Talk:Hamas/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Lead Overhaul

Following lots of conflicting edits as well as issues introduced following KlayClax, a user who was just recently banned for 1 month. I've restored a stable version (with changes to well accommodate RFCs).

Please discuss here the issues prior to causing more conflicts and further causing further issues. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with KlayClax. You didn't revert to a stable version of the lead, rather something that been edit-warred in by you (and others). VR _talk 15:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Please take a look at the content, furthermore if possible please explain were there is consensus for such statements as Anti-Imperialism and Hamas rejecting Settler Colonialism (Indeed the notion that Israel is a settler colonialist state is by the broadest terms very fringe and has no consensus). Furthermore, restored version was stable for about a week at least. And also discussed and worked on. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

An RfC ended with clear consensus for mentioning "anti-imperialism" in the infoxbox.

As for settler colonialism, is this what you're referring to: "Hamas is widely popular in Palestinian society due to its anti-Israeli stance and for its rejection of Israeli settler colonialism in Palestine." VR _talk 16:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I've hidden it for now, as there is discussion at Talk:Hamas#Post-rfc_work. VR _talk 16:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion was about "anti-imperialism" in the infoxbox (along with Antisemitism, anti-Zionism, Islamism, etc.). It did not include any discussion about the lead, and we do not have consensus for that. Dovidroth (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

i agree. Tal Galili (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

There were two RfCs. One about the infobox and one about the lead. The consensus version of the lead is what is what was at the end of the RfC on the lead. Any changes made afterwards need consensus (and so far they don't). VR _talk 19:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Just restored the stabler version. Let's start discussing changes from here. Agmonsnir (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

For example, this RfC ended 13 November. At that time, the lead looked like this. The part on Hamas ideology (in the third paragraph) most resembles Talk:Hamas#Current_version. By contrast, the version you reverted to was first introduced on Dec 5 and has been subjected to reverts back and forth[2][3][4][5][6].VR _talk 16:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That was definitely not a stable version, and I reverted back to the actually stable version. Challenged changes require consensus, not edit-warring. nableezy - 16:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Agmonsnir: what on earth makes you make this revert[7] changed to a version that "was stable for quite some time"? What dates was that stable for? Where was the consensus for this? I've already pointed above to the version at the time the RfC was closed. Nableezy restored back to the stable version.VR _talk 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy - This edit not only added content without consensus, but you violated 1RR, as I have written to you on your talk page. Dovidroth (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You’re right I was off by an hour, self reverted. But no, the changes made are what have been violations of consensus in which users push through wide ranging and POV changes to the lead without discussion or consensus. But I self reverted for now. nableezy - 17:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Please note the following was added which caused controversy and destabilized:

Before the war, Israel secretly furthered the growth of Hamas, seeing it as a mechanism of preventing an independent Palestine.

This a current topic under discussion with multiple voices in different directions. Thus implying in the lead without full scope violates NPOV as well as may seriously mislead reader.

and for its rejection of Israeli settler colonialism in Palestine.

Also very problematic, I don't think there is need for me to explain why this is controversial.

Furthermore terms in opening paragraph added were: anti-colonialist and anti-Imperialist despite RFC being only on anti-Imperialism in infobox.

Furthermore, Hamas having called for Israel's destruction was removed which according to some experts it still desires.

Furthermore this was removed: for acts of terror did not pass the required majority regarding UN vote.

I will note current version also doesn't hold human rights groups to accuse it of war crimes, and which I think is also important, however for stability's sake I restored the prior version. I hope I went over most of the points.

I will also note that revisions done to stable version included variations to comply with RFCs (two state solution and anti Imperialism in infobox).

I hope this covered the recent changes which sparked the problems and caused NPOV issues since 14 December when KlayCax edited and then large changes to a relatively stable version ensued. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The idea that something has consensus in the infobox but you are going to challenge that consensus for inclusion in the lead is one of the most WP:WIKILAWYEResque objections I have ever seen. You really going to make us have an RFC to determine consensus for inclusion for what summarizes the article (the lead) after an RFC determined consensus for inclusion in what summarizes the article (the infobox). Sheesh. nableezy - 20:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

+1 - these are parallel summary elements of the page - very pedantic. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat: the most stable version is from December 5[8]. Are you ok to revert back to that version and then we apply changes on a consensus basis? VR _talk 20:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

There having been no evidence of any consensus for these changes since the stable version I have restored the original version now. Im not a fan of people abusing WP:QUO to try to retain their challenged version through no consensus, you need consensus for the change. nableezy - 03:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Please note an RFC has been opened below and it seems to be adressing the contended issues from what I see. So I think its best we move to the RFC and consider this discussion closed. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that Nableezy has reverted to the last stable version[9], I hope that neither you nor others will try to edit-war in a disputed version of the lead that is currently at RfC.VR _talk 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

In the past few edits. restored contested content that was outlined above as contested and added in this recent week was restored. Please note that it is not the stable version. Specifically this: Before the war, Israel secretly furthered the growth of Hamas, seeing it as a mechanism of preventing an independent Palestine. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it[10].VR _talk 11:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The cessation of violence before the assassination of Yahya Ayash

According to this source, Hamas denied that there was an agreement between the Resh P and their sons to stop the violence. This is in contrast to writing. Source: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-203224/

"Talks between representatives of the Palestinian Authority and the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, in Cairo ended without agreement. According to a joint statement issued by the negotiators, Hamas would not urge supporters to boycott the election and would not do anything that would embarrass the Palestinian Authority. PLO officials interpreted that part of the communique as an indirect commitment against violence, while Hamas insisted no such pledge was given. (The New York Times, Reuter, AFP)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Fundamentalist

I don't think there is any need to describe Hamas as a "fundamentalist" organization in the first sentence given that we already describe it as an "Islamist" organization. Doing so is redundant. What meaning does "fundamentalist" carry that "Islamist" doesn't already cover? VR _talk 14:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree - Fundamentalist is one of those ambiguous terms that add more confusion than value. Islamist is a much more specific phenomenon and the abundance of sources on Hamas use it, so it's fine. Yr Enw (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

What term would you use to describe the ideology of the group? Homerethegreat (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Islamist. nableezy - 16:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2024

Hamas is not a military, its a terrorist organization . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1F9:1703:0:0:A0E:F34B (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This has been discussed many times here and consensus presently is against using this label. That some sources uses the term is not a strong enough reason for us to. We mention its designation as a terrorist org by those who have designated as such. Yr Enw (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Venezuela

Dude, someone left Venezuela off the list even though it's a source. 1 2 149.0.157.32 (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The sources doesn't say anything about Venezuela? Battalion of allah (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Add Venezuela to the list of Hamas supporters. 149.0.157.32 (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Debunked & Unverified

Reference articles 300,301 and 302 have since been debunked as these articles were posted before additional data and information was revealed. The statement supporting these references must be revised and reworded as it appears to be factual when it is not. 196.210.79.209 (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The numbers of references are automatically updated when new ones are added, so it's better to quote the text of the article that you think should be changed. I've updated the number of casualties. If there is something else that should be updated, please be more concrete. Alaexis_¿question? 19:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Israel conspired with Hamas?

The statement in the article "to sabotage a two-state solution by confining the Palestinian Authority to the West Bank and weakening it, and to demonstrate to the Israeli public and western governments that Israel has no partner for peace." is not well cited and should be edited. The citation provided states that the argument is an accusation by critics of netanyahu and references an opinion piece . The main article should clearly state this is an accusation and an opinion piece rather than stating it as fact. Penrose sachdev (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2023

The statement "This policy was part of a strategy to sabotage a two-state solution by confining the Palestinian Authority to the West Bank and weakening it, and to demonstrate to the Israeli public and western governments that Israel has no partner for peace."

in the section on "Israeli policy towards Hamas"

should be changed to "Critics have suggested that this policy may have been part of a strategy to sabotage a two-state solution by confining the Palestinian Authority to the West Bank and weakening it, and to demonstrate to the Israeli public and western governments that Israel has no partner for peace."

