| Revision as of 15:40, 18 December 2023 editVice regent (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,069 edits →General Discussion: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:54, 18 December 2023 edit undoVice regent (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,069 edits →Question 2: Which of these two pargraphs should appear in the lead?: WP:V and synth violationNext edit → | ||
| Line 1,116: | Line 1,116: | ||
| ::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? ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 15:22, 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? ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 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, ] (]) 15:33, 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, ] (]) 15:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Note to closer''': "Option 1" might be violating ] and ] (in addition to having issues like ] weight) and thus can't be accepted no matter how many votes it gets here, because ] 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 ]) where simple WP:V and SYNTH errors could be fixed. ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 15:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ===General Discussion=== | ===General Discussion=== | ||
Revision as of 15:54, 18 December 2023
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hamas. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hamas at the Reference desk. |
 | The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" should be avoided or used with care. Editors discussing the use of these terms are advised to familiarize themselves with the guideline, and discuss objections at the relevant talkpage, not here. If you feel this article represents an exception, then that discussion properly belongs here. |
| Skip to table of contents |
| Welcome! |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Relevant WikiProjects, Historial Stats, and Usage Info | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
RFC: Should Hamas' ideology be described as anti-imperialist in the infobox?
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should Hamas be described as anti-imperialist in the infobox?
- Option #1: Ideology: Anti-imperialism shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox
- Option #2: Ideology: Anti-imperialism
- Option #3: Ideology: Anti-imperialism (disputed)
The options are the above. There has been significant edit warring within the article over the past week related to this. KlayCax (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- what do the reliable sources say? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: The comments below, mainly based on original research, show the importance of evaluating the reliable sources before coming here. Upon a quick search I found "HAMAS equates Zionism with Nazism and imperialism.". More sources should be sought though. Mhhossein 20:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Option 1: Such a statement would equate Zionism with imperialism, which is, to say the least, an extremely contentious matter and utterly inappropriate for Wikivoice. Infoboxes should generally err on the side of caution regarding potentially controversial, let alone inflammatory, claims.
- RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Whether Zionism is imperialist or not is unrelated to whether Hamas ideologically believes itself to be anti-imperialist. Who said the internal ideologies of organizations are academically accurate? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Zionist state is undoubtedly a settler-colonial, imperialist and irredentist entity; which was founded after the ethnic cleansing of native Palestinians. It currently occupies territories of the State of Palestine and Syria. During 1980s, it invaded Lebanon and occupied southern Lebanon for nearly 15 years. (until it got defeated and expelled militarily) It has also been aggressively annexing more and more Palestinian lands.Many Jewish dissidents criticize or oppose such imperialist, irredentist and expansionist policies; but its a fact that the Zionist state itself is a settler-colonial and imperial entity. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a forum or an advocacy website. Davest3r08 >:) 21:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. "Anti-imperialism" and "Anti-semitisim/Zionism/etc." are not the same thing. WonderCanada (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. Now the only source supporting this assertion is Between the Lines by Toufic Haddad and Tikva Honig-Parnass (Israeli radical anti-occupation movement activist), published by Haymarket books, a 'left-wing non-profit, independent book publisher.' Are there other, less biased sources which characterise them this way? Alaexis¿question? 09:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Option 1, unless RS are provided that establish either of the other options. François Robere (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Option 1 Most of the sources dont describe it in such way so it will be wp:undue to do so
- Shrike (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. This is the source in the article's infobox for anti-imperialism. The information should be expanded before a decision is made. Senorangel (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Option 2: In addition to news reports, there are plenty of academic sources discussing the anti-imperialism of Hamas. I dont know why an academic source which cited the anti-imperialist character of Hamas movement was erased repeatedly from this page.
- From "Between the Lines" (2007) edited by Tikva Honig-Parnass, Toufic Haddad.
- Publisher: Haymarket Books
"Nowhere did the Zionist left bother to respond to analysts like Azmi Bishara, who time and again emphasized that in supporting Hamas, the Palestinian people were declaring that they opposed the former PA policies, which had succumbed to Israeli dictates. Nor did their general political view allow them to relate to the anti-imperialist essence inherent in Hamas's resistance.."
- From "The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion" (2010) edited by John Hinnells. Publisher: Routledge
There is also a nationalist and anti-imperial dimension to most Islamic militancy. Hamas is a fundamentalist movement in the sense that it advocates a state based on strict conformity to Islamic law, and the followers of Hamas are expected to follow a strictly Islamic code of conduct. At the same time, however, Hamas is clearly a Palestinian nationalist movement that echoes most of the traditional demands of the Palestinian Liberation Organization before it accepted the idea of the partition of pre-1948 Palestine into a Jewish state on 78 percent of the land and a Palestinian state on the remaining 22 percent
- From "A History of Palestinian Islamic Jihad" (2021) authored by Erik Skare. Publisher: Cambridge University Press
These qualifications, however, do not necessarily weaken my claim that the thought and practice of PIJ and Hamas derive from two different political traditions. First, both movements opposed Western colonialism and its complicity in the crimes of the Israeli occupation. Yet, Hamas's theorization about the instrumental Zionist-Western relationship made it explore the division of responsibilities in the liberation struggle. That is, the movement explored the issue of who had to bear the greatest costs of "Zionists and imperialist projects." Hamas concluded that liberation could not be borne by the Palestinian resistance alone. Hroub thus argues that "one finds evidence of the line of thinking that originated in the 1970s... that is, an Islamic state be established outside (Palestine), and such a state should take a lion's share of the responsibility for liberation." Accordingly, Hamas never expected the First Intifada to lead to the liberation of Palestine. This conclusion would necessarily distinguish Hamas from PIJ, with the confidence of the latter in the Palestinian masses and their armed struggle. As Hatina notes: "A general enlistment of the Muslim world to join the struggle in Palestine acknowledged as impractical . The main burden, in consequence, at least in the initial phase, fall on the Muslims of Palestine.
Second, these differing views on the division of responsibilities, and the realism of the Palestinian struggle, would necessarily affect their approach to the West and the application of their anti-colonial analysis in daily and diplomatic practices. - "Conversations with Terrorists: Middle East Leaders on Politics, Violence, and Empire" (2016) authored by Reese Erlich & Baer Robert. Publisher: Routledge
Hamas was founded in December 1987 by Sheik Ahmed Yassin and his followers as a branch of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood had a long history in the Middle East as an anti-imperialist organization seeking to establish Arab governments ruled by a strict interpretation of Islam....
From the beginning Hamas saw itself as a distinct, religious trend and refused to join the PLO. Hamas sought to merge a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam with anti-imperialism.
- From "The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion" (2010) edited by John Hinnells. Publisher: Routledge
- As everyone can see, numerous academic sources have clearly described Hamas as an anti-imperialist movement. Outside the academia, it is well-known that various media outlets, political and civilian activists across the world, describe Hamas movement as anti-imperialist.
