Talk:Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page name[edit]

Another gem by JDE. One issue I wanted to bring up was the article name. Only one source (not so reliable) refers to the orginization as "Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice." The two Jpost article refer to the orginization as the "Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice security force." Should the article be moved to the latter term? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, brewcrewer. Eventually more info on this organization will surface, but in the meantime I think the designation used in Al-Arabiya is preferable to the designation in the Jerusalem Post, because the latter is not really a name, as shown by the lack of capitals in "security force". There is also an article in Israel National News (not cited here) using the Al-Arabiya name, but its use of that name is clearly derivative from the Al-Arabiya article. There are some interesting similarities between this issue and the discussion on the Hamas designation of the Gaza War, in which you and I have participated. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I just saw that someone nominated this article for DYK. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

correct use of sources[edit]

A number of sentences that i have checked so far are taken verbatim from the cited sources. They don't have quote marks around them, and I don't know how much of the article is made up of such material. This will need work. The article is also repetitious, but that is another issue and can get sorted out. There also appears to be some distortion of the sources. One female journalist claimed that she was accused of laughing while swimming. The journalist herself then interpreted that as meaning that "Women are banned from laughing while swimming". The story notes however that official sources claim a different version of events. Yet in the WP article this is baldly stated as "Various religious regulations are said to be enforced by the Hamas de-facto government in the Gaza Strip in association with the committee [including] Women are banned from laughing while swimming". This is an unsustainable interpretation of the report. I'll try and come up with an improvement. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made revisions to accurately reflect sources, to include quote marks for all quotes, and to omit material that was not substantiated by the sources in relation to the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going through the sources. I increased the degree of paraphrasis in the "verbatim" sentences and removed the quotes. I think we've just demonstrated the obvious problem with sensitive topics like this, which is that if the text sticks too closely to the cited sources, it can be considered copied, but if it's too paraphrastic it's vulnerable to charges of distortion. It's a fine line we tread. Regarding the swimming-laughing ban, I guess the phrasing "are said to be enforced" is not optimal even though it's true. Since a reliable source does say that the ban exists, perhaps we can and should find a phrasing acceptable to everyone. Suggestions? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for name[edit]

Which sources establish that this is the actual name of a department under the Hamas government? Was the name coined by outsiders to describe a practice they think approximates those in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? Or is it actually an official name for a program or department under Hamas rule? Tiamuttalk 23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the subject of the article is an arm of the Hamas government which reports directly to the Ministry of Waqf Affairs is stated in the two cited Jerusalem Post reports. If your question refers to the proper name for the subject of the article, you should see the discussion above. In the meantime, you have created a version of this article which contradicts itself in its first two sentences. The first sentence states that the group is "unknown", and the second sentence quotes a reliable source stating its nature and affiliation. Please fix this. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a contradiction because we have contradictory reports. None of the four reports (i.e. newspaper articles from 2007 and 2009) contains any confirmation from Hamas officials regarding the group's existence. Only the Jerusalem Report and their journalist Khaled Abu Toameh allege that this is an official police body run by the Waqf affairs department of Hamas. This is an extraordinary claim to make given that the Waqf is a religious affairs department, not known to have police forces under its command in Gaza. This claim requires extraordinary sources. It also needs some official confirmation of its existence before such claims can be stated without attribution. hamiltonstone seems to find my edits to be an improvement (as indicated below). It can be stated uncontroversially that the group is "unknown", since no official statements regarding who runs it have been made. Do you have any other sources discussing this group besides the one's cited? Or is that it? Tiamuttalk 18:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction among the reports. That Hamas hasn't acknowledged the group's existence is not extraordinary at all. Even the most transparent and accountable governments often choose to conceal their activities, which is why we don't depend on governments to write encyclopedias, but on reliable sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are having the same discussion in two places now. I'm going to continue below, responding to this there. Tiamuttalk 19:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