The citation also references a piece which is very clearly titled "opinion piece" and also very clearly states that the argument in question is an accusation coming from critics. Penrose sachdev (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.  Spintendo  23:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve seen this reason given a lot now for declining edit requests, but given Edit requests are the only things non ECs can post here, how are they meant to establish consensus prior? Yr Enw (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I made another comment in the "Israel ally of Hamas" section. There is no engagement and no opposition, what more can I do? I am stating very simple facts. Any editor can have a look and confirm that the statement in question is clearly opinion based. Penrose sachdev (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Hamas allies

Revocation of : Algeria and Kuwait. For Algeria, the France 24 article does not show how Algeria is an ally of Hamas (supporter and ally are two very different terms). For Kuwait, the NBC article refers to a private donor, not a state donor. Tarek lb (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Same for Malaysia. The same NBC article refers to “private groups in Kuwait and Malaysia”.

Remove Kuwait, Malaysia and Algeria. They are clearly wrong and not in the citations given. 176.114.240.37 (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Terrorist designation color-coding

I would propose reversing the color-coding on the terrorist designation table in this article in line with the intended use of {{yes}} and {{no}}. I can't think of another table I've seen where "Yes" is shaded red and "No" is shaded green. I'm guessing the thinking must have been that "Yes" is a subjectively "negative" thing in this table (from the perspective of the subject of this article) but it's certainly not a negative from the perspective of readers who might feel it should have that terrorist designation. I think the simplest, least cognitively dissonant, most objective thing to do in this case would be to use a traditional color coding, green for Yes and red for No. I'd make this simple tweak myself but I know this is a pretty sensitive topic. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2024

I recommend to put this in

trainrobber (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Parham wiki (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2024

Add Website https://www.alqassam.ps/ 5.177.156.51 (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: No reason provided. Declined. Geardona (talk to me?) 12:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2024

Please make it clear in the first sentence that hamas is a terrorist organization. Harbu Darbu (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Prior consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Khamas

I have quite often seen the term "Khamas" used to refer to Hamas. Currently the article makes no mention of this term - should it? Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

No. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hoping this is a sarcastic and not a genuine question. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I dunno if they're referring to the way Israelis pronounce Hamas as though a ح is a خ? Either way, not exactly a fact worth including. Yr Enw (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

2 sol

I suggest adding: "Ksenia Svetlova, a senior researcher at the Institute for Policy and Strategy at Reichman University who interviewed senior Hamas officials over the years said that when Hamas needed international legitimacy in order to maintain a ruling position (such as after the parliamentary elections in 2006 or during the war against Israel in 2023), its senior officials used refer to the 1967 borders.

https://m.maariv.co.il/news/military/Article-1059761 213.57.201.9 (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2024

In late October, there was a very fair and robust edit of Yassin’s interactions with Israel. Since that time, the section outline this was edited out. Please restore the unambiguous language which is misleading…

Currently it only says:

In 1973, Yassin founded the social-religious charity al-Mujama al-Islamiya ("Islamic center") in Gaza as an offshoot to the Muslim Brotherhood.168][69]

Please update with the rest of this paragraph which was completely deleted and replaced with a misleading subject:

In 1973, Yassin founded the social-religious charity al-Mujama al-Islamiya (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mujama_al-Islamiya) ("Islamic center") in Gaza as an offshoot to the Muslim Brotherhood.[161][162] The Israeli authorities encouraged Yassin's charity to expand as they saw it as a useful counterbalance to the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization).[144][163][164][165] Yitzhak Segev, who was the Israeli military governor of Gaza at the time, recalled that they even funded his charity: "The Israeli government gave me a budget, and the military government gives to the mosques".[166] Israel's religious affairs official in Gaza, Avner Cohen (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avner_Cohen), later regretfully concluded that Hamas was created by Israel. He claimed to have warne d his superiors not to back the Islamists. Israel's early support to Hamas came from its desire to alienate its secular rival, the Palestine Liberation Organization. [167] 2603:7000:37F0:A290:19B9:14DF:8693:6D87 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the request. Israel's ambivalent attitude to Hamas in the 70s and 80s and Cohen's words can be found in the second paragraph of the Origins subsection in the current article. There are some differences compared to the old version but I think that they make the article better as they represent a wider sprectrum of opinions. Alaexis_¿question? 19:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

non-objective sources for citations

A large majority of the citations in this article link to Isreali state media, some statements cited are refuted or shown to be lacking evidence by other sources and even in other Wikipedia articles on the subject. Furthermore, the statement that "the killing of civilians is a war crime" whole factual, is inserted into the article in such a place as to steer the readers interpretation of the article rather than to present factual information. 2607:9880:1980:1D6:8166:3F1C:F4F7:6272 (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you be more concrete? I can't find the statement "the killing of civilians is a war crime" in the current article. Alaexis_¿question? 19:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ARBECR, non EC editors are only permitted to file edit requests ie of the form change X to Y per WP:EDITREQ. Other editors need not respond to unsourced argumentation by non EC editors and may remove such statements. Selfstudier (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I am no fan of the arbitration committee but I stand corrected. Your revert appears to have proper basis, although I still think this is not about forum. I said it was inappropriate because I didn't see the relevant portion of the guidance you linked to in your edit summary. But I am wondering, can't the talk page be restricted in the same manner as the article? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Edited 18:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Disputed Edits in the Lead - Trying to sort out the edit war

I took a break from engagement with this article for a while. Now, I am trying to understand the key issues under debate in the introduction and am starting a discussion on each, hoping to reach an agreed-upon solution. Let me know if I missed something important. Marokwitz (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

How should the evolution of Hamas ideology be described in the lead? And should we mention Israel secretly furthering the growth of Hamas?06:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Question 1: Should "Israel secretly furthered the growth of Hamas" appear in the lead?

Before the war, Israel secretly furthered the growth of Hamas, seeing it as a mechanism of preventing an independent Palestine

- should this sentence be included in the lead ? Yes or No? Marokwitz (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• No this sentence is highly debatable and contentious and seems unestablished. Also per logical sense one would expect to see full scope of issue in order to avoid NPOV. At its current form this sentence should not be included. I think this issue is best explained and built upon in the body itself. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Can you point out where you have discussed this issue before as required by WP:RFCBEFORE?VR _talk 22:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• No per Homerethegreat. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• No - Highly disputed and including it would violate NPOV. Dovidroth (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

People are asserting that it is highly disputed but they lack any sources disputing it. Times of Israel, CNN, NYTimes, France24 and countless more sources report going back for years that Netanyahu facilitated cash payments to Hamas for what he said was the reason of keeping the Palestinians divided. What sources dispute this? You can’t just say this is disputed, you have to provide sources that dispute this. As there is literally no sources provided that this is in dispute the above votes should be given exactly zero weight as personal and unsubstantiated opinion. nableezy - 13:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Please note the following:

Politco: [11] Accused of furthering the growth of Hamas, Netanyahu denies. More sources on matter, [12][13], [14] "Israeli sources responded by pointing out that successive governments had facilitated the transfer of money to Gaza for humanitarian reasons”. It seems the money transfer may have been to aid in terms of humanitarian aid (some say the money was taken by Hamas for themselves), others say Hamas was kept up in a power balance move between PA and Hamas, others deny this, others say this was done in a different context and others deny. Either how, what is clear is that there is a clear dispute in the matter and assuredly should not be mentioned in lead especially since the current version violates NPOV. Since the matter is very unclear, should be present but in body, not in lead. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