- Due to the settler-colonial nature of Zionist nationalism, Zionists of all political persuasions attempt to deny the anti-imperialist character of Hamas insurgents. (as mentioned in the above listed academic sources)
- I view these ongoing, repeated attempts to remove and censor the well-sourced content regarding anti-imperialism of Hamas insurgents as part of the Western-centric systemic bias prevelant in this "online encyclopaedia". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Option 2 for now, in light of sources presented by Shadowwarrior8. I'm open to seeing contrarian sources too.VR talk 02:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Option 2 (Summoned by bot) there are serious academic sources in which it is clear that Hamas consider themselves to be anti-imperialist. For example, Meir Litvak who is the Chair of the Department of Middle Eastern and African History at Tel Aviv University writes in two places of an article that "
More important, Hamas regards the struggle against Israel and the Jews as part of a broader religious war waged between the Islamic and Western civilizations. It is the latest and most fateful phase of the relentless onslaught waged by Western imperialism and culture against Islam since the time of the Crusades. Both the capitalist West and the Communist East are regarded as one entity in this context because of their support for Zionism. Thus Hamas depicted the 1991 Gulf War as a war of the 'crusaders coalition' against Islam in order to complete what Zionism had been unable to do. In addition, the Jews were sometimes portrayed as instruments of the West, or alternatively as the power which controls and manipulates the West. The US, for instance, was described as a servant of Israel and as seeking to subjugate the Arabs according to the Jewish plan
" and "The ramifications of the Palestinian jihad, according to Hamas, go far beyond Palestine. History from the times of the Crusades has shown that the Islamic nation unites only around Palestine , writes Abd al-Hafiz 'Alawi, a frequent contributor to Filastin al-Muslima. The Palestinian cause is the common denominator of all popular movements in the Muslim world. The loss of Palestine was the beginning of the nation's collapse and disintegration, and the liberation of Palestine is a necessary precondition for the nation's cultural revival and progress. Moreover, humanity everywhere, which is oppressed by American imperialism and Zionism, looks forward to the defeat of these forces as the first step towards its liberation. There is no future for this nation and this region, he concluded, except by liberating Palestine and by removing the Zionist state which constitutes the obstacle to Arab and Islamic revival
". TarnishedPath 10:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Option #2: There appears to be plenty of evidence that Hamas views its own activities through an anti-imperialist lense, and by contrast, no evidence contradicting this and asserting that it does not. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Option #3: Ideology: Anti-imperialism (disputed) They may view themselves as anti-imperialist, but they also say they are committed to the destruction of Israel, which goes beyond simply being anti-imperialist. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Option 2, with the assumption that the rest of the section is staying rather than being replaced (that is Anti-imperialism in addition to Palestinian nationalism, Islamism, etc rather than instead of). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Option #2, although it would would benefit from the addition of ideaologies such as nationalism, Palestinian self-determinaton, etc. Estep00 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Option #2, and I would also add "Anti-colonialism" to that. Baconi (2018, page 226) writes "
In that sense, Hamas is akin to a religious and armed anticolonial resistance movement
". VR talk 21:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC) - Option #1: In fact Hamas may be imperialist itself, seeking to establish a muslim empire worldwide. Article 23 of the Hamas Charter expresses support for all Islamic movements "if they reveal good intentions and dedication to Allah." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Can you quote WP:SECONDARY reliable sources to uphold that assertion? VR talk 04:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is my opinion that may be shared by other editors. It showcases controversy of statements about it and as such a reason why option 1 is more desirable. Also, the infobox should reflect what reliable sources say, as such if there are reliable sources directly stating it is anti-imperialist, then that's fine. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- If that's the case, plenty of academic sources have indeed been cited in the RfC which explains the anti-imperialist nature of Hamas.
- Regarding the ideological aims of Hamas, "Hamas Charter" page mostly explains the 1988 charter of Hamas. In 2017, Hamas adopted a new charter. Its text can be read here. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is my opinion that may be shared by other editors. It showcases controversy of statements about it and as such a reason why option 1 is more desirable. Also, the infobox should reflect what reliable sources say, as such if there are reliable sources directly stating it is anti-imperialist, then that's fine. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Can you quote WP:SECONDARY reliable sources to uphold that assertion? VR talk 04:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Option 2 per all above Parham wiki (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Option 2 per provided sources. If some disputing sources could be found, I wouldn't be opposed to Option 3, but I don't think Option 1 is an option at this point. Loki (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Option 3 at least, based on a casual search I did of disputing sources (from both the left and the right). There is The Atlantic (https://web.archive.org/web/20231102003927/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/decolonization-narrative-dangerous-and-false/675799/), The Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/left-wing-defenses-of-hamas-are-an-insult-to-palestinians), Social Europe (https://www.socialeurope.eu/israel-and-hamas-the-debasement-of-discourse), Socialist Appeal (https://socialist.net/marxists-cannot-support-islamic-fundamentalism-hamas/), National Interest (https://nationalinterest.org/feature/latin-american-support-hamas-threatens-american-interests-207051), and Dissent Magazine (https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/toward-a-humane-left/) all challenging or criticising the anti-imperialist label. I have not done a search in Google Scholar or other academia-related engines, so there are probably even more disputing sources that can be found...
- I also did a search of sources in Portuguese and Swedish out of curiosity and found articles from Göteborgs-Posten editor Adam Cwejman (https://www.gp.se/ledare/sovjets-propaganda-präglar-fortfarande-bilden-av-israel-1.114466524) and Brazilian columnist Denis Lerrer Rosenfield in O Estado de S. Paulo (https://web.archive.org/web/20231106065608/https://www.estadao.com.br/opiniao/denis-lerrer-rosenfield/dicionario-da-ignominia/) criticising some leftist figures' pro-Hamas sympathy on anti-imperialist reasoning. An analyst from the Instituto de Estudos Políticos (https://cnnportugal.iol.pt/hamas/gaza/dina-matos-ferreira-terroristas-como-atores-da-guerra-um-guia-para-as-percecoes/20231027/653c0233d34e65afa2f6ebe6) most explicitly opposes this label, contending that Hamas is linked to 'Islamic imperialism' and the spread of Sharia. John Gray (https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-10-19/john-gray-philosopher-the-west-has-a-false-view-of-hamas-as-an-anti-colonial-movement-it-has-more-in-common-with-isis.html) rejects the anti-colonial label on the group, which is similar. So if option 2 is taken, I think both the supporting and dissenting views on 'anti-imperiaism' should be added to the article body or it would be pushing an outdated and one-sided viewpoint. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Option 2 per provided sources, and related explanations by the users who selected Option-2. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Option 1, sure they describe themselves as "anti-imperialist", but this is empty propaganda and not a significant aspect of the organization. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment, none of the editors who oppose the inclusion of well-sourced content have actually provided any academic source. Either they make WP:IDONTLIKEIT-style arguments against Hamas, or in one case, bring up biased & partisan opinion pieces.
- Here is another academic source stating that Hamas movement is anti-imperialist.