Originally I had placed an accuracy tag here too, but have solved that problem a bit by attributing statements to their authors. The NPOV tag is still necessary however, since the article still implies this group is run by Hamas, and we have no representative of Hamas acknowledging this name or organization as operating under its auspices. I'm going to look for more sources to see if I can find a Hamas statement on their activities. Also, I think notability might be an issue here. No books or scholarly sources discuss such a group. Coverage seems to be limited media wise. If someone has other sources, it would be great if they could bring them forward. Tiamuttalk 20:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Thanks for your improvements. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A statement about a government's activities does not have to be verified by that government in order to be true. It has to be stated by a reliable source. That this group is run by Hamas is stated by a reliable source, and no reliable source says otherwise. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is The Jerusalem Post and their reporter Khaled Abu Toameh the only source for this information? Are there are any other articles discussing this group and its relationship to Hamas? Tiamuttalk 19:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post and its journalists Khaled Abu Toameh and Jonathan Spyer are the only reliable sources I've found that present this information directly. There are a few others, but they are clearly dependent on the former, so I did not cite them in this article. As you may have seen, the amount of information from reliable sources on this group is currently quite small. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a notability problem if the only sources for information on this group are the ones cited in this article. The Al-Arabiya report calls them "unknown". The other three reports are from two reporters from The Jerusalem Post which claim that the group is run by Hamas. If they are the only sources this information, I'm afraid that's not enough for it to be stated as an unattributed fact. If there were more reports from other independent sources (especially non-partisan ones) I would not mind the lack of an official confirmation from Hamas, and would say the article should be kept and the lack of their official confirmation merely noted. But if no other independent sources exist, then the group pretty much fails WP:N altogether and should be WP:AfD'd. Tiamuttalk 20:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post is not a partisan source, and in any case it it agrees completely with the Al-Arabiya article regarding the nature and activities of the group. The Al-Arabiya article called the group's affiliation "unknown" in 2007, presumably because it was unknown at the time. Your personal opinion of the Jerusalem Post notwithstanding, it is a reliable source, and things that it states as fact can be stated as fact here. That's kind of how Wikipedia works. Regarding notability, the group polices a population of over a million people and is thus intrinsically important. The dearth of information about it obviously results from the general dearth of information on the Gaza Strip in the last few years. It's surprising to me that someone who declares a keen interest in Palestinian issues on her userpage would want to AfD an article on a group that affects the lives of so many Palestinians, but that's your choice. In the meantime however, you still haven't fixed the contradiction you created in the lede. Please do so. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I think Khaled Abu Toameh made the name and its affiliation with Hamas up. In the article 'They accused me of laughing in public' (July 4 2009 - Jerusalem Post), he writes:"In a phone interview with the Dubai-based Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news Web site, the journalist said that the policemen who stopped her belonged to the Hamas government's Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice security force.The special force reports directly to the Ministry of Waqf Affairs and is said to be a copy of units that have long been operating in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan." In an article in The Guardian four days later (which does not mention the CPVPV by name but covers that incident and another (Hamas tries to detain woman walking with man July 8, 2009), its states: Freelance journalist Asma al-Ghoul says a group of Hamas police sent a clear message that certain behavior would not be tolerated when she went to the beach one evening in late June. The same article discusses another incident involving Hamas police on July 8th and states this is the first time Hamas has openly tried to punish a woman for behaving in a way it views as un-Islamic since seizing power two years ago.