And why is it "secretly"? Money transfers were known for years. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

That makes no sense, there is literally nothing in the sources that suggests this is in dispute except by Netanyahu, who is obviously not a reliable source. This article isnt a product of the Prime Minister's office, we base our articles on reliable sources. Your sources just say that Netanyahu "claims" that this did not happen, but they dont actually dispute it themselves. nableezy - 14:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

According to the sources from whence we attribute Its Netanyahu vs Netanyahu's opponents. Also Times of Israel article cited is an Op Ed, so that can't be cited for attribution. This is obviously disputed and should be in the body and its current form is unfitting and unencyclopedic and does not follow NPOV. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

But nableezy pointed out Netanyahu himself defended such a policy[15]: "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has defended allowing Qatar to transfer millions of dollars to Hamas-run Gaza despite criticism from within his own government over the move aimed at restoring calm after months of unrest." It then goes to quote exact remarks by Netanyahu. VR _talk 01:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• No. While Israel allowed monetary support of the Hamas regime, it was neither secret nor intended for the organization's "growth". That this support could somehow be used to counter Palestinian aspirations was never state policy, and shouldn't be attributed to one. François Robere (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• To be clear, yes per the sources cited and no sources disputing. Editors are not allowed to disregard sources that disagree with their political views, they are not allowed to claim a dispute exists based on no sourcing and only their own views. All of those votes are at odds with WP policy and should be completely ignored by any closer. nableezy - 15:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• No — WP:UNDUE. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Undue in the lead* IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

No. I'll start by saying that I personally believe that this statement is true. However, my belief is irrelevant. The problem I have with this sentence is that is says "Israel secretly furthered the growth of Hamas, seeing it as...", all of this is an interpretation of intention of "Israel". And I think making such a claim with "wikivoice" requires strength of evidence which is beyond what I've seen in the sources cited so far. Now, to be clear, I think this was hinted by various Israeli politicians for years (saying Hamas is an asset etc.), but making this claim feels to me like doing self-research. If the best we can say is "reporter X thinks that ..." then it shouldn't be in the lead. If this was supported by (say) security agency or an official position of some country, then I'd say it could be stated as such. Otherwise, this type of statement should be discussed in the body of the article. Tal Galili (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Not as written. This is important, I believe it should be mentioned in the lede in some way. My concern is with the current wording.
  • There is some disagreement about the goal. Or rather there were multiple goals that didn't necessarily contradict each other (preventing the establishment of the Palestinian state, Hamas being the lesser evil compared to other group or chaos, keeping Hamas weakened, per this CNN article).
  • The support wasn't that secret, the Qatari funds were transferred openly.
  • Different Israeli governments had different policies, e.g., Bennett stopped cash transfers.

I can't think of a concise wording which takes all these aspects into account, but would support an alternative option. Alaexis_¿question? 09:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I have also recently come across many sources, including pro-Israeli ones, that Israel enabled Hamas (and before it, its Muslim Brotherhood precursors) in various ways to undermine the PLO.VR _talk 18:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be explored at first in the body. Not sure it should be in lead, especially with current content being centered on Netanyahu vs opponents.

What is clear and concise and I think should be in the lead is that Qatar has funded and supported Hamas. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I think on that there is no controversy, and I think it is lead worthy since Hamas leadership sits in Qatar and Hamas has been funded by the Qataris which is well documented. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• No. It is not even factual. The only source backing this claim in the main body is a clearly titled opinion piece . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penrose sachdev (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. A big problem is the phrasing, which appears to be a leading statement and directs the reader towards blaming Israel for Hamas' existence. It comes off as biased and if it is known, it is not secret. Mag1cal (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Lede is a summary of body including any prominent controversies. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

No, there doesn’t seem to be evidence only speculation of intentions and per Homerethegreat’s bullet, Netanyahu has denied this. I have also read other explanations for Israel’s attitude towards Hamas. Per this report from RAND Corporation published after the 2014 war, “Israel tries to maintain a difficult balance with respect to Hamas. On one hand, it wants to punish Hamas for its attacks; on the other hand, it does not want to eliminate Hamas because it worries that the organization could be replaced by one that is much more violent.” https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9975.html Also, in regards to Qatar funding per Times of Israel, “Israeli officials quietly support the continuation of Qatari aid to the Gaza Strip as a means of relieving the enclave’s humanitarian crisis.”https://www.timesofisrael.com/qatar-raises-annual-aid-to-gaza-to-360-million/ Wafflefrites (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Not as written I'm not sure "growth" is supported. I'm not sure if Hamas grew. But financing, yes.Netanyahu wasn't denying it back in 2019, I don't see any reason why we should care that he is denying it now. Ben Azura (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we could write a few sentences, something like “Israel has allowed Qatar to give hundreds of millions of dollars in aid through Hamas” (text copied from International aid to Palestinians). “Netanyahu in 2019 saw it as a mechanism of preventing an independent Palestinian state, preventing Hamas’ replacement by an even more violent organization, and as a way to relieve the Gaza’s humanitarian crisis.”

It encompasses points made by Homerethegreat (need to attribute to Netanyahu), Alaexis (there were several reasons), and me (ditto Alaexis’s point about there being multiple reasons per CNN). Wafflefrites (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: "Netanyahu in 2019 saw it as a mechanism of preventing [...] Hamas’ replacement by an even more violent organization."

I'm not sure that this premise/idea is well sourced, or if it is more than an excuse from the Israeli government. Alaexis mentions the rationale of "Hamas being the lesser evil compared to other groups" and cites this CNN article, but that article only attributes the concept to a former US State Department official who said: "Our understanding was that Hamas was the lesser of a whole bunch of bad options in Gaza."

In contrast, this passage from the page of the Israeli politician and current Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich suggests that Israel may have supported Hamas, not in spite of, but even because of its extremist/terroristic nature:

In a 2015 interview Smotrich stated that "The Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset", noting that, while the PA was harming Israel in international forums, Hamas' status as a terrorist organization meant that "no one will recognize it, no one will give it status at the [International Criminal Court], no one will let it put forth a resolution at the U.N. Security Council".

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

First, since when are we trusting everything that Smotrich - one of the most extremist Israeli politicians - has said?

Second, there is no contradiction: compared to the PA, Hamas is more extremist and thus has been a useful scarecrow, while other alternatives to Hamas could have been even worse. Maybe he was referring to groups like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or even ISIS which tried to make inroads in Israel/Palestine. Alaexis_¿question? 19:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Today confirmed by Borrell and in many sources. Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Question 2: Which of these two pargraphs should appear in the lead?

Option 1:

The foundational charter of Hamas, published in 1988, articulated its ideology as a struggle against Jews, calling for the destruction of Israel to establish an Islamic Palestinian state in its place. In later years, specifically during agreements with Fatah between 2005 and 2007, Hamas began acquiescing to the 1967 borders as an interim solution, which has been interpreted according by some scholars as accepting two state solution. This shift was further solidified in 2017 when Hamas released a new charter supporting the concept of a transitional Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, without recognition of Israel. The new charter specified that Hamas's conflict was with the Zionists, not Jews as a whole, removing the previous antisemitic language. Despite these changes and Hamas's proposals for truces lasting between 10 to 100 years, many observers believe that Hamas's ultimate goal remains the establishment of a single state in the area of former Mandatory Palestine.

