Talk:Hamas: Difference between revisions

Shouldn't this say "Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by many countries, including ..." We'd have to add Canada and Australia for example.

Pointed taken, change have been made. MathKnight 21:36, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this usually spelled Hammas?

A Google search for "hammas palestine" (without the quotes) gets 181 hits, compared to 34,400 for "hamas palestine". --Zundark, 2001 Oct 7

Obviously not, it's H[arakat] M[uqawama] (i)S(lamiya), no stress on the M. --Uriyan

Hamas is a Palestinian Islamist group which builds schools and hospitals and provides other social needs for Palestinians. Hamas is classified by the US State Department as a terrorist organization,

this opening line is questionable. it states that the US Govt has declared an organization builds schools, etc, is terrorist. Not a creditable assertion. Hamas is a multi-faceted organization that engages in funding school construction (does it actually build schools or contract for their construction?) and engages in terrorism. Hamas is known in the West for its terrorist activities. This characterization of Hamas is due to the behavior of Hamas as well as the media reporting on this behavior. OneVoice 20:31, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

modify first sentence in effort to prevent revert war.

Hamas is a multi-faceted organization that engages in at least two distinct activites: chartible works and terrorism.

OneVoice 21:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If the following sentence refers to the recently assassinated "sheik", then it implies that the sheik was not merely a spiritual leader. I'd like the 2 articles on Hamas and Ahmed Yassin to be congruent, i.e., don't say one thing in one article and another thing in the other. Either Yassin ordered killings or he didn't. Ordering killings is either consistent with spiritual leadership, or it isn't. Someone who orders killings is generally regarded as a political leader, aren't they? Or is someone saying that Hamas had a leader higher than Yassin, to whom Yassin was subordinate? Let's get this straight, if possible. --Uncle Ed 13:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The organization's political current head is unknown,as his position cannot be replaced per se.

He was both a spiritual leader and a political leader. The extent to which he controlled the organization in its daily business is disputed, though it is clear that he gave it the general direction. It is not only "the supporters of Hamas" who use the phrase "spiritual leader", unless you think that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and the New York Times are Hamas supporters. (I guess some people do.) Even the Israeli description goes somewhat in this direction by calling him "the godfather of the suicide bombers" rather than the father. --Zero 13:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I made some radical changes to the beginning of the article. I guess I better wait a couple of hours before making any more changes. No point adding text, if it's just going to get reverted. Let's try to find a way to incorporate all relevant facts and POV accurately and neutrally. --Uncle Ed 14:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How does Hamas define "Palestine", in terms of its stated goal of establishing "an Islamic state in Palestine"?

Is Jordan located within Palestine, or outside of it?

Perhaps they define Palestine as consisting of the following areas of land:

• Gaza
• Israel
• West Bank

If so, perhaps we could identify the phrase Islamic state in Palestine as a slogan. --Uncle Ed 18:29, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reality is often stranger than fiction. Thank you whoever you are. user:manco

We need more info about Hamas's relationship with PLO.

This position has brought it into conflict with the PLO, which in 1988 recognized Israel's right to exist.

First of all, the PLO "recognition" of Israel's right to exist seems a bit flimsy. Is it widely regarded as sincere? I heard that it was just a bit of PR to get critics of their back, and that the PLO would L-O-V-E to push Israel into the Mediterranean Sea, just as much as Hamas. Am I misinformed, or what?

Let's research the various reasons Hamas has conflict with PLO, then put the above sentence back with repairs. --Uncle Ed 19:08, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wether it seems flimsy or not is irrelevant, it's the official line and should be stated so. Americas interest in a Palestinian state also seems a bit flimsy but they officially say they are committed to it.--Omar 11:41, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the child suicide bombing link for the following reasons: 1. it seems redundant to suicide bombings, and can be linked to from there. 2. It doesn't seem quite appropriate, war is war. 'Hamas' is a diff and major subject.sunja 02:02, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am removing the following profoundly encylopaedic statements:

As reports leak out of Israeli Military buldozing crops, cattle and houses, constricting roads and fencing people from their fields and livelyhoods hamas is seen as sadly supportive of public suicide as a desperate death cry to the world that the occupation has failed to bring what early zionists called "the benifits of our presence" to the Plestinians who experience infant mortality rate 10 times that of unoccupied Israel in it's 50 year effort to expell them from their homes sustanance. It is horrifying and mornfull that "Each Israeli killing only seems to enhance the popularity of Hamas on the street, particularly in its Gaza stronghold, where it draws recruits from a society that is extremely poor and deeply religious." NYT

Watcher 07:47, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh Watcher...i am that one that added that quote from The New York Times. I do not remember the section that you have added:

As reports leak out of Israeli Military buldozing crops, cattle and houses, constricting roads and fencing people from their fields and livelyhoods hamas is seen as sadly supportive of public suicide as a desperate death cry to the world that the occupation has failed to bring what early zionists called "the benifits of our presence" to the Plestinians who experience infant mortality rate 10 times that of unoccupied Israel in it's 50 year effort to expell them from their homes sustanance. It is horrifying and mornfull that

is distinctly different from the rest...is not in the style of the New York Times...has two spelling errors in a single word...most unlike the Times...it is most likely your personal addition.

To anonymous: I have not added this garbage, in fact I deleted it and moved it to the talkpage. It seems that somebody has messed with my comment on the talkpage. The paragraph I have deleted actually included these lines you are blaming for writing. Anyway, I certainly agree that such statements have no place at the Wiki. Whether or not they come from New York Times I will leave on the conscience of the person who posted it to the article with such an attribution. Watcher 22:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous, I am removing your quote from NYTimes, as follows:

"Each Israeli killing only seems to enhance the popularity of Hamas on the street, particularly in its Gaza stronghold, where it draws recruits from a society that is extremely poor and deeply religious." NYT

I feel that putting it as another sentence in an introductory paragraph is not NPOV in that it gives undue credence to this claim, because the attribution is placed at the end of the sentence and is deemphasized. To make attribution of the point of view clear, it should say something like "And according to New York Times as of 200x" that's what is happening.

Note moreover that "killings" is not a neutral term that has no place in the intro paragraph; a proper encyclopedic disambiguation may include "every Israeli assassination of a Hamas militant", or "every shooting of a stone throwing teenager" or "every housewife killed by a stray bullet during Israeli battle against Palestinian gunmen" etc. However, we obviosly cannot edit a quote from NYTimes, so if you want to keep this gem of insight in the article, you should move it to some place that is more appropriate, such as the outside world's view of events or Hamas recruiting in Gaza. Or better yet, just summarize what it is trying to say in a neutral manner. Nobody is going to ask you to provide sources here for self-evident statements. I look forward to constructive comments.

Also, please do not modify my comments on this talkpage any more, as it is rude and deceptive. I am not modifying yours, am I? Watcher 23:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be irregularities, can somebody clear them up? In the intro it states that it was founded in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, but later it states under history that it was funded in the 1970's and 1980's by Saudi Arabia and Syria.--Omar 11:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is a collaborative effort but you are making edits that add no significant value or new information apparently just so you can "have the last word". Control issues should be checked. Alberuni 05:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)