Also, a straight news report in The Jerusalem Post itself covering the July 8th incident (Hamas police said enforcing Islamic law) does not mention there being a CPVPV group under Hamas control. Note the headline that its an "accusation". Toameh's pet theories that his fellow reporter Spyer liked, are not sufficient evidence for these claims to be presented without attribution. I'm not sure they should even be presented at all, given that every other major news source that reported on these events did not mention the "Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice", or their supposedly being run by the Waqf of the Hamas government (ridiculous). Tiamuttalk 20:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your allegation that world-renowned journalist Khaled Abu Toameh "made up" the name and affiliation of the religious enforcers in Gaza makes no sense. The name is confirmed by the Al-Arabiyah article, and the affiliation of the religious enforcers with Hamas is confirmed by the AP article in the Guardian article that you yourself mention. Even if it did make sense, it wouldn't matter, since Wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth.
Now let's summarize what the various sources say about the nature, name and affiliation of the religious enforcers in the Gaza Strip. Distinct group? Al-Arabiyah: yes; Toameh: yes; Spyer: yes; AP-Hadid: (not stated); you: no. Affiliation: Al-Arabiyah (2007): unknown; Toameh: Hamas police under the auspices of the Hamas Ministry for Wakf Affairs; Spyer: Hamas police under the auspices of the Hamas Ministry for Wakf Affairs; AP-Hadid: Hamas Police; you: unknown, but could not be affiliated with Hamas. Name: Al-Arabiyah: Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice; Toameh: Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice security force; Spyer: Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice security force; AP-Hadid: (none given). Summary: there is no contradiction among the reliable sources regarding the name or affiliation of the enforcers; some details are present in some sources and missing in others, as would be expected. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other reports like the AP-Hadid one which discuss the same story about al-Ghul, without mentioning the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice and which include reports from Hamas spokesmen denyng the particular incident even took place. Just a sampling:
Only Toameh and Spyer use the name Al-Arabiya used in 2007 for an unknown group that gave out a poorly phrased flyer in Khan Yunis, to describe a supposed security force under Hamas government. I'm not denying that Hamas policeman have tried to enforce Islamic custom or that the government has tried to do that with various actions. I am questioning whether there is something named "The Committee fo the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice". I am questioning if it is run by the Waqf (usually entrusted with care of Islamic holy places). And I am questioning whether there is a separate force tasked with this function under the Hamas government's control at all. These are reasonable positions to take after looking into this subject for days now. If you have other sources or official Hamas comments on the subject that you would like to add to help clarify things here, please present them. Tiamuttalk 01:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that you didn't notice that these are all versions of the same article. In any case, it doesn't matter. There is no contradiction among the reliable sources; you're just trying to force your OR over what they say. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duh ... Of course I noticed. That's the point. Here are many reliable mainstream news sources reporting the same story. The difference between their reports and the ones by Toameh and Spyer in the Jersualem Post is that the latter are the only ones to talk about a "Committee for the Propgation of Virtue and the PRevention of Vice"" They are also the only ones to claim that this is a security force run by the Waqf department under the Hamas government. Other reports are careful to note that there is an accusation that Hamas is using police forces to enforce Islamic traditions and report Hamas denials that it would even need to do so. In other words, this is Toameh and Spyer's pet theory, adopted by some like-minded individuals who reprinted their reports. Tiamuttalk 17:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misc issues[edit]