Option 2:

While initially seeking a state in all of Mandatory Palestine and calling for the destruction of Israel, Hamas began acquiescing to 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007. In 2017, Hamas released a new charter that supported a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders without recognizing Israel. Hamas's repeated offers of a truce (for a period of 10–100 years) based on the 1967 borders are seen by many as being consistent with a two-state solution, while others state that Hamas retains the long-term objective of establishing one state in former Mandatory Palestine. While the 1988 Hamas charter was widely described as antisemitic, Hamas's 2017 charter removed the antisemitic language and said Hamas's struggle was with Zionists, not Jews. Hamas has, from its beginning, promoted Palestinian nationalism in an Islamic context. In terms of foreign policy, Hamas has historically sought out relations with Egypt, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey; some of its relations have been impacted by the Arab Spring.

Sources

Which version do you support, and why ? Marokwitz (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:RFCBEFORE requires you to discuss first. Have you ever proposed option 1 on talk? No. I started the section on Talk:Hamas#Second_new_proposal pointing out reasons why this text is misleading and not-neutral and none of those edit-warring have even bothered to respond. VR _talk 21:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 - It better shows the full scope of the issue and touches all points adequately enough and presents the range needed and thus better serves NPOV and also includes due information. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I will note that option 2 is lacking in several aspects. First it does not follow chronology and seems to mix in 1988 charter and 2017 charter in several places making it unclear what is what and seems to jump from point to point. Overall the writing seems to be a bit less cohesive. Although there are similarities between both versions, it seems that Option 1 is more cohesive, clear and better organized and more fitting for an encyclopedic entry. Homerethegreat (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 1, which reveals some key content within and differences between the two charters, as covered extensively in RS's. Zanahary (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 per both above commenters. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 - More fully discusses the issues. Also, option 2 is a mess that jumps from 1988 to 2005, then to 2017, back to 1988, and again to 2017, as mentioned below by François Robere. Dovidroth (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 - much more descriptive, factual and unbiased. The statement "The foundational charter of Hamas, published in 1988, articulated its ideology as a struggle against Jews, calling for the destruction of Israel to establish an Islamic Palestinian state in its place" is very significant in the lead, and omitting it there is misleading the readers. Agmonsnir (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

All of this is already in option 2. Did you want "calling for the destruction of Israel" added more explicitly in option 2? Is there a change in wording that would make you support option 2? VR _talk 15:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 is more accessible to the reader and easier to follow. My only suggestion would be trim the cites. Citations should generally appear in the body, leaving the lede clear and uncluttered. On this topic, though, that will remain a bone of contention. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note to closer: "Option 1" might be violating WP:V and WP:SYNTH (in addition to having issues like WP:UNDUE weight) and thus can't be accepted no matter how many votes it gets here, because WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override wikipedia's core policies. Its likely that the above !voters haven't actually read the sourcing on the proposal. This is mainly refusing to discuss the proposal before the RfC (as required by WP:RFCBEFORE) where simple WP:V and SYNTH errors could be fixed. VR _talk 15:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Vice regent - I agree with you. I think both options (1 and 2) should be improved to present the complexity of this situation. I also think that there is a strong dissagreement on what is the "true" intention of Hamas. Hence, presenting both narratives (as done in Option 1), seems like the right direction. But I also don't want sources mentioned in option 2 to not be omitted). Tal Galili (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Talgalili: What does option 2 not present that you think it should present?VR _talk 20:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1, per everyone above. Option 2 downplays the criticisms of Hamas and the fact that for half of its existence it explicitly called for the destruction of Israel, which results in a text that jumps from 1988 to 2005, then to 2017, back to 1988, and again to 2017. This is much less readable than option 1, which is a straightforward chronological account. François Robere (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  @François Robere: have you read every source cited and can confidently say that the text is not mis-citing reliable sources - which would be gross violation of WP:V? VR _talk 17:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Vice regent: How do you believe the text is mis-citing sources? François Robere (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Some (but not all) examples at Talk:Hamas#Second_new_proposal (linked at the very top of this RfC).VR _talk 17:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  I believe "acquiescing" and "interim" are attempts to summarize pp. 392-394 of Bartal (2021), but I see no indication in the source that Hamas "began to acquiesce" to anything in 2005-2007 - quite the opposite. "Transitional" does seem to reflect the source, though (p. 397). The paragraph does need more work, but it still presents the clearer and more balanced narrative of the two. François Robere (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  "but I see no indication in the source that Hamas "began to acquiesce" to anything in 2005-2007" And you don't see that as a serious WP:V issue? VR _talk 20:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  The problem isn't that the references don't exist, it's that the edit warring (which the OP is trying to stop) messed up their placement. I expect this will be solved by the time the RfC is concluded. François Robere (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Also, by Bartal do you mean Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Shaul Bartal of the Israeli Defense Forces? If so that is not an WP:INDEPENDENT source. VR _talk 01:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Dr. Shaul Bartal is credited as a "military analyst and a lecturer on Palestinian Affairs at Bar-Ilan University", and a "research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies". He has written several books on Palestinian terrorism, including two for Routledge. That's clear WP:SCHOLARSHIP. François Robere (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Even scholars can have conflicts of interest. To be sure, I'm ok with text sourced to him with attribution, but not in wikivoice (esp not when it seems inconsistent with most other scholars on this issue). VR _talk 13:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 seems more balanced to me, given the disagreement on the real intentions of Hamas, so I'd prefer it between the two options. But I also think that it should be improved further (as mentioned by @Vice regent). Tal Galili (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2: this option summarizes four most commonly discussed aspects of Hamas's ideology: position towards Israel, antisemitism, role of Islam, and foreign relations; it presents them thematically first, and then chronologically second.
  • A. This version gives more weight to newer sources (per WP:AGE MATTERS). I presented 17 scholarly sources (#17scholarlysources) above that show Hamas's acceptance of the 1967 borders; including 4 sources that are entire books dedicated to Hamas. Yet above Francois Robere cites just a single source (Bartal) in support for arguing, in wikivoice, that Hamas only seeks a "transitional" state. The rest of the sources cited in option 1 are a combination of WP:RSEDITORIAL (which can't be used for facts) and/or non-scholarly sources and/or sources that don't consider Hamas's 2017 charter - none of these should be given much weight.
  • B. "Option 1" Completely ignores Islam and foreign relations as aspects of Hamas's ideology, betraying scholarly sources. It is also a violation of WP:LEAD, which requires we summarize the article and the article surely gives space to both.
  • C. This version is concise as it covers more aspects of Hamas's ideology in a similar amount of words.
  • D. This version organizes Hamas's ideology thematically first and chronologically second, which is exactly how Hamas's ideology is presented in the article. Imagine if we talked about the 1988 Charter, then talked about the 2011 Arab Spring (which had nothing to do with antisemitism) and then described the 2017 Charter. Ideology of Hezbollah likewise is also organized thematically first. Pretty much every article on ideology/political positions is always organized thematically first and chronologically second (eg Republican party).
    • The second benefit of thematically first and chronologically second is that we don't bury the most recent changes, which are given the most weight by scholarly sources (#17scholarlysources), towards the end of the paragraph. WP:DUE says positioning of text impacts weight.
  • E. This version (mainly) came about the result of a previous RfC that involved a lot of constructive back and forth discussion.VR _talk 00:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: 7 October seems to have led to some "soul searching" among experts and media, questions on Sinwar's goals and their evolution over time, and suggestions of a rift between Hamas/Gaza and Hamas/Qatar. We could solve some of the disagreement between sources about Hamas's ideology by making more granular distinctions along these lines, instead of treating the organization as an "ideological monolith". François Robere (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Not 1 not 2. Invalid dichotomy. Per many comments on this page, the RfC presents two flawed alternatives and should not be closed as either one representing settled consensus. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• This is invalid RfC. To be valid, it must include "status quo" option. I have seen this in a few other RfCs. Someone wants to change the text and suggest two almost equally bad versions to choose, both of which satisfy his POV, unlike the currently existing (consensus) version. I do not know if this is the case here, but the "status quo" option absolutely must be present. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would not say "invalid"; users are free to simply say none should be exerted. Moreover, if the pre-RFC step is passed and discussions are conducted by the engaged users, the "status quo" is intended to be changed. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2, at a certain point saying "While the 1988 Hamas charter...", makes a contrast between the 1988 and 2017 charters by "while". Is such a contrast supported by the used sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 03:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. For example, Seurat, the first reference, says "Finally, on 1 May 2017, Hamas published its Document of General Principles and Policies. As opposed to its 1988 Charter...Another noteworthy change: the anti-Semitic overtones of the [1988] Charter were entirely scrapped [in the 2017 document], replaced by a distinction made between the struggle against Zionism and enmity against the Jews." VR _talk 05:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• I know this is no longer an RFC but if a change is going to be done, I prefer to go by option 2. It's factual accuracy, covering of significant POVs, usage of updated scholarly sources, and accuracy in insertion of in-line citation, whenever needed, makes this option more interesting to me. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• When issues of WP:V and WP:SYNTH are being brought up, Option 1 is not viable at least until the sourcing issues are fixed in it. As such, at the moment, Option 2 is better. starship.paint (RUN) 10:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Neither of these are an improvement, since they place undue weight on Hamas' initial charter, which has comparatively light coverage compared to the rest of the paragraph. And given that the main purpose of this discussion seems to have been to increase the focus on it, obviously no RFC or discussion can be valid unless it includes the current version as an option. Note also that most of the comments above haven't articulated a problem with the current version and therefore provide no rationale to change from it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