- It is well-known that Hamas movement is widely described as an anti-imperialist movement in the academia. There is no need to ask the personal opinion of other editors to include this well-recognized content. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I’m not opposed to including it but it should be included along with many of the sources I listed. And sorry, but many of those “biased & partisan opinion pieces” like The Atlantic, CNN, and El Pais are considered acceptable by most Wiki editors. If you’re advocating the addition of your sources while saying mine should be excluded from the article, it would not be in line with Wiki policy as WP:RSOPINION states that op-eds in mainstream Western outlets are allowed, just not as assertions in Wikivoice (where conflicting sources should be included).
- Also do you have a source from no further back to the start of this war that still contends Hamas is anti-imperialist? Because many European commentators do not seem to agree with the description now. Considering the Hamas attack made headlines all over the globe for the past month, your content (though adequately sourced) would qualify for a dated template. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Option 1. Not even one source was brought here with a quote: "Hamas is Anti-Imperialist". So far the sources went vaguely around assumed parts of analysis. TaBaZzz (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's your blatant original research. Academic sources provided here have clearly asserted the anti-imperialist character of Hamas and allied insurgent groups like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Option #2, Ideology: Anti-imperialism. As I understand the proposal, it is to add "anti-imperialism" to the already-listed ideologies of Palestinian nationalism, Islamism, Islamic nationalism, Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, and Ant-communism. I don't see why not, per the sources extensively quoted by Shadowwarrior8. I also don't see what the big deal is. Hamas believes the State of Israel was foisted upon Arab Palestinians, without their knowledge or consent, first by the British Empire (see Sykes–Picot Agreement and Balfour Declaration) and after that by the United States and other members of the United Nations (see United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine#The_vote). They see that as imperialism, to which they are opposed, hence anti-imperialism. Whether their worldview is correct is not something we can solve. --Orgullomoore (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Option 2 per Shadowwarrior8 and Orgullomoore. People not liking the sources isnt something that should factor in to our consensus process, when sources support something we say that. And beyond that, we routinely include what parties say about their own views. We for example say the Republican Party (United States) has an ideology of fiscal conservatism despite Republican presidents having larger deficits than Democratic ones (source), or centrism despite the evidence of the contrary. But regardless, the sourcing here is solid, and that is what should count. nableezy - 03:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Option 1. One should look at the best available tertiary sources here like Britannica . It says: "Hamas, militant Palestinian nationalist and Islamist movement". EB provides a long article about it, but nowhere calls Hamas an organization with anti-imperialist ideology. My very best wishes (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- It also nowhere mentions Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, or Anti-communism. --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps My very best wishes is arguing we should also remove antisemitism from their ideology? nableezy - 15:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- EB says (link above): "But Hamas continued to reject the legitimacy of Israel... Yahya Sinwar, became the local leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip (2017– ), he stated in a roundtable discussion with young Gazans: “Gone is the time in which Hamas discussed recognition of Israel. The discussion now is about when we will wipe out Israel.” Therefore, yes, it is anti-Zionist by definition and arguably antisemitic. As about "anti-communist" - no, this does not appear anywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Arguably is definitionally OR. nableezy - 05:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- EB says (link above): "But Hamas continued to reject the legitimacy of Israel... Yahya Sinwar, became the local leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip (2017– ), he stated in a roundtable discussion with young Gazans: “Gone is the time in which Hamas discussed recognition of Israel. The discussion now is about when we will wipe out Israel.” Therefore, yes, it is anti-Zionist by definition and arguably antisemitic. As about "anti-communist" - no, this does not appear anywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps My very best wishes is arguing we should also remove antisemitism from their ideology? nableezy - 15:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- To paraphrase Ian Hislop, if Britannica is one of the
best available tertiary sources
then I'm a banana. There are surely better scholarly tertiary sources covering this topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- It also nowhere mentions Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, or Anti-communism. --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- What other widely-recognized tertiary sources would you suggest? I did not see any in discussion above. EB is a neutral, non-partisan source. See WP:Tertiary: "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- But no secondary source has been provided conflicting with this. It is simply the Misplaced Pages editors who dislike what the sources say that dispute it, not other sources. nableezy - 05:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- What other widely-recognized tertiary sources would you suggest? I did not see any in discussion above. EB is a neutral, non-partisan source. See WP:Tertiary: "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. Quick source check identifies a number of other tertiary sources that could be used here (Google books search for "Hamas" AND "encyclopedia"), but most are not available online. One of them says that "Hamas equates Zionism with Nazism and imperialism". Does it mean that Hamas is an anti-imperialist organization? No, it does not, and the source does not claim it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- We prefer secondary sources, which we are tasked with summarizing here, not tertiary sources whose editorial policies we do not know. Our editorial policy is to summarize secondary sources with due weight given to disputed views in accordance to their weight among reliable sources. nableezy - 05:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Option 2 per sources given by Shadowwarrior8. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Option 3 per sources given by Shadowwarrior8 and Donkey Hot-day. The sources conflict, so I don't think it's really that bad if we say that Hamas being anti-imperialist is disputed. — Davest3r08 >:) 21:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
References
- Honig-Parnass, Haddad, Tikva, Toufic (2007). "10: Expanding Regionally, Resisting Locally". Between the Lines. Haymarket Books. p. 297. ISBN 978-1931859-44-8.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Honig-Parnass, Haddad, Tikva, Toufic (2007). "10: Expanding Regionally, Resisting Locally". Between the Lines. Haymarket Books. p. 297. ISBN 978-1931859-44-8.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Hinnells, John; Munson, Henry (2010). "21: Fundamentalism". The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-203-86876-8.
- Skare, Erik (2021). A History of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. New York, NY 10006, USA: Cambridge University Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-1-108-84506-9.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) - Erlich, Robert, Reese, Baer (2016). Conversations with Terrorists: Middle East Leaders on Politics, Violence, and Empire. 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10007, USA: Routledge. p. 367. ISBN 978-1-1384-6788-0.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Litvak, Meir (Jan 1998). "The Islamization of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: The Case of Hamas". Middle Eastern Studies. 34 (1): 148–163. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
- L. Gevin, James (2021). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A History (4 ed.). New York, NY 10006, USA: Cambridge University Press. p. 237. ISBN 978-1-108-48868-6.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
Post-rfc work
I have closed the rfc above and uncommented the line in the infobox per the consensus. However, now we have antiïmperialism listed in the infobox but not the body text. As such, it will need to be written in to the body at an appropriate spot as soon as possible. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, I do hope the body text will contain some of the sources I listed. It would be weird to include sources from 2021 and earlier while excluding ones in 2023 that are in line with WP:RSP and cited everywhere else in Misplaced Pages like CNN, The Atlantic, and El Pais. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- I see this discussion was about "anti-imperialist" - but is used in the article to justify also anti colonial. If that is what people want to discuss, may I suggest opening a separate discussion. I don't see any consensus on anti colonial. Tal Galili (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes this seems to be an issue. Also from understanding of RFC, anti-Imperialist is only for infobox. If one wishes to add it to lead then full scope of characteristics ought to be added no? Homerethegreat (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Maddy from Celeste - given that there is a decision to move anti-imperialist" into the lead section from the info box, does it not also stand to reason to include "Antisemitism", as mentioned in the info box? Tal Galili (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- "is often used as a synonym for imperialism" But we can open a separate thread if you feel the consensus for anti-imperialist doesn't justify anti-colonial. And I believe antisemitic is already included in the lead?VR talk 14:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- if it's a synonym, why do we need it there as well? Tal Galili (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Anti-Colonial and Anti-Imperialist are different things. We must be very careful in our wording since there is the potential to seriously mislead readers. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Fine. But do you at least agree there is consensus that anti-imperialism is undisputed part of Hamas ideology? I'm not asking if you personally disagree with this, I'm asking for you to acknowledge that such a consensus exists among users in general. VR talk 20:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Talgalili: Just to mention that we are not going to "move" anything from infobox to lead. As for the inclusion of colonial phrase, is there any substantiated objection against its inclusion? --Mhhossein 13:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- "is often used as a synonym for imperialism" But we can open a separate thread if you feel the consensus for anti-imperialist doesn't justify anti-colonial. And I believe antisemitic is already included in the lead?VR talk 14:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Re: Hamas’ “perceived anti-Israeli stance”
Hi,
I’m not extended autoconfirmed, or I would otherwise have made this edit request myself, but I have a small suggestion for improvement to this article.
