abhorreo says, this would disqualify them from being a criterion in this issue.

-Sangil 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If we get into the question of whether people's views on issue A disqualify them from having a view on issue B, we will never get out of it. In twenty years' time we will still be scrutinising opinion surveys using advanced statistical tools to decide whether there is any particular level of correlation between views A and B and what percentage of view B we must therefore discount as being held by proponents of disqualifying view A. We report views held by relevant parties, regardless of the moral or intellectual attributes of those holding them. Palmiro | Talk 22:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok... Well, I agree with you about the surrounding arab countries. By 'neighbors meaning who' I meant where is it that you live? (country) Abhorreo 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's enough that we list which countries consider Hamas a terrorist group. Wikipedia can't state it as fact, and in any event, it's an overused and therefore pretty meaningless term. They're known for suicide bombings against civilians, which is in the intro; we should allow readers to draw their own conclusions from it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing I disagree with there. Palmiro | Talk 22:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to weigh in over here, I think in theory it might be appropriate to say outright it is a terrorist organization, as "terrorist organization" has a specific definition, and if the facts are from a verfifiable source, we can be sure that it is. However, I don't believe that doing so is worth the extensive discussions it would entail, as the way the description is currently written (says islamist, not terrorist) is alright, as long it says that countries XYZ consider them terrorists soon afterwards. As was said before, doing so gives the reader the information they need to make up their own mind. Abhorreo 23:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding part of the initial question that addresses POV regarding the term 'Islamist', here's what the Wikipedia entry on that term has to say:

"This usage (of the term Islamist) is controversial. Islamists themselves may oppose the term because it suggests their philosophy to be a political extrapolation from Islam rather than a straightforward expression of Islam as a

way of life. Some Muslims find it troublesome that a word derived from "Islam" is applied to organizations they consider radical and extreme. The terms "Islamist" and "Islamism" are used often in several publications within some Muslim countries to describe domestic and trans-national organizations seeking to implement Islamic law. The English website for Al Jazeera, for example, uses these terms frequently."[1][2]

The part I zero in on is the one that says some Muslims find it troublesome to include a derivative of the word Islam as a descriptive term to refer to radical activities. An analogy would be to call a radical or murderous anti-abortionist group 'Christianist' when the majority of Christians may share beliefs regarding abortion but certainly don't agree with the tactics used to bring about the change in society. So...not to debate the meaning and use of every single adjective into the ground, but there has got to be a better, more objective and less 'loaded' term to use in an introduction. As said by many others, better to present facts in the body of the article and let the reader draw their own conclusions rather than try to define the organization in the first sentence using these loaded descriptors. Arabhorse 23:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

See this one Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. If (some consider) HAMAS is a terrorist group, why none objected that this group called militant rather than terrorist? I think this group done the same thing that HAMAS done202.69.101.170 07:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

i seriously doubt it. Hamas is reported to be sponsored by the Islamic Republic. That fact alone i believe makes it a terrorist group. Also, militantcy IS terrorism, at least in the Middle East. DEATH TO THE SOVIETS!! 22:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Hamas fits, or at least did used to fit, the definition (quoted above) of a terrorist organisation. What I question, however, is why so many people here are arguing so vociferously for the use of that phrase in the Wikipedia article. Are you just striving for accuracy and to create a better Wikipedia for all readers? Or are you trying to make a political point so that readers develop a hatred (rational or otherwise) for Hamas? I remember, a few years ago, the Head of the Metropolitan Police in London made public a statistic that 80 percent of robberies in the city were committed by black men. It was true, but many people (rightly, in my opinion) questioned the Policeman's motives in raising the point. Was he merely trying to get to the heart of society's problems and to address issues that he felt governments were frightened of addressing? Or was he trying to instill in the London population further hatred for, and suspicion of, black men? I think it's the same with Hamas and this Wikipedia article. I'm afraid I'm really suspicious of people's motives. I simply don't think it's the job of Wikipedia to assist editors/contributors in furthering their political aims. I think the best person to write this Hamas article is someone with absolutely no knowledge of religion and politics and absolutely no interest in either.

For what it's worth, my definition would be "...Once famous for its terrorist activities, Hamas is now the elected government of the Palestinian Authority..."

I have very little knowledge of anything.

Following the recent events I wanted to pose two questions I had for a paper I am writing. Forgive me if my questions are a wee bit off topic but I didn’t know where to post them. Just to give you some feedback I am writing my paper on Hamas and what the organization has done not only to the world but the people of Hamas. In my research I have come to my own conclusion that Hamas is a charitable organization that uses terrorist tactics. The question I have or need to know is if Hamas is using it's charity to facilitate; and by that I mean support it’s terrorist practices by means of recruiting, securing funds, and trafficking weapons, through it’s social programs and networks, or if It sincerely working for the betterment of Palestine? I understand that this topic is hard and difficult and I know that there is some interconnection between there terrorist activates and social groups. Obviously Hamas gets recruits through its social program but again I am asking is the social program is designed to manipulate people into joining there cause. Second question I want to ask is about the election of Hamas members into Palestine’s government. Assuming that was a fair and (mostly) untouched election where the people of Palestine voted freely, and there was not significant amounts of voter irregularity. Did the people of Palestine know they were voting for Hamas members? The reason I ask this is because if they did know what these people stood for, without them trying to hide it then technically aren’t they trying to say that a majority of the people support the Hamas ideals? And if so does that change the legality of the situation? If the populace willingly supports this group and asks them to freely govern them, then would they be still be considered a terrorist group? Student April 21, 2006

Good questions...to comment on one part of above discussion, I wonder if there will be a parallel between Hamas and Hizbullah in terms of evolution of purpose and structure now that they've been elected by a majority of their respective people/constituencies. Lebanon, of course, is a recognized sovereign country so Hizbullah now can be considered leaders of a 'state'...unfortunately, the situation between Palestinians and Zionists still stands unresolved so though Hamas has been elected as leaders of the Palestinian people, it's a wholly unique situation since there's not really a 'state' there (yet?), but it is a large political entity that now represents millions who aspire to gain/regain a 'state'. There is a sense of legitimacy that is conferred, though, through these elections since Palestinians are a political force to be reckoned with.

Your question regarding whether the social programs manipulate people into supporting their overall cause is very difficult to answer objectively and verifiably. It's hard to find neutral sources, the Western media is obviously increasingly polarized and politicized--that's a whole other topic regarding objectivity in journalism, choosing what to report and not to report and avoiding topics that may clash with the agendas of the corporations that own the media outlets--but from what I understand, although it's nearly impossible to account for money/funding without having access to the actual financial ledgers, the 'resistance' and 'social' wings are kept separate. Of course it's debatable whether that's even possible...when someone eats at a homeless shelter and is fed by the Salvation Army or some other 'charitable religious organization', is it possible to disengage the religious context from the context of just getting people fed? 67.183.186.85 01:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I'm writing a paper also about Hamas and I was wondering if there's information about Hamas's popularity through their history. How many support their actions against Israel? And i'd also like to know if somebody knows support for violation against Israel from palestinians? It is very hard to find accurate information with academic backround about these statistic informations. All the best to all!