General Discussion

Just to clarify, these questions are directly taken from this revert and are not original proposals. These, along with other variants, have been debated on the talk page and through editing for several weeks. I am trying to steer the discussion in a constructive direction by contrasting two specific versions. The RfC is also useful for attracting non-involved editors to provide new viewpoints. Marokwitz (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That exact version has never been discussed until today. If you disagree can you show me where has that exact version been discussed? I also pointed out grammatical and citation issues with that version and I'm surprised you wouldn't bother to correct them before proposing in RfC. VR _talk 22:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Question 1 was already discussed above in the Lead Overhaul. Perhaps not amply but it does appear to be contentious and obviously it seems I think that this was done in order to avoid another spiral out of control. I also agree that the RFC can bring non-involved editors and present new view points. I think this is in sour need in this article and therefore I think that this RFC is a good way to deal with the issues and prevent further unresolved destabilizations. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Question 1 was brought up for the first time at 19:51 and then the RfC started at 20:42. That's total of 51 minutes. VR _talk 23:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz: As an RfC statement, this is useless. It says absolutely nothing about the matter in hand, see WP:RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. How is this a valid RFC? nableezy - 03:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Redrose64 is it ok now ? This is my first RFC. Marokwitz (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz; Did you read WP:RFCBEFORE? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Is there still a problem ? Marokwitz (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

You have not discussed either question before bringing them to RfC. VR _talk 14:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Homerethegreat has responded and I agree with him/her. The lead's content, intensely debated here over recent weeks, remains unresolved, sparking stonewalled discussion followed by edit warring . I'm not here to blame anyone, just to do better.

This RfC centers on a specific aspect of the dispute that led to repeated reverts and an impasse.

Opting to distance myself from what I felt was a contentious environment, I stepped back for a while, and now I'm back in an honest attempt to reach consensus rather than engaging in conflict. Our priority, in my opinion, is to seek a constructive compromise on the content issue, rather than dwelling on procedural details. The intention is not to 'win' but to end with some sort of reasonable compromise. I ask you to leave behind the hard feelings and participate in what could be a constructive discussion. Marokwitz (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not about "hard feelings". Your option 1 contains some grammatical and sourcing errors. It is thinly sourced. Where it is sourced, the sources do not support the preceding text. While ample sources can be found for things like Hamas calling for Israel's destruction, other sentences are constructed in a way to imply a synthesis that I haven't come across any source supporting. All of that is meant to be hashed out in WP:RFCBEFORE.VR _talk 15:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, please do me a favor and state your objections again one by one so we can come up with a better version. I don't think that sourcing or grammar is the heart of the dispute here. Marokwitz (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

You can't really change a version half way through the RfC as that would invalidate all the preceding !votes for that version. Would you be willing to end this RfC, commit to discussing and coming up with a couple of compromise versions and then re-starting the RfC with all these issues sorted out? VR _talk 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the RFC should be ended. Clearly quite a few editors have already contributed and discussions have already ensued regarding problems, I think it's rather ineffective at this stage to dismiss the RFC.

Also I saw there were issues regarding grammar or other minor things. I really think this is no cause for ending RFC. The minor changes are all fine, all that is needed and considering thus, I think is to just notify the editors who've contributed, perhaps just ping them of the change and ask them to check if they wish to reconsider. The RFC actually seems to be like an attempt to come for a diplomatic solution. The parley pirate image is actually a really great addition. I think the effort is deserving of commendation and is an effort to resolve this issue which clearly has plagued the article and has caused various disputes etc. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The issues are not "minor", but rather potentially violating wikipedia's WP:CORE policies. VR _talk 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you please mention the specific issues that you think are at WP:CORE? (I assume it's not apl the issues you've mentioned) Tal Galili (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I assume the suggested text by the OP suffers from WP:SYNTH issue. It is an original research usually occurring when sources are not consulted correctly. Multiple sources should not be used to reach a conclusion not supported by the sources. Aside form this, this change does not seem to be discussed elsewhere on the talk page and whether other editors have contributed to this RFC does not mean things are fine. Such an awkward employment of RFC can lead to WP:FILIBUSTERing which impedes reaching consensus. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

couldn't this be said about both options? Tal Galili (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Just note that these are two versions that were massively edit-warred back and forth by numerous editors, which I posted without modification. I didn't endorse one over the other. The RfC is about choosing the better of the two; it is easy to see that neither is perfect. Marokwitz (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

There should be no WP:NOR or WP:V issues with option 2, if they are please point them out. VR _talk 12:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Should this RfC be converted to a regular discussion?

Pinging @Redrose64, Vice regent, Homerethegreat, François Robere, Talgalili, Nableezy, Oleg Yunakov, and Dovidroth: In the complaint I made to AN/I, I was told that I should have opened this RfC after having an initial pre-RfC discussion. Therefore, the misconduct I complained about is at least partially my fault.

Would the participants object to converting this RfC back into a regular discussion, with an RfC coming later? Marokwitz (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks but was not the comment at ANI clear enough to move on with a pre-RFC discussion? If there had to be a pre-RFC and you already acknowledged your fault, then why editors should object keeping a wrongly created RFC? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's my decision to make, there are many people already involved in this discussion. Marokwitz (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I see there are no immediate objections - converted RfC to a regular discussion. Marokwitz (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I"m fine moving it to a discussion. And suggest splitting this to a thread for each of the questions.

Also, I donysee a way we can make broad decision, and suggest we keep splitting the questions to smaller chinks, since moving forward here seems very hard.