In the third paragraph of the lead, the following sentence appears:
Hamas has gained widespread popularity within Palestinian society for its perceived anti-Israeli stance. (emphasis added)
It feels like “perceived anti-Israeli stance” is a bit disingenuous. There is nothing purely “perceptual” about Hamas’ stance towards Israel—it is quite real, and quite obvious. Whatever lens through which one views the current escalation in violence, this sentence nearly reads like a joke in light thereof. Hamas’ charter literally calls for the annihilation of the State of Israel through jihad. In fact, just two sentences before this, the lead states:
it has pursued a policy of jihad (armed struggle) against Israel.
I would suggest changing the sentence in question to something like “Hamas has gained widespread popularity within Palestinian society for its anti-Israeli stance.” or “Hamas has gained widespread popularity within Palestinian society for its active anti-Israeli stance.”
Thanks for your work and consideration,
Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- support TaBaZzz (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Perceived" Bar Harel (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support this generally, but can't help feel "anti-Israel stance" is a bit weak anyway. Can we bulk it out? I'd imagine a lot of sources discuss the legitimacy crisis of Fatah and stagnation of Oslo? I feel that would be a stronger sentence. Yr Enw (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Adding Moldova as state that designated Hamas as a terrorist org
Here is the source - terrorist orgs list of Moldova national antiterrorist committee 2019. https://antiteror.sis.md/sites/default/files/document/attachments/osis_14_2019.pdf Zaygle (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit.
Question:- @Zaygle, could you provide additional information around this so that it can be better cited? Possibly around page 21–23 is what you’re referring to? I have attempted to translate it using machine translation, but I don’t want to rely on that alone.
- @Jmabel, hello! I noticed you were listed as a previously active Romanian translator who has made contributions in the previous weeks—would you be able to assist in verifying this as a reliable and accurate source? Thanks!
- – Pedantical (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Pedantical: it's a government site, so presumably reliable, including that it cites for the position being official. Further, it mentions that this was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova (MONITORUL OFICIAL). The document conflates involvement in terrorist activities (activități teroriste) and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (proliferare a armelor de distrugere în masă), so one possible question is that it could be conceivably argued that somehow they fell under the latter rather than the former, but given the nature of Hamas that would be quite a stretch. The mention of Hamas doesn't so much single out a Moldovan position as cite and quote a list people, groups, and entities provided in article I of the Common Position of the Council of the European Union, 27 December 2001 (LISTA persoanelor, grupurilor și a entităților prevăzute la articolul 1 din Poziția Comună a Consiliului Uniunii Europene din 27 decembrie 2001 (2001/931/PESC) ). Under that heading, the list of groups and entities (Grupuri și entități) on page 22 of the PDF includes „Hamas”, inclusiv „Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem” ("Hamas", including "Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem"). So it is clearly an official Moldovan government position, but it is simply an endorsement of an EU list, not something originating in Moldova. I presume that answers your question. Since Moldova is not yet an EU member, their official endorsement and quotation of the EU list should presumably count as a separate action, and that Moldova considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization.
- Please ping me if anyone thinks there is any problem in my translation or reasoning: I don't maintain a watchlist on en-wiki. - Jmabel | Talk 18:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your help here! Greatly appreciated. Take care,
- – Pedantical (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
wording in lead
the lead section says "Hamas is widely considered to be the "dominant political force" within the Palestinian territories.". This is supported by three citations:
- a recent Foreign Policy article which in no way says this at any point ("Hamas’s ability to claim leadership based on the quality of ordinary Palestinians’ lives is limited." & "Abbas and other PA leaders have implicitly supported the isolation of Gaza, and its security forces have worked closely with Israel to crush Hamas in the West Bank"),
- a Guardian article from 2007 which states "Hamas is not currently a member of the PLO but as the dominant political force in the Palestinian territories, it is only a matter of time and negotiation before it takes its place. The PLO is dominated by Fatah and leftist groups who were powerful in the 1960s and 1970s but whose influence has waned." which might have been true at the time, but not 16 years later (or even since 2007).
- The third citation is a 2009 paper which make the claim in the context of the 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections, but that council has been defunct since the Fatah Hamas split in 2007.
The latest poll from Gaza (July 2023) indicated 11% support for Hamas and 32% for Fatah. (Not 100% sure about the quality of the poll, though Ian Bremmer seems to think its legit). Overall this doesnt seem like good enough and especially not recent enough sourcing to support such a bold claim in the lead section. jonas (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is interesting. Washington Institute also polled Gazans in July 2023 and their findings are somewhat different
Overall, 57% of Gazans express at least a somewhat positive opinion of Hamas... —though Gazans who express this opinion of Hamas are fewer than the number of Gazans who have a positive view of Fatah (64%).