I just rearranged the first paragraph to put more relavent information first. I also put unrelated information in seperate sentances. I did not remove any information, except for one small bit which isn't that important and belongs later in the article. This piece I merely commented out. If you disagree with the changes I have made, please do not revert it all. Instead, discuss it here, and/or only change the specific part you have a problem with. Abhorreo 23:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I made some minor fixes to old mistakes. The version of the Hamas Covenant linked to in the first reference is an appalling translation and I have replaced it with a link to the better one on Wikisource. There is no support in the Hamas covenant for "destruction of any secular Palestinian state', certainly not with that lurid phraseology, so I have replaced it with a more neutral statement of their ultimate objective. If anyone objects to the phrase "historic Palestine", feel free to change it to something you think more suitable. Palmiro | Talk 00:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, could you please adopt a different modus operandi than revert, revert, revert? This is meant to be a collaborative enterprise. You have now, with no reason why given on talk, restored a link to a lousy translation of the Hamas covenant instead of a link to the far better translation on Wikisource, restored idiotically foolish information about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt when Hamas was formed as a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, and restored a tabloidish claim that Hamas wishes to "destroy any secular Palestinian state that may come about" the basis of which is quite unclear. If we can't use wikisource as a source, please at least try to find a respectable source instead, and please also fix the other problems. Palmiro | Talk 14:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I've fixed it myself. SV, if you have issues with this, please raise them on the talk page so we can discuss them, rather than simply reverting. Your previous revert reintroduced errors and unsourced material into the article, a problem which could have been avoided if you had simply stated your concerns on the talk page and collaborated with other editors in working out a way of dealing with them. Palmiro | Talk 15:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this apply to me, but not to you? Please discuss your changes before making them, or they're likely to be reverted. As for the introduction the word "Palestine," what do you mean by it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hamas was not formed as a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. When hamas founder, yassin died, the MB in Egypt published the little known fact that yassin was always a member of the egyptian MB. Zeq 16:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Every source I have seen indicates that Hamas was founded by the Palestinian branch of the MB. That is also what their Covenant says. Unless you have a good source to the contrary you can't put it in the article. Finally, you have engaged in a blanket revert reintroduing other errors and problems because of this one point. This is destructive behaviour and doesn't help anyone. I'm reverting back. Palmiro | Talk 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who is engaging in destructive reverting, Palmiro. All I'm doing is restoring what was there, as is Zeq, I believe. Please discuss changes to the intro rather than just inserting them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have previously explained why the reference to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhod is incorrect, although that would also be obvious to anyone who has read anything about the organization. It is also devoid of any source. I have made this edit before and Zeq, if I remember correctly, has resinserted the incorrect information before, although this is the first time he has gioven his unsourced and inadequate rationale. You have reinserted unsourced speculation about "destruction of any secular Palestinian state" presented as fact and attributed to a source that does not support it. Where I changed the reference to an accurate and coherent translation of the Hamas convenant on an academic website you have changed it back to a garbled translation on a website of dubious provenance. I am the one who explained my changes; you are the one who is insisting on reverting, without discussion, to an inaccurate version. This is reprehensible behaviour. Palmiro | Talk 23:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

(copied from SV's talk page) Just what is going on here? I have explained on the talk page why the version you wish to revert to is incorrect, and all you do is keep blindly reverting without explanation (well, this time I see you have added some unhelpful remakrs which do not address any of the substantive points). Is this some kind of personal thing? Palmiro | Talk 23:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it isn't personal. I don't agree that your edits are accurate, and I don't know what you mean by "Palestine" in 1987. That looks like a POV, which is not appropriate. I think it's much more accurate to say it is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, rather than getting into what it was formed "as," which suggests you know the intentions of the people who formed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the tag at the top of this page: This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had made the change about which branch of the Muslim Brotherhood was involved before, and raised the point before, without anyone objecting. The Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine never refers to itself by any other name, as far as I know. If you can find a source for its calling itself the Muslim Brotherhood in the Liberated Territories, fire ahead. Otherwise, you will simply have to accept what the given source (and other sources) says. The Hamas Convenant itself states that the organization was founded as a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, and I don't believe any authoritative writers have raised doubts as to that. This, in other words, was information that you could have found by following the link to the cited source (either version, for that matter), which would seem an obvious first step if one is not sure about information. The link to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is through the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, i.e. through the fact that the organization is one established by the MB in Palestine, and is therefore of a second-tier nature. Also, I do not see why changing a translation referenced from a poor version on advocacy website to a good version on the website of a Yale University project should be found objectionable by anyone. Finally, these were minor fixes of demonstrably inaccurate material, not substantial changes, and in any case the tag does not say "If someone makes changes without discussing them first, you should revert them whether they are right or wrong". Using judgement is probably a good idea even on controversial pages. Palmiro | Talk 23:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more sources indicating that Hamas was established by the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine:

• • Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam, London, IB Tauris, 1994: "The Palestinian MB [Muslim Brotherhood], active mostly in the Gaza Strip, founded the organization Hamas in 1987, directed by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin..."
  • Ahmad al-Mausilili, Mawsū`iyyat al-harakāt al-'islāmiyya fī'l-watan al-`arabī wa-'īrān wa-turkiya (English title given as Historic dictionary of fundamentalist movements in the Arab nation, Iran and Turkey), Beirut, Centre for Arab Unity Studies, 2004, p.146 under "Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine": "The Brotherhood movement became active again during the Palestinian intifada and established the Islamic Resistance Movement: Hamas under the direction of Ahmad Yassin." (my translation)
  • Op. cit., p. 277, under "Hamas": "In the early 1980s, the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine built up their centre in the Islamic University in Gaza and clashed continually with the secular forces of the Palestine Liberation Organization... When the intifada began in 1987 the Brotherhood movement did not initially take part in hostilities towards Israel, although other fundamentalist groups defied the Israelis. In any case, popular pressure calling for an uprising in the occupied territories led to a revision of the Brotherhood's traditional stance of refraining from military resistance activities due to their association with secular nationalist activities... Hamas became the organization of the Brotherhood that took part in resisting the Israeli occupation... " (my translation).

I don't have ready access to an academic library at the moment, so these were just the books I had in the house when I went looking for further references this morning. However, they confirm both common knowledge and the source given in the article (the Hamas covenant) and are rather better than the "says me" school of citation being used to support referring to the Egyptian branch of the movement instead. There are specialised works on Hamas etc. that anyone interested in this issue can consult; one work that I have read that goes into detail on the origins of Hamas in the MB in Palestine and the Jamaa`a al-Islamiyya established by Ahmad Yassin in the 70s is Islamic Politics in Palestine by Beverley Milton-Edwards Amazon page. Unfortunately, I don't have it with me here so can't use it myself. Palmiro | Talk 10:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If I fix the remaining point at issue (Egyptian v. Palestinian MB) will I be reverted again? I would like to sort this out so the factual-accuracy tag can be removed. Palmiro | Talk 15:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what you write. You didn't answer the question earlier of what you mean by "Palestine" in 1987. Other sources say that Hamas simply became the Palestinian branch of the MB, rather than being founded by it. Also, please use only English-language sources, because otherwise it introduces another complication. Can you say here exactly what edit you want to make, and which source you'll use? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is clear that you will have to ask the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine what they mean by it, not me. As for English-language sources, I refuse to take instructions in the matter (which incidentally are contrary to guidelines indicating that foreign-language sources are acceptable) from someone who is willing to repeatedly reintroduce mistakes into the article without any sources at all. You will have to do better than this to persuade me of your good faith at this stage. I will not be editing this article again in these circumstances. Palmiro | Talk 16:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've just looked on my own shelves, and I've found a scholarly paper about the Muslim Brotherhood in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from the late 80s. It's long and I'll need some time to read it, but the first point it makes is that there's more than one branch and they operate independently, so if you want to say that one of these branches founded Hamas, you'll have to be explicit, or else say clearly that they cooperated and source it. I'll post more once I've read this, assuming it says anything else of value. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything very useful, except that it clarifies there was no structural relationship between the Gaza and West Bank branches. I was hoping to find something about whether Hamas was founded by, or simply grew out of, the Gaza branch, because it's not clear that the MB in Gaza has an existence now apart from Hamas, so to say they "founded" it sounds wrong.

Palmiro, when I asked what you meant by "Palestine," I was indeed asking what you meant, not what the MB means. They use it to refer, in part, to Israel, so clearly we can't use it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, as is clear, I didn't mean anything by it. I was using the term the MB used to describe their organization, which you could have found in the cited source had you wished. What I or you think the Muslim Brotherhood mean by it is irrelevant and would indeed constitute speculation - or, if you like, original research - on our part unless we have a source for it. In any case, if you had wished to clarify this, you could have asked instead of reverting. Then I would have known what your problem was and we could have collaborated in looking at the sources available and seeing how best to explain the foundation of Hamas. Yet in fact, when it became clear that the source in the article - the Hamas covenant - was not enough for you - though you never said so - I found you two more sources and even referred you to where you could find a book for more information on the subject. All I get in return is your ignoring of the obvious source for the use of the term "Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine", which I also exlpained in my above post, and a request that I not use foreign language sources, which is a bit rich considering that you kept reverting using no sources at all. Clearly it's more fun reverting to a version that is completely at odds with the source. If people claim the bombing of civilians makes the MB in Palestine not real Muslims, does that mean we can't call them Muslims either? This is ridiculous. I now appeal to you to edit the article on the basis of reliable sources. You will be able to do so without any interference from me, though I may still comment on the talk page as appropriate.