I think a good example of where we will end up is an article like that of Donald Trump, that has a talk page filled with tens of tiny decisions. Tal Galili (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think that rather than just present versions, the important thing is to describe the dispute. What is the issue with the current version that would require replacing it with something else? --Aquillion (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Meshaal: Hamas rejects ‘two-state solution’

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240118-meshaal-hamas-rejects-two-state-solution/amp/ 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:349B:3DD1:CBF6:AF64 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the filmed interview

https://t.me/edycohendr/2516 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:349B:3DD1:CBF6:AF64 (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Already in the lead, that is the same position espoused in the 2017 charter. At bottom of Memo source "He explained that Hamas has reiterated that, in order to form the basis for a joint meeting and a joint national programme with the other Palestinian factions, it accepts a state on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital, with complete independence and with the right of return without recognising the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. He pointed out that this position “comes to facilitate Palestinian and Arab consensus at this stage, but without giving up any part of our right or our land and without recognising the usurping entity [Israel]." Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Please use (change X to Y) form for edit requests, thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

so, this attitude rejects two states solution. Meshaal siad it. Firstly, 67 borders. Secondly, rest of the land. Not solving the conflict, adding territory gradually. 2.55.163.40 (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been dealt with here Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok , thx2.55.163.40 (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

But Meshaal is no longer the Hamas leader, right? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Problematically long

Just a note as I'm pass through, but this article is getting difficult to load. It probably needs condensing or splitting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: are you saying we should reduce the readable prose size, or the entire article byte size? If you're having trouble loading, that refers to the latter, right? And are images a bigger issue when it comes loading than text? VR _talk 18:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a technical issue rather than one with word count. I couldn't say whether it's a image or text issue. I note the article is three times (the somewhat poor) recommendations of WP:SIZERULE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29: I agree the article is long and I agree that the sections "History" and "Violence" are the two biggest sections. Since most of the "Violence" section also reads like a timeline, I think large amounts of content from both can be moved to History of Hamas. What do you think? VR _talk

  I agree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would be broadly supportive for on efforts to deal with the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Let me try to work on this.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The new charter

With apologies that this overlaps with other discussions on this Talk page, but there is a clear edit conflict going on with relation to how to describe and frame the new Charter in the lede. Specifically, @Luxofluxo has reverted the same change multiple times ([16], [17], [18]) without once engaging in a discussion here on the potential change. This, despite my own edit summary asking them to do so first, as such a change will be clearly opposed moving forward ([19].

@Luxofluxo's reasoning for such a change is that it is not controversial to say the charter is antisemitic (I don't actually disagree with this point), and that we "don't take racists saying they are not racist as a reliable source of their lack of racist beliefs". This second contention is not something I have claimed (nor the other editors involved, as far as I can see). My own change is trying to strike a better balance, to allow for the characterisation of the Charter's language as antisemitic, while also stating that it does at least nominally make a distinction between Zionists and Jews.

As far as I can see, @Luxofluxo's reasoning that "There is no argument to be made. Something is either racist or is not. Something is either antisemitic or it is not. There will be no sophistry on this point. No dragging it out through edit wars. No back and forths. It is either a or b" is a kind of Naive realism that just engages in WP:OR and disregards the fact we need to be consulting the scholarship on these sorts of things. Yr Enw (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. JDiala (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree and they seem to be either ignoring or removing reliable sources that contradict their view.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Banned in Switzerland? Please change Swiss row diagram to No ban

They are not yet banned in Switzerland. There is no evidence of this. The Swiss government (Federal Council) has PROPOSED a ban, which the upper house of parliament (Council of States) has approved. The Security Commission of the lower house of parliament has also approved a ban. However, there is no reliable secondary source suggesting the full National Council has yet voted on a ban, hence it cannot legally be in force. Wickster12345 (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I believe this change has been implemented by another editor. Professor Penguino (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hamas and antisemitism as a central ideological tenet

There have been already a few editor conflicts about this, so i'm opening a discussion here. Should antisemitism be included as a part of the ideology of Hamas, especially after the 2017 new charter? Whatever748 (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely specify that Hamas changed its position on Jewish people from the 1988 charter, but there's no reason not to talk about their previous charter. Professor Penguino (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is already how the article is, the question is whether to include antisemitism as an ideological tenet of Hamas in the infobox or not.

Whatever748 (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, honestly. If we're just going off of their most recent charter (which, by the way, I haven't read myself, just reliable sources' interpretation of it) then I think it could go either way. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sgould ideology be only based on what a party claims about itself?

Say that Hamas is anti democratic (given that they didn't hold an election for 18 years now), but they claim to be pro democracy, they just couldn't bother themselves to get around to it - does it mean that their ideology is democratic?

Same is true about antisemitism. They may decide to promote themselves as anti zionism. But given that I'm not aware of any hamas-jewish collaboration, while I am very aware of a massacre done to Israelis who are predominantly Jewish, I tend to also suspect that they are antisemitic...

(Finding sources who would suspect similarly, I suspect, should be doable - if that's the culprit) Tal Galili (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair point... Professor Penguino (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"Anti-Democratic" is never used as an ideology in wikipedia infoboxes, like i mean never, and shouldn't be used for a party which isn't even explicitly abti-democratic. I opened discussion for inclusion of Anti-Semitism because that has merit, however "anti-democratic" just seems like a biased and to put bluntly worthless POV. Whatever748 (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of validity of Talgalili's argument, it is obviously not how content decisions should be made because it's WP:OR. As for the question whether ideology in Wikipedia infoboxes should only based on what a party claims about itself, if it were up to me, I would say yes, always, for the sake of simplicity and clarity, it should be and say that it is the stated ideology, what the organization claims, no matter how removed from the reality that is according to reliable sources. I think the article body is where to describe both the stated and actual (according to RS) ideologies. Or even better, no ideological classification labels in any political party infoboxes (it is an optional field after all). But that is not Wikipedia's current practice it seems, the field must be based on what RS have to say about it, and that requires editors to sample many sources, a lot of information, and compress it all down to some simple labels without introducing distortions/bias/errors etc. which seems difficult to me in cases like this one. All of the attributes in the political party infobox templates are for simple objective verifiable facts...except the ideology attribute entry, which is fuzzy/subjective/non-deterministic, hence the edit warring. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think the infobox should be just based on what an organization says about itself; but we do have to follow the majority of reliable sources. And there's a clear difference between "has published / said antisemitic things" and "has antisemitism as a central ideological tenet", so sources accusing Hamas of publishing antisemitism isn't enough; we'd need sources framing that antisemitism as a major part of its ideology. On top of this, an infobox by its very nature lacks nuance and context - in the article, we can say something like "professor doodad of whatsit university described their charter as antisemitic", but the infobox can only really convey broad sweeping things. So I feel we'd need strong / sweeping sourcing to put it there, which I don't think is present in the article at the moment - mostly it just talks about the language in the original charter, which isn't enough (even if we ignore the problem of that just being the original charter, we would need sources saying that its underlying ideology is antisemitic or words to that effect, which is not the same thing. The laser-focus on the language in the sources makes me suspect that they were intentionally using cautious language.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly useful to do so. It might be different if academic writing on Hamas prioritised the antisemitic aspects of their ideology, but as I understand it they don't. The antisemitic aspects tend to be considered as a character of their discourse, not the purpose of it. And we should try to reflect the general balance of scholarship. I don't agree we should only base ideology on what the party claims about itself (like Tal Galili), and there's definitely a case to be made their Oct 7 attacks problematise the supposed distinction they make between Jews and Israelis. Nevertheless, it feels like a waste of a discussion without scholarly sources (not simply any old sources, per Tal Galili, because media sources will be no doubt be available discussing this, but they tend to be embarrassingly non-rigorous). Yr Enw (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In Criticism of Hamas, there is a para that starts "According to academic Esther Webman, antisemitism is not the main tenet of Hamas ideology, although antisemitic rhetoric is frequent and intense in Hamas leaflets." so while the rhetoric and some statements may be antisemitic it is overdoing it to say that it is a "central ideological tenet". Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, in my opinion all RS agree on this especially after the Revised chapter, as in that while in theory anti-semitism (hatred of all jews) may not be a core ideological tenet of Hamas, generally antisemitic rhetoric may be used by them. It might be best to remove Antisemitism from the infobox, as it's not a party ideology and not a core tenet of the party, and instead discuss Hamas, their attitude towards jews and antisemitism in the article itself.