They also found that Fatah is more popular (which was surprising for me!) but still more than half support Hamas. The difference could be due to differences in the wording of questions and the interpretation of the responses. - We can probably include the poll results, but the popular support for a faction doesn't necessarily mean that it is the "dominant political force," especially in the absence of elections. Alaexis¿question? 10:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Here's another survey, made by Arab Barometer right before the start of the war. They asked a slightly different question "Which party, if any, do you feel closest to?" and as far as I can understand it was a single answer question. Fatah and Hamas were chosen by 30% and 27% respectively. We'd have to summarise all these surveys somehow. Alaexis¿question? 10:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Next Palestinian legislative election#Opinion polls Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't know about that article, I think it belongs to Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages records :) Alaexis¿question? 22:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- the public support section has some polling from 2014 but would need some updating with these polls. I don't see anyone arguing for keeping the wording in the lead, so I'm gonna remove that part for now until there's consensus to more accurately describe the current position of Hamas. jonas (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Next Palestinian legislative election#Opinion polls Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- The latest poll I could find for Hamas' popularity is from 2021, and nothing from since then.VR talk 00:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- The polls in the above link go through mid 2023. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
"One-party state"
There was a longer discussion on Hamas being an oppressive one-party state at Talk:Gaza Strip. I'll ping all the participants there. Makeandtoss (Iskandar323—Selfstudier—nableezy—TaBaZzz—Homerethegreat—Dovidroth—Jean-de-Nivelle)
I don't dispute that Hamas is oppressive, but Gaza Strip is not a state! Hamas has never declared independence, nor has any entity ever recognized Gaza Strip as an independent state. Hamas, and every one else, continue to view Gaza Strip as an integral part of the Palestinian territories and the partially recognized State of Palestine. VR talk 03:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's why it was always de facto , but Hamas is effectively ruled seperetly from the rest of the Palestinian Territories (Whole Palestinian Civil War, Fatah-Hamas episode). And since Hamas has opressed opposition to it, it makes it effectively, One party rule. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Even de facto is not true. The West Bank-based Palestinian Authority pays the salaries of civil servants in Gaza Strip, and Israel controls the population registry for Gaza Strip (and West Bank). As far as I know, Gaza Strip residents can only get a Palestinian Authority passport - there is no such thing as a "Hamas passport". And the United Nations (and others) consider Gaza Strip under Israeli occupation, just like the West Bank.VR talk 17:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- UN recognition has nothing to do with this. Usually the term "de facto state" is used precisely for states that are not widely recognised (Abkhazia, TRNC, Somaliland, etc).
- In case of Gaza under Hamas, there are many sources which apply this term to Gaza, for example
- Bombs and Ballots. Governance by Islamist Terrorist and Guerrilla Groups, p. 128
- Between State and Non-State. Politics and Society in Kurdistan-Iraq and Palestine, p. 92 Alaexis¿question? 20:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- In each of these cases, Abkhazia, Somaliland, the territory itself views itself as an independent state. Where is the evidence that Hamas views itself as an independent state? The claim that Gaza Strip is an independent state is a very WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. It is telling that, while Abkhazia, Somaliland, TRNC etc are all listed at List of states with limited recognition, Gaza Strip is not listed there. VR talk 04:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- What would you propose as an alternative to convey that Gaza is run by a single party that exercises de facto sovereignty within the territory it controls? --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- The Gaza Strip is ruled de facto as an authoritarian Islamist state by Hamas. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- What would you propose as an alternative to convey that Gaza is run by a single party that exercises de facto sovereignty within the territory it controls? --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I personally don't agree that Hamas exercises sovereignty per arguments above, but we go by sources and not personal opinions, so lets see what others say.VR talk 21:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- We should not call it an independent state since the Gaza Strip had not delcared sovereignty or anything of the sort. Therefore it should be "de facto" Homerethegreat (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- In each of these cases, Abkhazia, Somaliland, the territory itself views itself as an independent state. Where is the evidence that Hamas views itself as an independent state? The claim that Gaza Strip is an independent state is a very WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. It is telling that, while Abkhazia, Somaliland, TRNC etc are all listed at List of states with limited recognition, Gaza Strip is not listed there. VR talk 04:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Even de facto is not true. The West Bank-based Palestinian Authority pays the salaries of civil servants in Gaza Strip, and Israel controls the population registry for Gaza Strip (and West Bank). As far as I know, Gaza Strip residents can only get a Palestinian Authority passport - there is no such thing as a "Hamas passport". And the United Nations (and others) consider Gaza Strip under Israeli occupation, just like the West Bank.VR talk 17:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Curry7524 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Mosbug1 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
“Misplaced Pages is not interested in what scholars believe”
Corriebertus added
This is much too vague. Misplaced Pages is not interested in what scholars “believe”: belief is religion and is therefore a private affair. But if the Wiki contributor who added this sentence means to say or suggest, those six referenced authors state in their books that they have read in that Hamas charter the Hamas willingness to accept the two-state solution of Israel next to a P. state on West Bank, Gaza Strip plus East Jerusalem, then please, say so clearly, give a citation from at least one of those authors, and tell where in the charter they’ve read that vow; because the charter is public, we all can read it ourselves, and points 18 and 19 in it: “...establishment of "Israel" is ..illegal ..contravenes the ..rights of the Palestinian people .. There shall be no recognition of ..the Zionist entity”, etc., don’t in the least sound as such an acceptance of aforementioned two-state solution. If however none of those six authors (who all have no Misplaced Pages page testifying their good reputation) even tells in their referenced book where they have read such (contradictory!) vow to such two-state solution in that Hamas charter, Misplaced Pages should not be the place to misleadingly publish (in a section called Hamas#Two-state solution) those apparently unbased (wishful?) fantasies of them as if they were relevant deductions or reliable facts on this topic.
So wikipedia does actually care how scholars interpret primary sources, please see WP:SECONDARY. In fact, wikipedia users interpreting primary sources would be considered WP:OR. I have given the page numbers for each of the books of the authors. Have you gone and verified the sources yourself? Just for your peace of mind, let me give a couple of quotes.
Brenner says
The new document still referred to Palestine as territory 'from the river to the sea'. However, it also added that it accepted the pre-1967 lines as the borders of a Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital and the right of return for refugees. While not explicitly saying what would be on the other side of these borders, this nevertheless acknowledged the existence of another entity there.
Ayoob says
In its May 2017 charter, Hamas expressed willingness to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders of Israel and Palestine. The statement, however, done not include recognition of Israel or acceptance of the solution proposed by the Oslo Accords. Nevertheless, acceptance of the 1967 borders can be interpreted as a de facto acceptable of the preconditions for a two-state solution.
VR talk 16:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not interested in what scholars “believe”
Since when? Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)- Since it conflicted with the personal belief of a Misplaced Pages editor, obviously. nableezy - 18:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- For what it's worth. I’ve removed the bulk of the original editor’s clarification template "reason" and directed it to this particular topic (thanks for copying it over and quoting)
- It did not seem fitting to include so much editorialized/pointed comments in the article itself (when such concerns could be much more easily discussed here). Pedantical (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for discussing here. @Nableezy: suggests(11/11) that I want/wanted to throw out scholarly interpretations that conflict with my personal ideas (belief, opinion). No, that’s not my point or purpose. My point was here (in that ‘clarify’ request copied in the top of this talk section), that I couldn’t find, on 10 November, a relevant interpretation of a relevant fact in that (summarizing?) sentence about “many scholars believe...”.