As for your latest remarks, well, you will just have to find and cite a source if you want to include anything along those lines. In the meantime, we have now three sources (one primary source and two academic works) stating that Hamas was founded by the Palestinian MB. That there may be other sources, which you have mentioned but not identified, which would allow us to give a more detailed description of who exactly established it and how, does not invalidate those sources (and your personal speculation on the matter does not constitute an adequate argument to discount them; if you want to discount them you will have to find a suitable source that suggests that they are wrong) and certainly does not excuse retaining misleading information in the introduction instead (the link with the MB in Egypt). Palmiro | Talk 10:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I am with Palmiro on this one - it doesn't appear to me that by using the term 'MB of Palestine' that Palmiro meant to convey his/her political beliefs or semantic preferences, but strove for factual accuracy...it doesn't matter whether you think Palestine is 'Israel' or 'Palestine' or some other name (and it's been stated before, secular political entities as remnants of European colonialism are relatively unimportant to Muslims since the Ummah (caliphate) would ideally replace all the arbitrarily-drawn borders and puppet regimes)...but the key to me is the issue of the group's 'proper name'. For example, let's use a fictitious group named the 'Popular Front for Jews in Zion' (PFJZ). When discussing the group or citing reference material, it would be inappropriate to say you couldn't cite a source or describe the group using the word 'Zion'--in that case, it wouldn't impart *your* beliefs about whether 'Zion' should exist as an entity...what is important is that the group calls themselves that and it hints somewhat at *their* beliefs, totally appropriate for a NPOV article, completely neutral information. 67.183.186.85 02:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't agree with the omission of the word 'terrorist' in the first sentence. However, it doesn't seem fit to me either to continue the add/remove edit war. I therefore request that the POV tag remains in place, unless somebody can provide proof of either of the following:

• that the majority of contributers to this article thinks Hamas is not a terrorist organisation.
• that Hamas does not fit the Wikipedia definition of
  Terrorist organisation
  .

My assertion it does:

• Violence: [3]
• Target: [4]
• Objective: [5]
• Motive: [6]
• Perpetrator: [7]
• Legality: [8]
• Claims of responsability: [9]

By those standards, the Israeli government is also guilty of terrorism, as is the US government. If the fact that Israel's/America's governments are governments is reason to exclude them from such categorizing, then the fact that Hamas is now running a government would be grounds to consider Hamas' actions as war and nor terrorism. Amibidhrohi 21:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I therefore see Hamas as an objective terrorist organisation, hence this article as biased for omitting this, unless proven otherwise. 1652186 17:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia does not decide who is a terrorist organization; there are people who say Hamas is one, and people who say it isn't, and lots of people define terrorism in all sorts of different ways. So I don't think us explaining who says it is one and what things it does, instead of adopting the contention that it is terrorist as if it were a fact, can be considered biassed. Palmiro | Talk 21:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

So your point is, if some people think the Holocaust happened and some don't, Wikipedia should not take a stand, even when brought definitive proofs by every historian on the planet?

Psychomel@di_(s)cussion

01:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Aiden has added "militant" to the intro. This is surely not necessary. We say they are Islamist. We say they engage in suicide attacks against civilians. So how could they not be "militant"? It's a horrible weasel word. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "militant" is evading the real issue.

They are terrorist by any definition. The problem is:

• They are other things as well
• some people (who don't want their favorite organization called "terrorist") will argue that this is POV.

So in an article about the moon, let's say that i think the moon is a cube made of cheese - can I delete the word "round" just because it is against my POV and that it does not fully describe what the moon is ? Zeq 04:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Militant is a lame and meaningless word here. I agree with SlimVirgin. Its use by news sources is not in reference to its militancy but as a way of not saying "terrorist". We shouldn't use "militant" as a pseudo-NPOV substitute or code-word for "terrorist" here. The word does have a meaning of its own, which should be respected. It's perfectly plain from the information given that Hamas is militant in the actual meaning of the word. Palmiro | Talk 11:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV solution

I agree with Palmiri. As such we should state: 'Hamas is an Islamic militant terrorist organization'. This sould cover all POVs. Some see it as terrorist and some as an organization of militants. Zeq 13:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it would be more complete if we also add "evil". Bertilvidet 14:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How about "Hamas is an evil reactionary leftist-murdering suicide-bombing West Bank and Gaza Stripian Islamist militant terrorist Israeli-collaborationist organization"? Does that cover all bases? Palmiro | Talk 14:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Having read the debate on this page, I do not see how Zeqs conclusion "Hamas is an Islamic militant terrorist organization" is even close to being a compromise of the the points of view expressed. On the contrary, Zeq seems to be trying to force his own solution onto everybody. Zeq must recognize that the definitions of terrorism are politically disputed almost everywhere in the world and this applies also to whether Hamas is a terrorist organization or not. So labelling Hamas, without addings like "considered to be" or "listed on various terror lists", straight out as a terrorist organization is not politically neutral, neither in the case of Hamas (and the issues in Israel and the occupied territories) nor in the case of a wider ongoing debate about defining terrorism. The fact that Hamas is labelled and listed as a terrorist organisation does not make it a terrorist organization (nor does Hamas by this evade the allegations). It is merely a political statement and I think we should try to avoid them in the Wikipedia-description. AndreasHjornholm 15:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

According to AndreasHjornholm no definition of terrorism is possible. So why don't we just stop editing articles on which there is a content dispute.

I tried to include all POV:

• Islamic organization
• Militant organization
• Terrorist organization

all 3 actually describe Hamas well: It has a militant arm that attacked soldiers in Gaza. It attacked citizens in terror acts and it is Islamic. have I missed any POV or aspect of Hamas ? Evil does not look very encyclopedia so even if you think hamas is evil I object adding it. Zeq 17:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to believe that Zeq is deliberately misunderstanding my points. I certainly do not mean that no definition of terrorism is possible, only that the way the word is used today is an expression of political value. And I believe that the Wikipedia article about Hamas should reflect this (which could be done by adding phrases such as "considered to be" or "listed as". Besides I think it would be underestimating the multitude of opinions and views to say that they are all encompassed in "Islamic, militant and terrorist". AndreasHjornholm 18:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

For this discussion to be meaningfull and fruitfull you should

WP:NPOV. So what major POV is missing ? we can always add. Zeq

19:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I do apologize. I am quite new in this Wikipedia business and not aware of all those guidelines you mention. I agree with you (and apparently the guidelines as well) that we should not include all POVs (I only misunderstood, as that is actually what you wrote you tried to include). I personally don't know whether to consider Hamas a terrorist organization or not, and it is besides the point. My major objection is that the way in which it is put now suggests that it is an undeniable and objective fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Frankly, what I'm saying that some consider it to be a terrorist organization and some consider them to be "freedom fighters", and I think the opening line of this article should reflect this dispute. AndreasHjornholm 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with everything you say is that it misses the truth; Hamas *is* a terror organization. It does what

Psychomel@di_(s)cussion

21:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It will obviously be difficult to reach a solution if your approach is that you have a patent on the truth, and people thinking otherwise than you simply are wrong. But please note that in the introduction of the

Hitler article no value-ladden words are used, neither hero nor massmurder, monster or war criminal (even though I believe that most of us would agree that he actually was all three latter). Nomatter how strong you believe that your opinion is the objective truth. I kindly request you to have a look at NPOV. Bertilvidet

09:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The so-called "duplication" is just an excuse to remove the word "terrorist" from the definition of Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization, as well as other things. Please re-insert the correct charterization that you removed. Militant as a word in english 9and not as Euphamism) also has meaning (as in army of iregulars - which is what hamas had built in Gaza) Zeq 17:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How about the idea that the term 'civilian' doesn't have the same meaning in Palestine/'Israel' as it does elsewhere (countries which live in relative peace) in the world? What I mean by this is that when a territory is occupied, anyone's presence in what's perceived to be your home, your land is a hostile act. Also consider compulsory military service and a militarized population. Are 'settlers' really civilians in the sense that people generally think of the term civilian? Aren't some settlements paramilitary in nature?
When a bus full of people blows up, can it be said for sure that there is not a legitimate target on the bus--a group of military conscripts or an important 'Israeli' military figure--that a resistance group would destroy as a tactical maneuver and not to 'send a message' or to 'terrorize'? This may be their only chance to strike at that general or that group of military people when if the resistance waits until they are in place on the battlefield they are totally outgunned...and any 'civilians' on the bus would be 'collateral damage'--a decision that traditional States and governments would make in a more conventional strike (i.e., if Osama bin Laden was riding on a bus, Bush knew he was there at that moment and if he hesitates to strike then bin Laden can disappear again at the next stop...does he blow it up, and is Bush a terrorist for blowing up a bus full of say, 60 people plus Osama?).