I don't really want to get drawn into these sorts of discussions again, but it appears I will be.

  • First, the edits that were done in response to my copyright issue tag did not in fact deal with all copyright issues, so the article has, to some degree, gone backwards. You don't solve copyright problems by changing a few words so you can rid of quote marks. The article effectively plagiarised two pieces in the JP. A few word changes doesn't fix that. I still see the article as having problems in this regard.
  • Second, I don't think we should raise notability as an issue at the level of considering deletion, but there are notability and verification problems. Reading between the lines, it appears to me that Spyer relied in part on Toameh. So what we have here is really an article in 2007 that suggested the group was "unknown" and not linked to the government, then one journalist in one report 2 years later saying that the group is a "police force" of some sort. When one considers Spyer's comments that many of the policy developments in Gaza are not being initiated by Hamas, but are either grassroots or fringe initiatives, then the exact words used in this article become important. i think Tiamut is doing the right thing in pursuing these matters carefully.
  • As a subpoint, Jalapenos says "the group polices a population of over a million people and is thus intrinsically important". i do not think that is a valid argument. It is not intrinsically important, it is important if reliable sources say it is so, a point Jalapenos in fact relies upon elsewhere in the same post. It concerns me that we have just two stories from the JP and nothing else. This leads me to question whether the individual reports should be treated as reliable in this context. That is, one does not need to question reliability of the Jerusalem Post in order to raise issues with the reliability of individual articles. One is an eyewitness report by a journo, that includes contradictory statements from officials apparently involved, and may raise issues of the journalist's POV (I'm not sure - I'm just raising that as a possibility). The other is an 'analysis' piece that fails to quote Hamas on the key points - which I think makes it highly suspect as journalism. If an organisation really is a police force governing a million people, there must be other sources. If there are not, that becomes an important concern.
  • Third, Jalapenos, I think your remark "It's surprising to me that someone who declares a keen interest in Palestinian issues on her userpage would want to AfD an article on a group that affects the lives of so many Palestinians, but that's your choice" was uncalled-for in the context of the discussion. There are significant question marks over just about every aspect of this WP article, including the very question of whether this is "a group that affects the lives of so many Palestinians". Hopefully Tiamut or yoruself, or other editors will find reliable sources to help resolve these questions. In the meantime, WP editors recommend articles for deletion all the time - dozens, if not hundreds each week, because of notability and reliable source issues. Tiamut had not gone to that step, and had written "If someone has other sources, it would be great if they could bring them forward" - so your comment seems to strike a wrong note. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A postscript. THank you to Jaapenos for not adding all the other articles in reliable sources that all report the same one incident. I note that one such item has now been added, and more may be put in. It would be great if we could try and work on the core issues here. If a lot of sources relay the reporting of a single incident, as told by a single journalist, that doesn't improve the reliability of the Wikipedia article - which is surely what we are trying to achieve. And is the particular article reliable? If the LA Middle Eastern Policy Examiner has a story that includes the following: "The Jerusalem Post notes that “Hamas has refrained from publicly admitting that the force exists out of fear of being branded fundamentalist.” (Hamas apologists, take note.)" - then surely that immediately raises concerns about the POV and reliability of the article? We need sources that improve the probability that these reports are accurate - ie. that the WP article will contain sound facts. Multiple sources on the same one incident, relying on the same source, are of limited use. Anyway, having pulled up Jalopenos for the comment about Tiamut, I thought I should also say that Jalopenos has also done the right thing on sources in this case. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Hamilton. I'll respond to them roughly in the order you presented them, while trying to separate issues of notability and reliability, which I think were somewhat intertwined in your post.
  • Regarding the relationship between the text and what is stated in the cited sources: as I said before, I am being accused simultaneously of sticking to closely to the cited sources (copyright issues and plagiarism) and of not sticking closely enough (inaccuracy). These contradictory accusations are quite frustrating, especially since no one has yet suggested a workable alternative to what I wrote. While I appreciate your work putting everything into quotes, I don't think a good article can be written that way. The method I have used in the past with sensitive issues (which no one has ever complained about before), is to stick very closely to the sources and use only a small amount of paraphrasis. I don't think that this creates copyright issues as you charge, but if I am wrong please enlighten me.
  • Regarding the reliability of what is stated in the cited sources: first, the Jerusalem Post is an unambiguously reliable source, and Khaled Abu Toameh is one of the most important journalists in the world regarding Palestinian affairs. (And I'm afraid I didn't understand your Middle Eastern Policy Examiner example at all.) Second, even if extra validation were needed, the Al-Arabiyah article and the Jerusalem Post article validate each other. They agree on everything except the affiliation of the group, which the former calls "unknown" and the latter says is with the Hamas Ministry of Wakf Affairs (and here the more recent, more informative version is obviously preferable). If Tiamut suspects that other reliable sources would say different things, I suggest that she look for additional sources, rather than putting question marks all over the article and then asking other editors to look for additional sources. As it happens, they don't. All of this being said, I have no problem attributing in the body of the text those non-mundane details which are not stated in both newspapers to the appropriate newspaper and/or journalist.
  • Regarding the notability of the topic. I'm glad you seem to agree with me that the topic is notable and the article should not be deleted. However, (possibly) contrary to what you stated, there is no question that this is a government-sponsored group that polices a population of over a million people; thus, it is intrinsically important. The fundamental criterion of encyclopedia notability is intrinsic importance; this is sometimes measured by amount of coverage in reliable sources. But since we know that there is a serious problem in obtaining information on the Gaza Strip these days, that measure is not appropriate in this case. We should be using every bit of information available rather than deleting it because there isn't more. BTW, my comment to Tiamut referred only to her position on the notability of the topic itself and her consideration of an AfD.
  • Finally, I should note that there is something that disturbs me about Tiamut's recent edits. She made changes to the lede which, through inaccuracy and self-contradiction, had the effect of making the topic seem less notable than it is. She then immediately put a notability tag on the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No OR please[edit]

  • I've removed this:

Dozens of Internet cafes and music shops in Gaza have been attacked, with assailants detonating small bombs outside businesses at night. Devout Muslims consider Internet cafes to be dens of vice because young men are known to view pornography there. Music shops are a target because some believers fear pop music distracts from prayers. Suspected vice squad of Muslim militants

    • The article cited does not mention the "Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice". It does refer to a "vice squad" and the activities of shadowy, unknown groups conducting vice campaigns in the Gaza Strip. Hamas police are interviewed in this article and are trying to hunt down their perpetrators. This does not seem to be about the subject of this article. Tiamuttalk 18:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed this too for the same reason:
    • In October 2007, Rami Khader Ayyad, a resident of Gaza City who owned a bookshop that sold Bibles and Christian literature, was abducted, tortured and murdered, after his store was firebombed by a Muslim "vice squad" that was attacking targets associated with Western influence. According to Ayyad's family and neighbors, he had regularly received anonymous death threats from people angered by his missionary work. Sheikh Abu Saqer, leader of Gaza's Jihadia Salafiya Islamic program, asserted that his group did not carry out the murder but Christians engaging in missionary activity in Gaza would be dealt with harshly.Palestinian Crimes against Christian Arabs Tiamuttalk 18:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically agree. The information from these sources should not be in the article unless it's made explicit that these "vice squads" are not or are not necessarily the same as the group the article is about. Also, the second source is an interview, so information in it that's not sourced to something more reliable should not be presented as fact. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides being a highly speculative (and biased) opinion piece, the only relevant paragraph to the topic in general is: "Islamizing the Police. Tellingly, the Hamas Executive Force that has been beating demonstrators and banning free press held a teach-in two weeks ago on being a Muslim policeman. How Islam will play a role in policing Gaza is not yet known, but the very notion of religious police smacks of the Taliban’s Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, which punished Afghanis for straying from sharia law."" This is discussing the group in Afghanistan. Tiamuttalk 18:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it's an opinion piece. It could have a place in the article as an opinion on the greater context of our topic, but a similar opinion voiced by the better-informed and more notable Khaled Abu Toameh is already in the article, so it's not clear what the NR opinion would contribute. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, I removed them all from the article (again) and undid my edits that I had done to incorporate them (after Gilabrand removed them). I hope Gilabrand will participate in talk before editing the article again. It's frustrating to be engaged in building consensus when people just come by and do whatever they want and leave others to pick up the crumbs. Tiamuttalk 21:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He does mention the group, calling it "Hamas' 'morality police'". He is undoubtedly referring to the same group, since he ascribes the same regulations and actions to them. The piece presents the contextual opinion of the person who aguably knows the most about this group, which is why it was cited as opinion. I don't see any justification for the removal. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its an opinion editorial piece in Hudson New York, a non-profit advocacy organization that pursues divestment from Iran among other things, by one of two guys responsible for coining the name of this article. (Why isn't he using the name he gave them? No matter.) If you really want to include it, go ahead. But this could become a slippery slope. If people start coming here citing this article as proof of the alternate name of "Hamas' morality police" for this alleged group, we may inadvertently manifest a subject into being that does not exist. There is no official commentary from Hamas on this subject. I still think its dangerous to have an article like this up without more sourcing.
On that note, I'd appreciate it if Brewcrewer would stop removing the notability tag. It would also be nice it he would stop removing attribution of statements. Further, and nicer still, would be if he participated in the talk discussion instead of issuing declarations in edit summaries dismissing everything with one grand sweep of his hand. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 00:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page move discussion[edit]