With my second sentence in that request (“Misplaced Pages is not interested in…”, misunderstood by VR (=@Vice regent:) here, 11 Nov), I only meant to say: if scholars (or authors or other notable people) think or deduce or interpret or “believe” that Hamas in the 2017 charter states their willingness to accept a (two-state) solution of Israel next to a P. state, and write that in their book, and a Wiki contributor wishes to report on that in our article, then the contributor should give any direct quote testifying such “belief” or interpretation, and in that quote the author (why do you entitle them as “scholars”? One of them, Ayoob, is Professor at a U.S. university, that doesn’t make all of them ‘scholars’; perhaps, you can enlighten us as to why these people are notable in relation to the issue Palestine/Israel?) should preferably make clear how he/she deduces that belief from statements of Hamas; but if the author nowhere in his book explains how his “belief” in (or interpretation of) such two-state solution is based on (or is interpreting/explaining/expounding) any facts, his ‘belief’ appears to be a purely private, 100% unscientific/unbased thing, (glaringly at odds with the text of the 2017 charter,) which (he/she ofcourse is entitled to have but), if included in our article, should be described more clearly (‘scholars/authors believe that Hamas supports a two-state…’) and should be demonstrated with at least one direct quote. If none of that can be delivered by the Wiki contributors, the bare (and unreferenced) contention of some (not specifically well-renowned or -reputed) authors having some (vaguely indicated) ‘belief’ (at odds with plain and clear facts) seems to me an unverifiable presumption/allegation (‘belief’ taking place in someone’s psyche which is inaccessible and unmonitorable for others), therefore not relevant for Misplaced Pages.
- Thanks for discussing here. @Nableezy: suggests(11/11) that I want/wanted to throw out scholarly interpretations that conflict with my personal ideas (belief, opinion). No, that’s not my point or purpose. My point was here (in that ‘clarify’ request copied in the top of this talk section), that I couldn’t find, on 10 November, a relevant interpretation of a relevant fact in that (summarizing?) sentence about “many scholars believe...”.
- The difficult and confusing thing here however is, that that sentence about “many scholars believe(d)...” was first entered in the section on 3 November 00:02 and 00:04 by Vice regent when in this section no substantial mention yet was made of the 2017 charter. In that situation, “believe” seemed to mean: the scholars were not sure what the charter said and therefore made a guess: ‘probably, the new charter accepts a P.state in 1967 borders’. Then, on 4 Nov 13:26 and 6 Nov 10:07, I inserted the link to the full charter and some statements of Hamas’ Political Bureau chairman Mashal while presenting it on a press conference (2May2017), which both seemed to contradict the ‘belief’ of those scholars or at least the way I had understood that sentence about that belief until then (and ofcourse I gave an edit summary with my motivation, trying to point at that seeming contradiction: “even though…still not…”). Insertion of a new sentence in an existing text however will, quite usually and inevitably, alter the meaning of the text following it, even if you don’t change any word or letter from that following text. Therefore, my insertion about the statements on the press conference made it necessary to slightly edit also the sentence coming behind it—not to change the meaning of that following sentence but to preserve its meaning (in the way how I had understood its meaning). Nevertheless, I perhaps should not have edited it in exactly the way I did.
- Next thing that happened, is that Vice regent on 7 Nov 01:10 removed the press conference of Mashal 2 May 2017, while maintaining the link to the full Charter, and mostly restored his earlier sentence about “many scholars believe”, but gave no edit summary and thus no motivation for that edit (including that deletion). This struck me—and still does—as uncooperative, autocratic (Wiki) behaviour and especially that unmotivated deletion as obstructive/disruptive. What can you do on a supposedly cooperative project if (some) other participants refuse to confer, consult with each other about (seeming) disagreements?
- I had given my motivation for that 2017press conference already on 4 Nov, but while Vice regent ignored that given motivation there seemed little point in repeating it. It seemed (on 4 and 10 Nov) and seems (today) nevertheless obvious to me, that if Misplaced Pages considers reactions from ‘scholars’/authors on a new Charter relevant for the article, you’d first mention the most contentious items from that charter in the Wiki article – like I had done by citing Mashal from his press conferenceMay2017 – and only then give those purportedly relevant reactions etc. from authors. So, on 10 Nov 21:35, I just reentered that press conference passage (slightly condensed), just noting in my edit summary that it had been ‘removed without motivation 7Nov01:10’. Ofcourse, this resulted in a strange, bumpy junction with the next sentence about ‘many scholars believe’, but for me it was now totally unclear what that sentence still would contribute to the section if the section already cited Mr. Mashal summarizing the main (contentious) points from the new charter. My earlier attempt(4 Nov) on ‘constructively’ editing that sentence having been implicitly discarded by Vice regent I this time tried to ask him more or less directly, in the {clarification} tag, what those authors/scholars had said or written that still was a useful contribution to the section.
- Vice regent here on 11 November now reports two direct quotes from those authors, one from Brenner and one from Ayoob. Brenner in the given quote has no more to say than repeating what Mashal said and what the Charter writes (accepting that P.state in 1967 lines) continued by stating the too obvious observation that if a thing has borders then there will be something else (an ‘entity’) outside those borders: both no useful contribution to the section. Ayoob’s given citation however is more interesting but seems to contain two minor slips of the keyboard (‘done not include’ → ‘does not include’ ; ‘a de facto acceptable of the preconditions’ → ‘a de facto acceptance of the preconditions’). Therefore, I now propose to replace sentence: “On 2 May 2017, Hamas presented a new charter, that many scholars believe, accepted a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders”, in section ‘Hamas#Two-state solution’ with:
“Several authors though have reacted on that new charter by writing that Hamas' "acceptance of the 1967 borders can be interpreted as a de facto acceptance of the preconditions for a two-state solution", or the like”. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)- Slightly adapting my proposal here of two days ago:
Thanks to this discussion here, we have found out that the gist of the referenced comment (in section ‘Hamas#Two-state solution’, first paragraph, last sentence) of Professor Ayoob (in January 2020) on the 2017 Hamas Charter is: this charter seems helpful towards finding a “two-state solution” (of the long-running Palestinian–Israeli conflicts). Ayoob’s wording there may be rather vague, but undoubtedly Professor Ayoob wanted to express there his hopeful mood (towards ‘two-state solution’) after reading the 2017charter. Unfortunately, we cannot yet generalize that interpretation to the other five authors referenced there (B.Brenner, M.Koinova, J.Zartman, A.Siniver, L.Seurat): not to Brenner who only remarked that outside of a Palestinian state there will always be something else (which is only logical); and (for now) even less to the remaining four authors. Perhaps, if Vice regent can find really useful comments (in direct quote) on the 2017charter in those books of those four or five people, we can and should still add it in our article.
I’m sorry, mr./mrs. Vice regent. Your plain listing of six authors ‘believing that the Hamas charter accepted (a state in) the 1967borders’ was useful, as long as we didn’t have direct information about what that 2017charter actually said. But since the article (since two weeks), in its section ‘Two-state solution’, refers both to the full charter and to Hamas leader Mashal presenting and summarizing it in a press conference(2017), there seems no essential, notable extra information in telling our readers that several scholars or authors had read that charter too, and had found in it what Mashal had said about that charter on his press conference, and had believed this. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC) - I say go for it and be WP:BOLD. Seems uncontentious to make an enhancement to the phrasing that may have been misconstrued.
- Thanks!