So if the term civilian and/or innocent is in question, or perhaps considering the idea of collateral damage, then that would call into question whether a strike was 'terrorist' in nature or not..and when a whole country is a battlefield it makes for social norms and values that are quite different than usual, because the same place can appear to be a normal 'neighborhood' yet exists in a battle zone...so applying the term 'terrorist' there, to Hamas, may not be so cut-and-dried of an issue67.183.186.85 02:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, Zeq, 'militant' is a term in English, but when presented in a certain context becomes a euphemism because it takes on a meaning which is value-laden (as Bertilvidet stated above) and totally POV. Like if you say someone has 'passionate beliefs about vegetarianism' vs. saying someone is a 'militant vegetarian'--there are subtle inflections of meaning which inject bias into the discussion.

That being said, 'militant' is much preferable to terrorist, because militant is more neutral, and I imagine Hamas would not dispute the fact that they are indeed militant about removing the occupation of Palestinian land...but as said above, 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.

I believe both words should remain out of the intro and dealt with in the body of the article--keep it as simple as possible, tell the objective story, and let people read and decide. I think the key is that it's not as tiny of a minority in the world that believes 'Israel' is a mistake as you might think.

• Welcome back our Olimpia friend. FRom the length of the comment and the argument that Israelis afre not "civilians" (and thus can be killed) I understand it must be you Jonathan, why don't you log in ? Zeq 03:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• You are correct that I am proudly from
  Zionist occupiers. (have now logged in as my username--I have been making minor spelling and grammatical changes on topics of interest to me as an anonymous user but I created a username yesterday when I came across controversial topics to which I am interested in contributing)Arabhorse 04:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 67.183.186.85
  04:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoever you are: civilians are civilians and whoever target civilians is a terror organization. That what Hamas does. Zeq 09:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just as a meta-comment, I love Wikipedia. Wikipedia's definition of terrorism states (my highlighting)

The label "terrorist" is highly pejorative; it is a badge which denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality. For "terrorist" groups, it is important to be accepted as something other than a terrorist group. Groups that have described themselves as "terrorist" are therefore almost unknown. It is equally important for a group's opponents that the label "terrorist" be applied. The appellation "terrorist" is therefore always disputed, and attempts at defining the concept invariably arouse debate because rival definitions may be employed with a view to including the actions of certain parties, and excluding others, each of which will subjectively claim a legitimate basis for employing violence in pursuit of their own political cause or aim.

Here we are now, with one side (which I presume are opponents of Hamas) arguing that it's essential to call Hamas a terrorist group in the opening sentence. On the other side (which again I presume are supporters of Hamas) arguing that it's wrong to call Hamas a terrorist group. Just as Wikipedia's definition predicts, both sides will take their own definitions of what terrorism is and, by those definitions, Hamas is both a terrorist group and not a terrorist group at the same time. The media uses the term "militant" to accurately describe the militancy (determination, warfare) of Hamas, without taking the further step of inciting an emotional response by characterising them as "terrorist". I believe that Hamas has undeniably carried out acts of terrorism. That does not mean its primary purpose for existing is to perform terrorist acts. As a suggestion, I believe the current opening line is suitable: "Hamas ... is a Palestinian Islamist militant organization.". These four words are accurate, not intending to emotionally manipulate perception of Hamas and not generally challenged by supporters of Hamas. The description "terrorist organization" doesn't meet all those criteria (much like "baby-killers" wouldn't, for example).

I would say that Hamas's raison d'etre (the destruction of the State of Israel) needs more prominence and the "and of any secular Palestinian state that may be set up in the area" is detracting from that (it should be enough to state that it wants an Islamic state; as far as I know, nobody is positing secular Palestinian state, so stating its opposition to any one "that may be set up" is a somewhat leftfield way of characterising its desire for sharia).

I believe the opening paragraph should say the following - what do you think?

Hamas (Arabic حركة حماس) is a Palestinian Islamist militant organization that calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state. It is known for carrying out suicide bombings against civilian and military Israeli targets. It is the majority party of the Palestinian Authority Legislative Council, having won 74 out of 132 seats in the January 2006 legislative election.

Although I don't think it should be in the opening paragraph, I believe the article should include a verifiable list of notable organisations that categorise Hamas as a terrorist organisation (e.g. the Israeli government), and a verifiable list of notable organisations that specifically request that Hamas is not called a terrorist organisation (e.g. Hamas itself). 195.173.23.111 15:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro states:

"Following the organization's victory in the 2006 elections, the Quartet on the Middle East — the European Union, United States, Russia, and the United Nations — announced that future aid to the Palestinians would be tied to three principles: that Hamas renounce violence, that it recognize Israel's right to exist, and that it express clear support for the Middle East peace process, as outlined in the Oslo Accords. [8] [9] Hamas leaders have rejected these demands as "unfair". [10]"

While this is partly true, it doesn't explains well the attitude of Russia, which has warned against stopping funding of the PA and has invited Hamas leaders to Moscow. The Quartet did announce that, but Russia also said the reverse at the same time. This should be taken into account. Tazmaniacs 00:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Are five notes really necessary to prove the point that "Hamas is known for carrying out suicide bombings"? Tazmaniacs 00:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I believe these sources can be deleted, as they support a non-disputed fact.Bertilvidet 16:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for accidentally reverting that edit of those sources--computer crashed and I mistakenly used a cached version (from browser history) to navigate back to the page without realizing it wasn't the latest edit. Stupid mistake on my part, in the middle of the night and was tired...67.183.186.85 02:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried again. This is really not an important issue for me...but if someone out there thinks that it serves a usefull purpose worth the confusion it gives in the article, please let us know. Bertilvidet 11:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seemt to be very important for some people with all the sources. I`l not remove them again. But for curiosity, could some one please tell why it is so important??? Bertilvidet 14:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that it seems that Wikipedia is unwilling to label Hamas as a terrorist organization (which it is, by the definition of a terrorist organization on wikipedia), providing information about their terrorist acts (ie. suicide bombings) becomes all the more important. 72.56.10.196 15:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK noone disagrees on having the sentence "Hamas is known for carrying out suicide bombings". But do we need to bombard the readers with FIVE sources for this uncontested fact?? Bertilvidet 16:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suggest it be changed to "carrying out suicide bombings that target civilians and non-combatants" to give the proper context, in lieu of the linked sources. I don't think the sources are there because the fact is contested, more to provide context.72.56.10.196 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That proposal sounds fine for me, and I just reworded the article as proposed. Let's see how long it stays...Bertilvidet 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Half an hour they lasted....Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, could you maybe spare a few seconds to argue for the revert? Bertilvidet 07:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

After 10 days there is still nobody arguing for the need of 5 notes. So I try once agaın changing the text as per 72.56.10.196. Bertilvidet 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional notes don't hurt at all, anything in a controversial article that isn't thoroughly noted will undoubtedly be deleted by partisans, 5 notes indicate how widespread the idea is, and 5 notes ensure that any links that go bad will have supporting links. The real question is, once you have properly cited material, why on earth would you ever delete a citation? I'm having trouble thinking of a valid reason. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree Talous 15:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because nobody needs ten news article to know what everybody can see on TV? Who is contesting the fact that Hamas has used bombings including suicide bombings? The five notes could at least be gathered into one note, for the sake of READABILITY (does that goes for a "valid reason"?)! Tazmaniacs 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe (sic) that it might be better putting the "Covenant" subsection at the beginning of the "Beliefs" section, as it is an objective part to lay on (at least, it's a written text, and by those guys), and then go on about it's attitute during the elections and its antisionism. What do you think? Tazmaniacs 00:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is a good idea as well, as long as the most correct and accurate translation of the text is used and not the biased source from the political advocacy site which unfortunately keeps being reinserted despite discussion. Arabhorse 22:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

While in theory that might solve everything, I don't believe it helps. Those are really just in effect weasel words. Please discuss changes like that here before making them. s»abhorreo»i 06:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How would you suggest to include the fact that there is dissent, not only here but in the world as a whole, regarding the Palestinian/"Israeli" question and how organized resistance can/should operate?