Hamas has as far as i know have already held talks with and has a friendly attitude towards with Anti-Zionist Jewish Neturei Karta members as well (lol).[20]

So yeah, i'd say that in the infobox Hamas's core ideological tenets should be included, which are Palestinian nationalism, Islamism, Islamo-Nationalism, and Anti-Zionism, with more in-depth discussion about their (denied) antisemitism in the article body. Whatever748 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that their attitude to Neturei Karta is relevant here. It's a tiny group (less than 1000 families according to he:נטורי_קרתא). After all the Nazis also held talks with some Zionists (not to mention the Association of German National Jews) which doesn't make then not antisemitic.

Regarding the substance of the issue, I've restored a source which says that Hamas has a "strong anti-Jewish stance." It's from 1998 though, so it's fair to ask whether it's still the case, in view of the revised charter. The fact that they removed antisemitic tropes from the charter doesn't automatically mean they are no longer antisemitic.

Webman says it's not *the* central tenet, but it can still be *a* tenet. Anti-imperialism is certainly not central tenet either, but it's included in the list. I think we need to look for more recent sources (post-2017 or maybe post-October 2023). Alaexis_¿question? 21:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed this, per WP:ONUS – which requires consensus for inclusion of content – given the clear lack of such a consensus here. Also, the sourcing here was terrible: one a decades old book thar predates key ideological developments, and the other a book review. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Global plot

• On a related note, characterizing Hamas's criticism of Zionism as "antisemitic" is controversial and can't be said in wikipedia's voice.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Once again, this edit is WP:UNDUE. Most of the citations say nothing about a "global plot". Vast majority of scholarly sources say that 2017 charter removed antisemitic references. If you read the 2017 charter in English the only reference to "plot" is "The blessed al-Aqsa Mosque belongs exclusively to our people and our Ummah, and the occupation has no right to it whatsoever. The occupation’s plots, measures and attempts to judaize al-Aqsa and divide it are null, void and illegitimate." That roughly corresponds to Judaization of Jerusalem and its POV to characterize criticism of Israeli policy in Jerusalem as "antisemitic".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, it is actually antisemitic to equate Zionism and Judaism, and to imply that criticism of the former impugns the latter. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Replace jsor reference with open access one

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26378710
with
https://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/attachments/jps-articles/JPS184_07_Hroub.pdf dindia (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Already present as ref 392. Selfstudier (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Terrorist designation color-coding

I proposed reversing the color-coding on the terrorist designation table in this article in an earlier post on this page and received no opposition before it was archived. Unless I hear opposition between now and when the {{in use}} template is removed from this article, I will be making that edit. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I support this. Tal Galili (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Fine as is. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

More pertinently, perhaps we should just do away with the table altogether, and delete all the information about countries that haven't ever actively made such a designation. At the moment, half the table affirms what is merely a default status (no). Why not simply summarise the few relevant countries with a non-default position in prose? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 I am personally completely against removing the "Nos" and leaving only the "Yes" because most countries in the "no" camp that are listed have have actively declined, after deliberation of some kind, either in their executive branch or parliament, calling Hamas terrorist (for example: Norway, Switzerland- still discussing with legislation in progress, New Zealand- only banned its military wing) which is and of itself evidence that "no" is not in all cases a "default" position but one borne out of consideration and debate, even if one may consider it ill-informed or wrong. In my opinion this is insightful information for the reader of the article because in some cases the information blurb part of the table on the right reveals the reasoning as to why a country declined to deem Hamas terrorist, which is more than just describing a "default position". Contrast this with potentially including Togo or Sri Lanka, where "No" is in fact, as you say, a default position because there is no reliable secondary source showing proof of any deliberation involving deeming Hamas terrorist among the authorities of those respective countries. Wickster12345 (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

WE SHOULD FIND A NEW CONNOTATION-NEUTRAL color scheme. I agree the current color scheme is misleading because green can be considered to a positive insinuation, as in no terrorist designation is suggested to be good thing, when this is not NPOV at all. Maybe use blue and yellow because if we flip the color scheme, we are insinuating and taking a position, which we cannot to maintain NPOV, that a "YES" decision as to whether to deem Hamas terrorist is a "Good" thing by being green and not red. Wickster12345 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Being deemed a terrorist group is objectively bad for a group from A) an international relations perspective, and B) a sanctions perspective, so the logic of the current colour scheme works fine. Traffic colours are also more intuitive than arbitrary colours. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

What international relations perspective? Depends on which countries you ask. USA? Iran? Bahrain ? Norway? Turkey? I’m not going to discuss the merits of your point that being deemed terrorism is “objectively” bad for IR purposes in terms of relationships and sanctions. I happen to agree with it by the way, but this my personal POV which happens to align with yours. This line of debate, however, is not what talk pages are for, in my understanding. I think you’re A) falling into a POV trap and B) are imposing what you seem to think is an objective standard that has not been agreed here or in any Wikipedia policy or guidelines, namely that the specifications of a Wiki article diagram’s color scheme can be based on a determination of whether there is a preferable classification(in this case “Yes”-banned Hamas) among available options (which by the way, it’s not even binary question of yes/no, look at New Zealand’s policy as stated on the diagram.

The bigger problem I have with your statement has nothing to do with the question of whether being deemed terrorist is good or bad for IR:: it is not Wikipedia’s job to present information in a way that evaluates whether something A ) is “objectively bad” for any article subject and B) to use a determination of whether something is “objectively” bad to determine whether a given color scheme is appropriate. If you have other objections to yellow blue I’d love to hear them as well, thanks, I think this is an important discussion we’re having. Wickster12345 (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Being "terrorist" is a negative pejorative, so yes, it's a bad thing. That some countries might think the destination is "right", in terms of the correct course of action, does not alter that. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

But how about this: no colours ... Given the table is generally an eyesore. Instead we could have something more useful: three columns with tick marks - one for a full organisation designation, one for just Al-Qassam Brigades (though arguably that information should just appear on that page), and one for an officially declined destination. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The tick mark idea is as close to perfect as we can make it I think. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This shouldn't be in table form at all. I don't understand why we'd discuss the table's color scheme should be when we haven't reached a consensus about whether a table is appropriate at all. Regarding Wickster's comments in the discussion above - there may be discussion and deliberation, and certainly politics, underlying these decisions. Controversial information presented in a table distorts the balance that RS have given these determinations. Our terrorism policy requires us to follow RS. In cases where RS is overwhelming we can use the term terrorist. I think HAMAS is such an example - while acknowledging that Islamist governments may take a different view, the community of scholars operates in world of the secular. Hamas and Islamism are considered primarily religious and so do not fall into the gray area as other types of political violence. Most terrorism scholars agree with this, only to dispute that their mainstream support would fall away if the populations circumstances improved. When I asked ChatGPT to draw me an outline about this I was saddened to receive an outline emphasizing their charitable function in society. I think a lot of it came from us and the article about Hamas (and Muslim Brotherhood) need ongoing attention. But its not helped by these kinds of tables. If we must keep it, I certainly support toning it down, or maybe using very small font. Ben Azura (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with some of what you said. To me, and correct me if I’m wrong, you’re basically insinuating Wikipedia should have a moralizing and officially secular role, which is not a Wikipedia policy established by consensus. We are supposed to be neutral (not Islamist, not secular, but neutral) and present what all countries have stated about Hamas, whether we agree with them or not. This is what NPOV means in this case. If there is a scholarly consensus that Hamas is terrorist that should be included in a different section that discussing what different countries’ positions are, which is a question of fact not of debate.