- – Pedantical (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Slightly adapting my proposal here of two days ago:
- Vice regent here on 11 November now reports two direct quotes from those authors, one from Brenner and one from Ayoob. Brenner in the given quote has no more to say than repeating what Mashal said and what the Charter writes (accepting that P.state in 1967 lines) continued by stating the too obvious observation that if a thing has borders then there will be something else (an ‘entity’) outside those borders: both no useful contribution to the section. Ayoob’s given citation however is more interesting but seems to contain two minor slips of the keyboard (‘done not include’ → ‘does not include’ ; ‘a de facto acceptable of the preconditions’ → ‘a de facto acceptance of the preconditions’). Therefore, I now propose to replace sentence: “On 2 May 2017, Hamas presented a new charter, that many scholars believe, accepted a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders”, in section ‘Hamas#Two-state solution’ with:
Hamas 1988 Charter
LEAD seems to completely ignore 1988 charter and its anti-Semitic text and rhetoric, as pointed out by numerous scholars. A widely discussed subject, it deserves attention in Lead. Furthermore, Overdue Weight on 2017 charter that seemed to show moderation in Hamas. Despite contrary actions as demonstrated in Hamas leadership speeches and actions (example - 2023 Hamas attack on Israel).
In its 1988 charter, Hamas advocated for the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state encompassing the combined territories of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. It called for the military destruction of Israel, utilized antisemitic tropes, and endorsed Jihad against Jews until Judgement Day. In an attempt to moderate its image, in 2017 a revised charter was issued, replacing anti-Semitic calls with a focus on anti-Zionism.
Slightly improved wording upon a @Dovidroth version I encountered earlier. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Bruce Hoffman is a biased Zionist and this article is an opinion piece. That so many use this as the “golden source” about Hamas is very telling.
- Focus should remain on the 2017 Revised Hamas Charter and the elimination of antisemitic rhetoric. This doc was written 30 after the original 1988 Covenant. Circumstances in Palestine in 1988 were much different than they were, and currently are, in 2017. To continue focusing on the antisemitism in the 1988 covenant is lazy. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Added a source from The Economist below :). Homerethegreat (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's important to note that Hamas' acceptance of the 1967 borders did not just happen in 2017. Hamas signed documents that implicitly or explicitly recognized this borders in 2005, 2007, 2011 and 2012 (see this scholarly source I quoted). Hamas leaders have also made dozens of statements during those years calling for a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. The 2023 attack has nothing to do with the 1967 borders discussion.
- WP:RSEDITORIAL says "
Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics
". Why on earth would we remove the 5-10 scholarly sources we have in the lead over the 1967 borders and replace with a couple of newspaper op-eds? VR talk 04:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC) - Regarding Hoffman, I'll add a different source then. I think The Economist piece will serve us better. Here it is Homerethegreat (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Next to scholarly sources, a newspaper is a poor source. An editorial piece even more so. nableezy - 16:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Alright so adding scholary sources.
- 1)Rensmann, L. (2020). The Contemporary Globalization of Political Antisemitism: Three Political Spaces and the Global Mainstreaming of the “Jewish Question” in the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, 3(1), p. 90.
- "Hamas focuses on violence against Jews in Israel by means of rockets and terror acts. The Hamas Charter remains aggressively antisemitic and contains references to the notorious, century-old Russian anti-Jewish conspiracy myth forgery of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”; later to be used as Nazi propaganda. The charter accuses Jews “of relying on secret societies to foment global economic and political disasters” and calls on Hamas followers to “prepare for ‘the next round with the Jews, the merchants of war".
- 2)Spoerl, J. S. (2020). Parallels between Nazi and Islamist Anti-Semitism. Jewish Political Studies Review, 31(1/2), p. 216 "First, anti-Semitism is central to Hamas propaganda, as documented
- copiously below, and Hamas has not renounced or ceased producing such
- propaganda. For example, in April 2017, just as Hamas was about to release its
- May 2017 “Document,” Hamas member of the Palestinian legislature Marwan
- Abu Ras gave a Friday sermon at a mosque in the Gaza Strip in which he said,
- “History attests that in every era, the Jews were the most abhorred of people.
- Throughout history, the most hated race was the Jewish race…. Why did
- hate the Jews? Because they are a people of treachery and betrayal….
- Therefore, we can never accept the Jews…"
- 3)Fastenbauer, R. (2020). Islamic antisemitism: Jews in the Qur’an, Reflections of European antisemitism, Political anti-Zionism: Common codes and differences. Confronting Antisemitism from the Perspectives of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, diedit oleh Armin Lange, Kerstin Mayerhofer, Dina Porat, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 284 "Direct calls for use of violence in the text of
- "the Hamas charter also reveal its antisemitic character" Homerethegreat (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Each of these sources are still referencing the 1988 Charter.
- The 1988 Charter was written predominantly by one person -- Abdel Fattah al-Dukhan -- and the Charter became a source of much internal debate and controversy and embarrassment within the organization for decades afterwards. This is cited by both Paola Caridi and Azzam Tamimi in their books on the organization, based on interviews with their leadership.
- Internally, there was a logistical difficulty overwriting the charter due to the verbiage in Article 11 describing Palestine as a "waqf" and the unavailability of members needed for democratic discussion towards changing it due to their imprisonment, but as cited directly by Caridi in "Hamas: Resistance to Government" regarding internal attitudes towards the charter: "But the embarrassment is obvious. In this as in other cases, the movement sacrifices its pragmatic side on the altar of its unity, because it considers essential for its solidity that its unique democratic centralism not be undermined. Abandoning the Charter would not be possible even for those who opposed it from the very beginning unless an extensive discussion took place including all Hamas’ different groupings ... Among the leadership who have been heard over recent years, the only one to have publicly admitted his opposition to the Mithaq is Sayyed Abu Musameh, who in October 2008 revealed that both he and Moussa Abu Marzouq – one of the Islamist movement’s most important figures – had come out against the document ... In truth, the first public statements which attempted to put the value of the Charter into its proper perspective appeared already during an earlier period, between 2003 and 2005."
- There is vast evidence of Hamas's actual ideology and political orientation contradicting the charter's stated views:
- 1) The speech by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2eXDd6liG0
- 2) The 2007 Wikileak stating: "... However, some Hamas leaders have said that while they will not recognize Israel, they are prepared to accept a temporary solution based on establishing an independent Palestinian state on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, with east Jerusalem as its capital and without settlements."
- 3) The verbiage in their '05 Political Manifesto prior to the '06 election
- 4) The letter Haniyeh wrote to the UN in 2009 expressing interest in a two-party state along the 1967 borders
- 5) The 2012 interview with Marzouk in the Jewish newspaper Forward where he states explicitly:
- “We don’t have originally something against the Jew as a religion or against the Jew as a human being,” he said. “The problem is that the Israelis kicked out my family. They have occupied my land and injured thousands of Palestinians…. I have to differentiate between the Jew who did this problem to my people and Jews like you, who never did anything bad to my people."
- and
- “We have many, many policies that are not going with the charter,” he said. “But when you talk about ‘change the charter,’ there are many Hamas people talking about changing the charter. That’s a debate inside Hamas, because there are many, many policies against what’s written in the charter.”