By being more specific about who belives what, and citing sources. See

Generalization using weasel words. Also, please sign your comments. Thanks. s»abhorreo»i

07:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Aiden, I don't know if your comment "Militant is in no way a weasel word. It is used by all major media to describe the group" was directed at me or not, but if it was, the word 'militant' isn't what I was reffering to as a weasel word. It has since been reverted, but someone added to the first paragraph a part saying something like "some belive hamas to be a murdurous terrorist group, and some heroic freedom fighters". Thats what my "weasel word" comments were directed at. s»abhorreo»i 23:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Hamas#Factual accuracy for other discussed points in the current version. Tazmaniacs 14:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To leave aside the vexed question above of use of whether we should refer to the Egyptian or Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, and take up these other issues outside that argument, can I ask two questions as I haven't seen any reason given for these changes and therefore suspect they may be simply problems arising from the confusion of a frequently-edited page.

1. Is there is any reason for referencing the Hamas Covenant to a poor translation on advocacy website http://www.mideastweb.org, when a good translation is available on the website of Yale Law School's Avalon Project [10]?
2. Is there any source for the claim that Hamas wishes to "destroy any secular Palestinian state that may be set up in the area"? The source cited - the Covenant - does not support this contention; indeed, it appears to indicate the opposite, cf Articles 25 and 36. If there is a source for this it should be cited. If there is none it should be removed. Palmiro | Talk 13:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1. mideastweb is not an advocay site. It is an information site shared by jews, arabs who speak arabic.

1. as for Hamas goals with regard to what stae should there be, please see section 11.

Zeq 14:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like an advocacy site to me; in any case, it does not qualify as a

It is totally an advocacy site, the most prominent section is 'news and views', and in 'about us' they state who they are and what their goals are. It is better to link to a site that primarily reports news without so many 'views'. An academic site is an even more superior source, especially in this case. Plus, I personally dislike sites with articles that feature news stories infused with opinions because they blur the line between fact and opinion. This is why a source such as the NY Times, for example, will have a strictly News section with (supposedly) objective and unbiased reporting, and then an Editorial and Opinions page where it is clear that this section is distinct from the news and contains opinion pieces. It would be like linking to the 'Drudge Report', 'NewsMax', or 'Antiwar.com'--sure, you may find unbiased reference material on these sites but the context in which the information is presented matters...the perception of objectivity is important. (*note-my opinion matches closely with Palmiro's comments above and below, I inserted my comments here because the discussion about source seems split by discussion directly below about whether secular-->Islamic is 'destruction' or 'transformation').Arabhorse 23:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether you destroy a state by violence or other means, if you turn a secular state into an Islamist one, you've destroyed the secular state. There are a few sections that indicate they would seek to destroy/overthrow any secular state. For example, Article 27: "Secularism completely contradicts religious ideology. Attitudes, conduct and decisions stem from ideologies. ... That is why, with all our appreciation for The Palestinian Liberation Organization - and what it can develop into - and without belittling its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea. The Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion and whoever takes his religion lightly is a loser." And indirectly Article 11, because they include Israel in the area they're referring to: "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that."

Why do you think that website doesn't quality as a reliable source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added the Yale page alongside the mideastweb. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Well, in that case, we should say "replace with". We know Hamas are opposed to a secular state. We don't have any source for the statement that they would "destroy" it, with all the implications of that word. We should make sourced edits (no source for "destroy") using neutral rather than emotive language.

Thanks for adding the Yale site. As for the other website, after a quick look I didn't see any evidence that it is maintained by any known body with expertise in the area of Arabic translation, Palestinian politics or any such field. The organization running it seems to be a group of assorted individuals with an interest in cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians. While this is very laudable, and I see some names I know there, there is no reason to consider them particular authorities on Arabic translation. Furthermore, the page we are linking to contains irrrelevant and politicised material, which is a further argument against preferring it. In any case, the other translation is from an impeccable source and, more importantly, is simply a far better translation. What's wrong with just giving the good one? Palmiro | Talk 14:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

We have no reason to believe that it's a bad translation or that they translated it. They may have taken it from elsewhere. If one of them did translate it, I see on their list of involved people that they have someone who has acted as a professional translator. If s/he either did it or has checked it, it will be fine. What is the politicized material you feel shouldn't be linked to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you read it? It doesn't read well in English. A good translation should read well in the target language. As for the politicised material, the page starts with a very dodgy introduction which exudes bias against Hamas and gives selective excerpts (sure, I agree with them myself on the whole, but it doesn't do much for our reputation to direct people to obviously partisan sites for information when there is a better alternative), then goes on to solicit donations for the organization. We have a better alternative, so why do we have to give this one? Palmiro | Talk 14:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel rather stupid now; on careful examination, it doesn't look as bad as I remember it, and moreover it looks the same as the one on the Yale site. Have they changed it recently I wonder? I seem to remember it being rather poor. Maybe I am just being stupid. Palmiro | Talk 14:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, having established that the two translations are the same (now, and perhaps before too), the other issues are not so important as far as I'm concerned, and I'm happy to see the two pages stay if that's what people want. However, the "destruction" sentence still absolutely needs to be sourced - to a reliable source that says as much - or to go. Palmiro | Talk 15:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you read more in mideastweb.org, I know them they are fair in giving out accurate info. Zeq 17:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I might have a look at some point, but there are plenty of books and things like that that I want to read and I'm not much into spending my time reading advocacy websites, even (or especially) ones I may agree with. Palmiro | Talk 18:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 'destruction' is a loaded term--you wouldn't say that the Democratic Party in the US wants to 'destroy' the Republican government. In Hamas' charter they say even though the PLO is secular they are still like fathers, brothers, and kin, but they fundamentally disagree with the idea of a secular state. As Palmiro said, the word destruction has implications--especially in the context of the Middle East. Arabhorse 23:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Citing the Covenant in the intro gives more importance to the 1988 covenant than to the current policies followed by Hamas, which may contradict (& do indeed; see hudna & its acceptance of the Arab League 2002 proposition) the Covenant. It is thus POV to do it, especially when it carries with it discussed interpretations of the Covenant to claim that Hamas is opposed not only to the Israeli state (a fact) but also to "any secular Palestinian state", thus quasi-implying that it would prefer no state than to a secular state (why has it accepted to lead the Palestinian Authority then?) Tazmaniacs 14:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I take the liberty to paste Slimvirgin's comment here:

"Then Hamas must change its covenant. Until such time as it does, it's not for us to say that it doesn't matter. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)"

I agree with the statement according to which "Hamas must change its covenant", but you shouldn't misinterpret what I wrote & what others argue: nobody said "it doesn't matter", Palmiro has left the point that it doesn't speaks about the "destruction of any secular Palestinian state", it pronounces itself in favor of an Islamist Palestinian state. That's not the same. And I never said the Covenant wasn't important, I simply wrote that if you include it in the intro, than you also have to include the current policies & what Hamas is currently willing to accept, that is the 2002 Arab League proposition (you may argue that it says it is willing to accept that 2002 proposition for reasons that have nothing to do with sincerity, that's not the problem either). Tazmaniacs 13:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting the way that the Wikipedia article on the

"Despite their support amongst Tamils, the LTTE is accused of terrorism. It is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by several countries, including USA, Canada [11], Britain, India, Australia and Malaysia, and LTTE delegations are barred from the European Union[12]."