Even if it were consistent with wiki policy that we should not prominently mention what Saudi Arabia, Iran etc, well it’s not just “Islamist” governments that have refused to label Hamas terrorist, Norway continues to do so, Switzerland has done so in the past, New Zealand doesn’t consider Hamas in its entirety to be terrorist. The reasons behind these states decisions are of importance and informative to readers understanding the discussion about Hamas being terrorist. Also, in my understanding we are not a community of “scholars” , we are a community of information assemblers; we’re not supposed to engage in our own research, that is in fact a Wikipedia policy, as you likely know.

It’s commendable that you’re sad about ChatGPT’s description of Hamas, but what bard or ChatGPT say is none of our concern, our job is to use reputable secondary sources to create a standalone online encyclopedia. Wickster12345 (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Ps. What scholars think about Hamas and what individual states think are two separate questions that deserve separate sections. In light of that, what’s wrong with summarizing what countries say, unless you can show me a wiki guideline or policy that explicitly states country views should not be included and only scholarly views are acceptable, in tabular form? In almost every political science or IR article there are tables comparing policies across countries Wickster12345 (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down. You seem to have misunderstood something. We use reliable sources on Wikipedia. It is a problem to present controversial and complex information in a table format because it effects the neutrality of the article by representing the positions of countries as though they are considered of equal validity by reliable sources. In this case, it creates a strong impression that a tally of countries not designating Hamas a terrorist organization is more significant than it is. No reliable sources used on Wikipedia will be written from a faith-based reasoning - even if they are considered reliable in other countries, such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey. It is a serious problem if you disagree with this. All reliable sources will use reasoning that is grounded in secular educational principles. If you do not understand this, it is a very well documented subject, and I encourage you to research it, until you convince yourself that we do not use faith-based sources here. Ben Azura (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Official country positions do not count as faith-based positions if they merely explain country policy, whether the country in question is Islamist or not. Just because a reliable secondary source says Saudi Arabia does not consider Hamas terrorist, that doesn’t make the source itself “Islamist” and therefore unreliable. In the table, the footnoted sources used to explain Saudi’s position are Times of Israel, Arab News and Al Jazeera, are they all Islamist for reporting on the Saudi relationship with Hamas?

Also, in my understanding, our job is not manufacture tables to look a certain way, either too pro-Hamas (as you’re suggesting it looks like right now) or anti-Hamas they are supposed to neutrally convey the positions of the different countries. The trends will organically show by being as objective as possible. I agree with @Iskandar323 that the best way to do this is with check marks and only include countries where reliable secondary sources show they have taken an actual position on Hamas, without colors which can be used to make associations of “good” and “bad”.

sorry, on an unrelated, note, I thought I was very calm and polite, but I am always trying to improve my communication, can you maybe tell me on my talk page what upset you in my previous response? I am always looking for constructive dialogue, I was trying to be as polite as possible. Wickster12345 (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

“It is a problem to present controversial and complex information in a table format because it effects the neutrality of the article by representing the positions of countries as though they are considered of equal validity by reliable sources”

Sorry, you’re right I should reread the Wikipedia policies, I’ll try to find the section which says some countries’ official views are more valid than others and therefore worth reporting on, my bad, sorry about that Wickster12345 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a convincing argument to separate the scholarly consensus from the designation of countries. The policy you are looking for is WP:CHERRY. Ben Azura (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

But that policy doesn’t create a hierarchy among countries which is being used here to justify the complete removal, or at the very least a significant reduction of, the table. I think we should be focusing on the quality of the sources (times of Israel, Al Jazeera) reporting on the country’s position not the supposed religious leaning of the country’s government. Cherry-picking would be removing one or the other (aka removing the table). Would you agree we should include both scholarly views AND the stated positions of governments for informational purposes? Wickster12345 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If it can be done in a neutral way, sure, I think it would be an improvement. Tables can be policy compliant, and "assign due weight to viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" as the policy requires. They can include a prose component with proper sourcing that explains the significance of the table and why it is included in the article. The text introducing the table is, for now, only a repeat of the facts in the table and a comment attributed to a notable journalist that "in the Arab and Muslim world it has lost its pariah status and its emissaries are welcomed in capitals of Islamic countries". Ben Azura (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. Maybe a good first step would be to amend or remove the sentence starting with “According to Tobias Buck…” as it arguably has lost its relevance after October 7th. I don’t think it’s written very informatively and I don’t know why one FT journalists opinion should receive so much weight. Wickster12345 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

.

Ben Azura (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

That assumes a globally consistent definition of terrorist that is universal enough to even be able to make a determination as to whether most people consider it a bad thing. Show me a secondary source that does so. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It's off-topic, but I'm not sure anyone in the 21st century uses the term "terrorist" in a positive sense; they'll use resistance fighter or freedom fighter if they want to convey a positive narrative. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right. I just think words assume a different meaning depending on who is saying them. Even within "pejorative" there's probably a spectrum where some people attach more negative weight to "terrorism" as a word than others. This is more of a personal belief, shouldn't inform our editing here. I do think, however, that contextual, definitional and other variations in the extent to which the use of the words "terrorist group" is a pejorative suggests we should move away from color schemes as for some people recognizing a group as "terrorist"is dark green good vs just light green good, so to speak.Wickster12345 (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that different, connotation-free colors are the only way. The moment I saw that it was green/red, I knew I'd find a massive argument like this on the talk page. There's never going to be an agreement as to which should be red or green, ever, due to how polarized opinion is, so we have to make it neutral. LesbianTiamat (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree 100%, I think blue and yellow is pretty neutral, or we could do blue and light brown, in case yellow seems to suggest a negative connotation. Wickster12345 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Islamic fundamentalism

Books describing Hamas as Islamic fundamentalist: 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Bakbik1234 (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Already in the infobox. Selfstudier (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I think some of these sources should be included. Bakbik1234 (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

One-state solution

The one-state solution should be added to their ideology. Read the Hamas charter. Bakbik1234 (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It's true that Hamas is not willing to accept a two-state solution. However, they mean they will not accept any Israeli or Jewish state. While Hamas is more complex than it's charter, they are a Muslim Brotherhood spinoff, so we can assume they reject equality among the religions. It is a fracture that occurred when Islamic reformers failed to convince the Brotherhood that Islam was no longer the world's dominant military power, and Muslims were no longer the "protector" of other religions. We assume that Hamas will not be satisfied with any other outcome. However, these are separate matters from what is discussed in the one-state solution article. That article is about a legitimate political proposal supported by some Jewish and Arab Israeli citizens that does not have anything to do with destroying the State of Israel or the Jewish state. Ben Azura (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Decapitation claim debunked and not supported by srcs

Note 296-299 purported to be source for claim that Hamas decapitated children. One article specifically and at length repudiates this claim and the other three don't mention it. Plz remove the false claim. 149.88.26.130 (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Support - Sources: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/despite-refutations-from-israeli-military-headlines-that-hamas-beheaded-babies-persist/3016167

https://theintercept.com/2023/12/14/israel-biden-beheaded-babies-false/ Jester6482 (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)