Gilabrand's response to my removal of the above information was to move the page to Vice squads in the Gaza Strip and restore it all. I have asked her to restore the original title until we can discuss if and where the page should be moved. Thoughts? Tiamuttalk 19:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand has indicated that she is disinclined to restore the original page title, since she believes the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip) does not exist. I would have for deletion of the article since a review of the sources (some of which I am amassing at User:Tiamut/puzzle) does not bear out the widespread use of such a name or the theory that it is run by Hamas.
Do people think an article on Vice squads in the Gaza Strip is worth pursuing? Should the title format be changed to read Vice squads (Gaza Strip)? Or should we use Vice police (Gaza Strip), which is used by some sources? Or should the article be sent to AfD? Thoughts? Tiamuttalk 19:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the talk page and edit history and didn't find a statement by Gilabrand indicating she believes that the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip) does not exist. In any case, the reliable sources say it does exist, and as a government-sponsored police force it is obviously fundamentally different from and more notable than sundry vigilante groups. I'm restoring the original title. There's no reason there shouldn't be a separate article on private vice squads in Gaza, or it could be a section in this article as long as the text makes clear that it's a separate topic only being discussed here by virtue of being related to the topic of the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's on her talk page. Her response to my request that she move the page back to the original title to discuss it more first. About the new name she gave the article Vice squads in the Gaza Strip, she wrote: I think it is exactly where it belongs - in a shadowy netherworld - since the name is only speculation, as you yourself have stated. If there is no "named" group, then why have an article about it, that is limited to trivialities such as a woman being harassed for laughing too loudly while swimming?.
And I have presented my reasons for questioning the reliability of Toameh and Spyer's opinions as to this group's purpose and name in the section on NPOV above. Tiamuttalk 20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i cant see that this "committee" has received significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:N. limited to one or two sources, each contradicting each other in small ways (some saying "unknown", while others say, "police force"), we should wait and see if more coverage is given to this "committee" before giving it its own article. perhaps merging a brief mention into the Hamas article would be the way to go? untwirl(talk) 21:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-tagged for notability and new issue of OR[edit]

User:Brewcrewer has removed the notability tag, even though the concerns raised have actually not been addressed. Further, an entire section added to the article based on sources that do not mention the "Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice" falls afoul of WP:OR. I would have deleted it immediately, but have instead tagged it as OR and opened a discussion here. This in the hope that those who added it will remove it. Tiamuttalk 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, "brand new user" User:Tzu Zha Men removed the notability tag...again, and I have reversed him/her. Seriously folks; if User:Tzu Zha Men is "new" user, then I´m from Mars...;P Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. In any case, no one has bothered to respond to my request to remove the WP:OR which I tagged three days ago (tags which Tzu Zha Men tried to remove as well). As such, I've removed the material myself in this edit. Those wishing to restore it should explain here why it is not OR prior to doing so and gain consensus for that view. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut: You must have re-added the tag like 10 times now. There's no consensus that its not notable, since after all it reliably sourced by a multitude of sources. Since there's no consensus for its notability, the next step must be Afd. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brewcrewer, given that you have removed the notability tag four times, you are hardly in a position to criticize me for re-adding it. I did re-add five times. A quick review of the discussion aboive shows that two other editors who bothered to participate in the discussions agree that the article may fail notability guidelines. It is wrong for you to edit-war out a notability tag that has the support of mutliple editors. In any case, instead of restoring it a sixth time, only to have you remove it for a fifth, I decided to follow your advice and nominate it for deletion. See you there! Tiamuttalk 13:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove[edit]

There are multiple discussions about tags and I'm not seeing a header specifically addressing the refimprove tag. What is the problem? 

  1. ^ a b c d e f Khaled Abu Toameh, 'They accused me of laughing in public', Jerusalem Post 04-08-2009
  2. ^ a b c d Jonathan Spyer, Analysis: The Islamic republic of Gaza, Jerusalem Post 29-09-2009
  3. ^ a b c d Gaza gets its own 'religious police', Al-Arabiya 08-10-2007
  4. ^ Hamas harasses woman journalist LA Middle Eastern Examiner
  5. ^ Hamas tries to detain woman walking with man, July 8, 2009, Diaa Hadid, The Guardian

If a line is not sourced tag the particular line or remove it. It has 5 sources used 16 times for 530 words. Seems sufficient overall so individual lines need to start getting worked.Cptnono (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the Examiner since it is typically not RS.Cptnono (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC time?[edit]

Severely short on non-partisan sources, infrequent use of this name, it's a dud. "As of October 2009, Hamas has not commented on the group or acknowledged its existence." What? Suggest we have Wikipedia editors take a look? RomaC TALK 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Committee_for_the_Propagation_of_Virtue_and_the_Prevention_of_Vice_(Gaza_Strip)&oldid=1201067988"