"Part of the reason for the accusation is its targeting of political figures and non-military officials, and its use of suicide bombers....the LTTE's bombing attacks have caused a large number of civilian casualties and, in instances such as the attack on the Temple of the Tooth in Kandy, Dehiwala train or the Central Bank in Colombo, did not have any military target...The LTTE's supporters justify these attacks by saying that the people assassinated are either Tamil traitors or persons closely associated with the Sri Lankan military action. Specifically in relation to the TELO, the LTTE has said that it had to attack them because the TELO was in effect functioning as a proxy for India. They also draw comparisons between the casualties caused by the LTTE's actions and the actions of European resistance forces against Nazi occupation during the Second World War." (emphases mine)

I think the Tamil page is an example of a more balanced, well-written, and objective article than this version of Hamas that we currently have. The Tigers are another example of an organisation labeled as 'terrorist' by most of the Western world and the media, however the article devoted to them seems to me to be much more informative and detailed. It addresses the 'terrorist vs. freedom fighter' question in the body of the article by acknowledging multiple perspectives and analyzes those perspectives more indepthly. Do you think we could integrate (not plagiarize, but use as a better example of a good template) some of the ideas from that article to improve this one? The neutrality of the Tamil page is also disputed but it seems as if the discussion/compromise among the participants there is much further along than it is here... Arabhorse 08:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Every major worldwide media group describes Hamas as a militant organization. There is quite a bit of disctinction between an Islamist group and an Islamist militant group. The fact that they conduct suicide bombings against civilians most definitely puts them in the latter category.

"It is the largest Palestinian militant Islamist organisation..." --BBC

"The Islamic militant group Hamas distanced itself Sunday from purported comments by Osama bin Laden..." --Associated Press

I could go on. —Aiden 23:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think "militant" is verifiable, and is of a neutral point of view. 72.56.10.196 02:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

But the Liberation Party is undoubtedly militant as well, and it is decidedly non-violent. What do we gain by adding this? What do people understand by it? Palmiro | Talk 09:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It's meaningless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How is it meaningless? There are many Islamist groups that are not militants. Hamas is an infamous militant group, described as such by nearly every major media group worldwide. To omit this is to omit one of their most notorious characteristics. —Aiden 19:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes the word is meaningless. According to the Militant article it means "any individual or party engaged in aggressive physical or verbal combat, normally for a cause". I don't know what you understand by the word. What about suggesting "violent" if that is the way you interpret the word? Bertilvidet 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Folks, you clearly don't have consensus yet. It is disturbing to see back to back readded/removed "per talk". Please get consensus, or at least majority view, before doing either with a "per talk" justification. Revert wars just clutter the article history and make it harder for other editors to work on the page.

For what it is worth, the relevant part of the militant article seems to me to be "Journalists often use militant as a neutral term for soldiers who do not belong to an established military. Typically, a militant engages in violence as part of a claimed struggle for achievement of a political goal." Militant is clearly more NPOV than "terrorist" or "freedom-fighter" would be. All three terms establish that it engages in violence, which to the average native English speaker is probably one of the most notable features of Hamas. I think it would be better grammer to have the word preceed "Palestinian", as the article is better read as saying that they are a "Palestinian organization that is militant" than as saying they are a "militant organization that is Palestinian". In short, I'd suggest that the word should stay in the sentence, but get moved forward in front of Palestinian.

The word "militant" does not convey that Hamas engages in violence, and if that's what has to be conveyed, an unambiguous word like "armed" could be used instead. I recommend looking "militant" up in a good dictionary. Hamas are more notorious for their armed actions than for their political militancy, probably. Palmiro | Talk 11:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would kindly suggest those of you readding the word to spend a few mønutes explaønæng what you understand by the word. Maybe we can find a more adequate word describing what you what like to say. Bertilvidet 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

GRBerry hit the nail on the head. "Journalists often use militant as a neutral term for soldiers who do not belong to an established military. Typically, a militant engages in violence as part of a claimed struggle for achievement of a political goal." How that does not describe Hamas is beyond my understanding. Hamas is a militant group, period. Every major media worldwide describes Hamas as such. Because several editors may not understand the definition or connotations of the word is not sufficient to warrent its omission. Hamas is described as a militant group by the BBC, Associated Press, Reuters, et al. Also as GRBerry said, it is an accurate medium between the POVs of "freedom fighter" and "terrorist." —Aiden 18:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Todays news: "Jordan says it has arrested several members of the Palestinian militant group, Hamas..." "The militant group won Palestinian parliamentary elections in January." --BBC

In a journalistic article I might agree on the term, since journalism needs to simplify things. I do however have higher expectations in terms of accuracy from an encyclopedia. Bertilvidet 23:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually a journalistic source is comepltely adequate for wikipedia. I am reverting the deletions because the sources seem completley reputable and reliable to me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if "Militant" is not appropriate, I believe the article needs something more then "Islamist". Many people do not know the full definition of the term, and may just assume it is interchangable with Islamic. s»abhorreo»i 02:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do people continue to remove the word militant, a pretty much worldwide consensus concerning the group, from the introduction with no discussion? Please stop. —Aiden 21:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet again it was removed because a couple editors think the word is either "unbearable" or "meaningless." What exactly does this mean? That it is unbearable to you or that you personally find it meaningless? Contrary to their edit summaries, no true justification has been given as to why the word should be omitted. There is a worldwide consensus for describing Hamas as a militant group, so please stop violating

WP:NPOV concerning this issue. —Aiden

21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet again SlimVirgin has removed the word with no explanation on talk, with only a description that the word is "meaningless". Sorry to say but nearly every respected academic source disagrees with you. —Aiden 03:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the militant-extremist's side they are "Freedom Fighters." Insane is an understatement of Hamas

How about "Islamist paramilitary group" or "Islamist armed group". Although I think "Islamist militant group" is fairly self-explanory and implies the use of violence. "Militant Islamic group", where the adjective is before Islamic, may be more ambiguous though. Kingal86 23:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove these sources from the line "it is known for carrying out suicide bombings" in the second paragraph. Removing them serves no useful purpose. Bertilvidet justifies removing these as "loads of sources for uncontested fact about suicide bombings deleted per talk", yet I don't see this discussed anywhere. 72.56.10.196 02:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

See the section entitled "Notes" above for discussion of this. Tazmaniacs

Stating in the introduction (that should be kept as short as possible) that Canada and Australia list Hamas as a terrorist organization is irrelevant. These countries are not part of the Quartet on the Middle East and do not have as an important political role as do the Quartet countries (US, European union...). As such, it is more than enough stating that "Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by ISrael, the US and the European Union". Tazmaniacs 11:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would we list some and not others, and why move Jordan out of the intro? Your edit looks like an attempt to whitewash. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Because Australia & CAnada are not members of the Quartet. Please stop being paranoiac throwing whitewashing accusations. Concerning Jordan, I don't think that the fact that they are banned overthere is so important that it should be listed in the intro. It should be stated, of course, but in the main text. If you "list some and not others", than why not review the whole list of states? Maybe because you care only about English-speaking states? Your argument doesn't answer the problem: we care about the Quartet states and the United Nations. Otherwise, please bring proof that Australia's qualification of Hamas as a terrorist organization has important consequences on the movement, so much that it should be stated in the intro. Tazmaniacs

It doesn't matter whether they're members of the Quartet. The intro lists which countries regard it as a terrorist group and have banned it. If you know of others, bring them forward. Why on earth would we care only about the Quartet? The issue of how many, and which, countries have banned them goes to the heart of whether they can be considered a legitimate movement or simply a terrorist organization. Wikipedia can't come down on one side or the other, but we can and should say which side others have come down on, and who these others are per

WP:RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

11:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not keep deleting relevant sourced information. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The claim that the introduction should not list the various countries that designate Hamas a terrorist organization, or ban it completely, simply because they are not part of the "Quartet" is utter nonsense. I'm not sure why you assert that we only "care about the Quartet and the United Nations"; in fact, we care about world opinion. Canada is a G8 nation, and Australia is a leading industrial nation and Pacific power, and the fact that neighboring (and Arab) Jordan has also banned Hamas is noteworthy. On top of that you have deleted a number of useful references to a fact (that Hamas is well-known for carrying out suicide bombings) which, if not supported by a number of references, will undoubtedly be completely deleted by the next attempted whitewash. Deleting relevant and noteworthy facts, and supportive footnotes is verging on vandalism. Please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How about: "Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by numerous states and international organizations, including Israel, the US and the European Union". We can then in the article proper have the entire list. IMHO it seems out of proportions to have such a long list in the introduction. I don't agree on labelling a shortening of the intro as vandalism. Bertilvidet 14:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Israel isn't a member of the Quartet, so why mention them? You seem to be suggesting that Canada and Australia are without influence, which is your POV and has no place here. Jordan's having banned it is particularly relevant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense towards Canada and Australia. But I find it obvious that Israel, USA and EU play a more important role in the Iraeli-Arab conflict. Why is Jordan particularly relevant? It shouldn´t be a surprise that a non-clerical kingdom bans a fundamentalist group. Bertilvidet 15:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jordan? 75% of the original Palestine Mandate? Whose population is 60% Palestinian? Which borders on Israel and the West Bank, and annexed the West Bank for 20 years? Are you asking why that Jordan's attitude towards Hamas is relevant? Or did you mean some other Jordan, like Michael Jordan? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And Tazmaniacs, this edit of yours is definitely verging on vandalism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I can really not see how this edit is verging on vandalism. Will you please elaborate on that rather serious accusation? Bertilvidet 14:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Jordan is relevent as they border Israel and the West Bank and play a large role in Middle-East affairs? I agree fully with Jayjg and SlimVirgin that omitting these other nations because they are not members of the Quartet is nonsensical. —Aiden 19:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Before people get too excited about which foreign countries it is worth mentioning in the introduction, I would like to point out that there are two serious errors pointed out at length above which have yet to be fixed: first of all, the association of Hamas with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (no sources provided for this view) rather than the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine (as indicated in the source given and two sources provided here on the talk page); and secondly, the claim that Hamas wishes to "destroy any secular Palestinian state that might come about" (misleadingly sourced to the Hamas Covenant, which says no such thing). Factual inaccuracies in an introduction are a more serious problem than deciding whether the views of Syria, Canada or Equatorial Guinea or none of these or all of these need to go into the first paragraph. Factual inaccuracies which claim a source which does not support them are a serious threat to any reputation for intellectual honesty Wikipedia can hope to lay claim to; claiming a source for a statement when the source does not bear that out is a Very Bad Thing. I would ask the various belligerent parties here to look into this issue before resuming their hostilities. Palmiro | Talk 11:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

See also Talk:Hamas#destruction of any secular Palestinian state

WARNING: Concerning interpretations of a Covenant or of the Quran or of any text for that matter, it is suggested to have a passing look at Hermeneutics before stating fanatic claims. Thank you." Tazmaniacs 16:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: I would rather not have to put this warning on this page, although some users seem to be unfamiliar with the Kabbalah. Maybe instead of editing, they should have a look in some books. Tazmaniacs 16:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In line with Palmiro I must say, that it is rather problematic to insist on having the sentence "calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and of any secular Palestinian state that may be set up in the area" as long as there is not provided any sources confirming the claim. The sources curently provided simply confirms that Hamas is against secularism, which indeed not is the same as calling for the destruction of any secular Palestinian state. Bertilvidet 07:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

it has been discussed before: Establsihing a sharia state means the destructionm of everything else. Zeq 07:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer something like "opposes the establishment of a secular state"; the idea of destruction is not unambiguously worded in the Covenant, so we could only say Hamas intends to destroy any secular state if we had reliable sources saying so. Establishing sharia may be called, for example, "transformation" of a secular state into an Islamic one. Pecher ^Talk 08:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher´s proposal seems reasonable. It is problematic that the current version is based on an interpretation - made by Wikipedia and not supported by any sources ´on the primary source. Bertilvidet 08:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Pecher's phrasing. It just contains what is written instead of what is probably insinuated.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

reluctently, I'll go with Pecher proposal although I like to state things as they are and not as coniniant for PC reasons. Zeq 08:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a second thought, "opposes the establishment of a secular state" implies that Hamas prefers Israeli occupation to the establishment of a secular Palestinian state. If any sources confirm that it is fine for me. If not, I am afraid we should find another wording´- anti-secular, maybe, if it is not understood from the first paragraph stating that we deal with an Islamist organization. Bertilvidet 08:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mmm... now that would be interesting indeed! Concerning the wording, I think "oppose secularism" is better and more simple tnat "transformation of a secular state into an Islamic one" (that doesn't really convey all of the political conflicts involved in this huge mess, and sounds a bit too... smooth?). As long as we have no source concerning what it thinks about the existence of a secular state (which, by the way, already exists, at least officially - and Hamas deputies are now members of the PLO, whether they want it or not, which is secular that I know; i.e. they are in the same positions as socialists deputies at the start of the century, who claimed they were against any "bourgeois" government, but nevertheless participated in it, and finally became social-democrats; this remark mustn't stand as if I was risking myself in any prediction: if one thing is sure in the Middle East, and more generally in politics, is that predictions have a fair tendance of either being false or producing themselves their effects...) Tazmaniacs 15:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how the wording implies that at all. I think any ambiguity that might actually be present is cleared up by the context.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The current version of tha articles states that Hamas's charter, written in 1988 and still in force, calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and of any secular Palestinian state that may be set up in the area. This discussion confirms that there are no sources supporting this claim, which solely is an interpretation of the charter by some users of Wikipedia. Is it not problematic to turn such personal interpretations into encyclopedical facts? Bertilvidet 21:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It is really a shame for Wikipedia's credibility when such interpretations - even not supported by any sources - are accepted to stay as undisputed facts in the article. Bertilvidet 21:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as this disputed paragraph stays we do need to tag the article, that its factual accuracy is disputed. Bertilvidet 13:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously some of us are speaking to the wind. The introduction is not supposed to be a pamphlet against Hamas, nor the article either for that matter. Those of you who only insist in portraying Hamas as an evil movement are only playing Hamas games, you should meditate on this one little second in your Wikilife. In your personal life, do whatever you will! Tazmaniacs 16:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking to the wind, indeed...Tazmaniacs, thanks for participating in the talk. It is slightly frustrating to discuss with people who prefer to revert rather than participate in the talks...Bertilvidet 09:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This edit was reverting what is obvious: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&diff=50100883&oldid=50100444 Zeq 08:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hamas' goal of the destruction of Israel is mentioned in the second paragraph already. —Aiden 18:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

1st paragraph should be a summary of the wholoe article and should stand on it's own as a mini-article (that is the policy) so think of 1st paragrpah : Is that the most important thing to say anout hamas or something is missing..... ???? Zeq 19:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer my version, "militant

Psychomel@di_(s)cussion

07:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think they should be refered to as anti-israeli in the way that your phrasing does. It is clear from the rest of the article that they are anti-israeli but there is no need to write it as you have.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Then how come "Palestinain" can stay? It is also clear by the rest of the article that they are Palestinaians. I, as a reader, am finding it more improtant that Hamas ia anti-Zionist than Palestinian.

Psychomel@di_(s)cussion

10:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Because although anti-zionism is part of their platform, it is not their entire platform. Stating it as you have implies that it is, but they are primarily concerned with Palestinian society , and are only anti-zionism in that it relates to Palestine.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think that the "anti-Israeli" (or anti-Zionist) should stay before to the word militant as a context of their militancy.

Psychomel@di_(s)cussion

20:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are anti-Israeli but it is a peculiarly Israeli point of view that defines other people and groups primarily by their relationship to Israel. Hamas is much more than just their position against Israel. --68.214.57.247 01:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

68.214.57.247- Of course this is made clear in the rest of the article. Everything in the introduction is made clear in the rest of the article. The purpose of an introduction is to introduce the major aspects of the article's subject, and in this case being Anti-Israeli is definitely one of them (and this is quite an understatement). So please stop reverting without evidence that this is no longer a major aspect of Hamas. I am leaving your revert as is out of respect for

Just as another editor said, it is also made clear that the group is Palestinian--are we to remove that from the intro then? Or how about Islamist--is that not made clear in the body but still needed in the intro? —Aiden 03:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would not characterize Hamas as such: someone who is against Israel's policies may be called "anti-Israel". We should say that Hamas aims for the destruction of the State of Israel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hamas is against Israel existence not just it policies. Zeq 04:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Hamas primarily focuses on Palestinian society and are against Israel's existance insofar that they feel the land belongs to Palestine, so they probably see it as a means to an end. When we phrase it "Hamas is an anti-Israeli organization, that is against Israel's existance" or something along those lines, then we are implying that the destruction of Israel is their primary focus and objective, when they actually see it as a prequisite for their prime objective. Am I making sense?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt if you should be "explaining" Hamas. Their views are very clear and they repeat the fact that they can not accept israel right to exist. Zeq 05:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we are agreeing. I am saying we shouldn't include anti-Israeli or similar statements in the introduction.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Good to see there is an agreement. I think however that the current ordering of the words in the first sentence is a bit forced. I think "Palestinian anti-Israeli Islamist militant organization" should be replaced with "militant anti-Israeli Palestinian Islamist organization" (this is not an opinion as to which of the adjectives is more important- I just think it reads better this way). Any takers?
-Sangil 10:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, too many adjectives. The second sentence says "Its charter, written in 1988 and still in force, calls for the destruction of the State of Israel", so I don't see a need for "anti-Israel" (which could be confusing, see above) in the first sentence. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

being anti-Israeli encompasses much more than a charter. It is expressed in declarations, both private and official, as well as actions, both political or military. Hamas not only calls in its charter for the destruction of Israel, it is actively pursueing this goal, and it regards every Israeli civilian, be them woman, child, or old man, as a legitimate military target. Simply quoting the charter is in no way sufficient for the introduction.

-Sangil 11:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This shows how confusing is the word "anti-Israel". If we could compress what you wrote and put in into the intro, that'd be great. Perhaps "...whose stated goal is the destruction..." and use the Charter as a ref. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't need the word anti-Israel but we do need "...militant group that actively calls for the destruction of Israel." or something of the like. —Aiden 21:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the most accurate definition we can use (the "calling" for the destruction of Israel isn't so much the point as the "doing"), but for the sake of compromise I'll agree to it.

-Sangil 20:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it does do quite enough.

Psychomel@di_(s)cussion

17:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Robin Hood 7000 00:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That would qualify as POV.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Note the same user's edit in Zionism [13]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OK then. —Aiden 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't care what's its goal. Does it use

Psychomel@di_(s)cussion

01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't u call Israel a terrorist, Israel occupies land and kills civilians, isn't that terror?Robin Hood 1212 13:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

1. First off, I think you are confusing. Yes, I say Hamas is a terror group. No, the article does not say it's a terror group (you should be thankful for that), therefore it's not "biased" even by your mistaken logic. I'll say again, most of the western world consider Hamas terrorist. The fact you don't like it because it's not what you want to hear does not make it "biased", take that as a fact. Hiding that fact will be, by your logic again, a pro-Palestinian action. Am I right?

2. Also, Israel's purpose is not the take over lands and to kill civilians. It does it by

self defence

. If you have followed the past few years you've seen whenever the area is calm Israel takes out military forces and allowing Palestinian to enter *its* area. Until one of those Palestinian (perhaps a member of Hamas) is deciding to kill some Israeli innocents.

3. You are a repeating annoying

Psychomel@di_(s)cussion

13:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It was before becoming a seperate group and changing her name. Robin Hood 1212 13:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, according to the Hamas Charter, they still consider themselves a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. (71.234.181.18 01:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC))

They're not a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in the area; they are the MB there now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, what does the word "militant" mean when applied to these groups? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That they engage in militant activities, such as rocket attacks or suicide bombings. None of this is disputed. There are Islamist groups that do not engage in this behavior, such as those who operate through the education system. The word militant is necessary to describe Hamas' modus operandi. —Aiden 04:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So you would have described the MB in Gaza, the forerunner to Hamas, as non-militant? And there is no such thing as a militant animal-rights group because they don't engage in rocket attacks? This is a word that some news organizations have adopted to replace the word "terrorist." It's a substitute word for "we don't like them, but we're trying to be neutral," at least when used by the Western media. It's actually very easy to write an article without using either terrorist or militant just by sticking to the facts, and the word's particularly pointless in this intro because we say directly after it that Hamas engages in suicide attacks, so they're clearly not non-militant A(whatever that would mean). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That is nothing but your opinion. I have provided numerous credible sources describing Hamas as a militant group while you have nothing but your opinion of the word's value. I'm sorry, but the term is widely accepted as accurately describing Hamas and your saying it is 'meaningless' because you attach connotations to it based in your own perceptions is not enough to warrant its omission. —Aiden 05:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The word reflects the house style of some news organizations. Other house styles call them terrorists. Why should we adopt the house style of one group, but not the other? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid solves that issue. Militant is a perfectly neutral, descriptive word with a recognizable meaning in the English language. —Aiden

06:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, thank you for taking the time to clarify your ideas. Militant is indeed an ambigous word . from what you write above it seems that your understanding of the word is armed. What about writing that, if that is what you want to say? Bertilvidet 06:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, the word doesn't have a "perfectly neutral, descriptive meaning." I asked you what it meant in relationship to this group and you replied that it meant they engage in things like rocket attacks. I then asked you what a "militant animal rights group" would be, given that they don't engage in rocket attacks, but you didn't answer. It can't simply mean "extremist" or "radical" because that's part of the understanding of Islamist, which is the next word. There are no non-radical Islamist groups that I'm aware of. So the word is entirely redundant, and using a redundant word in the first sentence is bad writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as you ignored my comparison between Hamas and an Islamist group that operates through the education system, indoctrinating youth. This group would not be 'militant' per say, while Hamas, which operates through militant means. Bertilvidet, I have not given my ideas, I have provided you with examples of the term's international acceptance among respected information sources, including the BBC and Associated Press. You have provided us with your opinion about the word's usefullness, nothing more. —Aiden 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not addressing the issue, Aiden, which is this: There are some organizations that call Hamas "militant." There are some that call Hamas "terrorist." Why do you choose to prioritize only the word "militant"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My comment was not at all meant to be sarcastic. I do regret if it has been interpreted as such. But still I would like to know: does militant mean armed (an explicit term) in your understanding of the word? Bertilvidet 18:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, as I said above,

Wikipedia:Words to avoid narrows that down for us. 'Terrorist' is described as a word we should avoid, while 'militant' is a perfectly acceptable description. Bertilvidet, there are plenty of groups who are armed but are not militants, such as standing armies or possibly militias, depending on their tactics. Also as I said above, militant is commonly used to describe the modus operandi of the group. Simply because I am armed, does that make me a militant? No. Hamas' tactics place them in this category; and whatever way you want to try and spin this, you have nearly every worldwide authority disagreeing with you. Frankly, I don't think it's too hard to comprehend the meaning of the word 'militant' and am tired of playing this game. —Aiden

21:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, third time of asking, and this time you must answer or I'm removing the word militant (and don't refer me to Words to avoid, which isn't policy and which doesn't say militant should be used: Question — There are some organizations that call Hamas "militant." There are some that call Hamas "terrorist." Why do you choose to prioritize only the word "militant"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate the use of the word militant. We should call things as they are. Hamas is many things.

Hamas is an islamic charity org, Hamas is building a 'citizen army' in gaza and hamas has a large group of people focus on terrorism. As such it is all 3: Islamic, militant and terrorist. Zeq 11:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The terminology used should be one that implies neutrality on the part of the editor. Since Hamas is now part of the government, technically it is no longer a terrroist organizations, for the same reason George Bush cannot be called a terrorist in the context of the Iraq war- acts against civillians could be classified as warfare now. Anyway, the term "terrorist" is almost always POV, and has been used too often as a label by authoritative figures to denouce often legitimate opponents of a system. It's totally legitimate to use the word "terrorist" if the referring to how states and organizations label Hamas, but for it to be apparent that Wikipedia endorses the term would be grossly POV. Amibidhrohi 18:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We are not debating 'terrorist. The debate is over whether to include the neutral term 'militant'. —Aiden 01:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Another note..This article (as seems to be the case with most Wikipedia article) seems to be taking on a very western perspective of Hamas. The first paragraph seems to acknowlege Hamas as being a Palestinian organization, and then immediately dips into what Hamas is from an Israeli and US perspective. I switched a few words around to correct that, but alot of work still needs to be done. The internet being an international arena, I don't know why the American perspective dominates so thoroughly...I don't really have the time to go through the articles and fix the POV, but I hope you guys will be more aware of it. I'm assuming folks here aren't pushing their own little ideological agendas...Amibidhrohi 19:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's because the popular "eastern" (as the

Psychomel@di_(s)cussion

21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Psychomel. —Aiden 00:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)