- 6) Their public denunciation in 2019 of Fathi Ahmad's anti-semitic statements Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, none of those references have anything to do with the 1967 borders and the antisemitism the first source references is from the 1988 charter, not the 2017 one. How about we add this: "
Hamas's 1988 charter was widely considered antisemitic, but its 2017 charter removed this antisemitism and clarified its struggle was with Zionists not Jews.
" VR talk 15:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)- We're talking about the 1988 charter, still relevant, basis of Hamas, most of the organizational history is during that time. Hamas has remained anti-Semitic according to scholars and other actors, remaining adherent to sections to the original charter, per stated above. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with mentioning the 1988 charter, as long as we clarify it refers to the previous charter, and that the 2017 is the latest one, along with differences between the two.VR talk 21:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- We're talking about the 1988 charter, still relevant, basis of Hamas, most of the organizational history is during that time. Hamas has remained anti-Semitic according to scholars and other actors, remaining adherent to sections to the original charter, per stated above. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, none of those references have anything to do with the 1967 borders and the antisemitism the first source references is from the 1988 charter, not the 2017 one. How about we add this: "
- Next to scholarly sources, a newspaper is a poor source. An editorial piece even more so. nableezy - 16:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- If it has been pointed out by "numerous scholars", you ought to be able to find academic sources to cite it to as opposed to op-eds. But the key point of what you want is already there, just in a more neutral tone and cited to better sources.
While historically seeking an Islamic Palestinian state over the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip...
; the rest is mostly opinions by the op-eds you posted and can't really be stated in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Homerethegreat you cannot use antisemitic as translation for antijews or anti all other religions than sunni Islam which is the case of hamas. Semitic includes Arabs and Jews. 142.59.162.50 (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Anti-Semitism is the term used to describe hatred or rejection of people due to their Jewish origin. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*:Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zohri said following the treaty change that "unlike Fatah, Hamas does not accept Israel's right to exist on the rest of the territory. Hamas's consistent position is not to give up any of our historical rights and not to recognize the Israeli occupation."
My comment, according to Dr. Arnon Degani (part of the institute: Molad: The Center for the Renewal of Israeli Democracy ), ], his perception ( which he defines as existing in the academy) in relation to the issue has changed following the conduct of Hamas on October 7. That is, it is possible that relying on old studies may be wrong because the known information about the organization has changed and the study will change accordingly. If the information is added after the October 7th, it must be removed. If before , perhaps a disclaimer should be added. שמי (2023) (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)- In an interview (2012), in which the Forward reporter confronted Abu Musa Marzuk with the anti-Semitic passages appearing in the Hamas Charter (1988). Quoting to him a hadith (tradition), which appears in the treaty, calling for the killing of the Jews, Abu Marzouk claimed that it is not all the Jews but "only those in Palestine" (that is, the Jews who live in the State of Israel are eligible for death)." ] That is, about 6 million Jews.
- He also said, "Hamas will change any agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel." He opposed negotiations at the time. The relations he described were "the relations (between Palestine and Israel) will be like the relations between Israel and Lebanon and Syria." Syria and Lebanon see Israel as an enemy. Syria is an ally of Iran and helps organizations in a violent struggle with Israel (https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3995389,00.html). They are in conflict with her, without ending the mutual claims. (] )
- On top of that, he talked about moving all the Palestinian refugees to Israel (that is, there won't be 2 states, Jewish and Palestinian, but a Palestinian state and a Palestinian state with a Jewish minority because of the numbers).
- I will comment that the thought that an interview with an American newspaper will necessarily reflect the organization's approach is problematic if the positions that the organization declares in its own language and to its people are not refined. שמי (2023) (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Homerethegreat and others שמי (2023) (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Not EC.VR talk 23:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
References
- Jaeger, David A.; Paserman, M. Daniele (2006). "Israel, the Palestinian Factions, and the Cycle of Violence". The American Economic Review. 96 (2): 45–49. ISSN 0002-8282.
- Bruce Hoffman. "Understanding Hamas's Genocidal Ideology". The Atlantic. Retrieved October 20, 2023.
- Seurat 2022, p. 17. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSeurat2022 (help)
2 states
https://www.the7eye.org.il/409427 According to the polls mentioned in the source (based on Palestinian research), the organization's supporters tended to support one Islamic state rather than two states solution.
"According to the Palestinian researcher, "Since the Oslo Accords until today, explains Miari, the PLO and Fatah lead the pragmatic Palestinian camp, which recognizes Israel and is ready for a territorial compromise in the form of a two-state solution, while Hamas and Islamic Jihad lead the resistance camp that challenges the leadership of the PLO , does not recognize Israel and refuses any agreement that would include a territorial compromise with it."
Also, at 2017, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zohri said: "Unlike Fateh, Hamas does not accept Israel's right to exist on the rest of the territory. Hamas' consistent position is not to give up any of our historical rights and not to recognize the Israeli occupation." ] 2.55.18.171 (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- VR, Homerethegreat and others.
- Can you attach the information in the chapter dealing with the position of the organization in relation to two state solustion?
- In relation to these positions on the issue of the 2 states and the Hodna, is there no reason to add his position then (by the way, untill to this day Hamas has not adopted them):
- After the election at 2006, the Quartet on the Middle East (the United States, Russia, the European Union (EU), and the United Nations) stated that assistance to the Palestinian Authority would only continue if Hamas renounced violence, recognized Israel, and accepted previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements, which Hamas refused to do. שמי (2023) (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Can you clarify which page of which book you want the quote of? VR talk 21:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
References
- "Hamas Refuses to Recognize Israel". The New York Times. September 22, 2006.
HAMAS ON WEB
According to Dr. Harel Horev, a historian and researcher on Palestinian affairs at Tel Aviv University, "Hamas also educated the general public about the dehumanization of Israelis/Jews - in mosques, schools, summer camps, and especially - on social networks. Using sophisticated methods learned from Iran and Hezbollah, Hamas took over the most popular accounts on Palestinian networks in a covert manner that did not reveal its involvement This control gave him the ability to significantly influence the Palestinian online discourse through content that denied the humanity and right to life of Israelis. These included posters, songs and videos glorifying threats; computer games that encourage the murder of Jews; instructional videos for carrying out effective and indiscriminate stabbing and shooting attacks; as well as anti-Semitic cartoons as a central means of launching the dehumanization of the Israeli/Jew in the Palestinian online discourse. The figure of the ultra-Orthodox with the crooked nose and the evil look, which seems to have been taken from the Nazi newspaper Der Stirmer, is particularly beloved by Hamas illustrators. Last February, for example, following the stampede attack in the Ramot neighborhood in which two children and a student were murdered Yeshiva Shlomo Lederman, a Hamas man, Yassin Bahaa, published a cartoon in which a family is seen eating from a tray from a makluba with Lederman's head stuck in the center. The headline that accompanied the cartoon was "Great Friday, a great Palestinian makluba." ] In this article ], he explained how Hamas operated at least 150 websites and accounts, most of which did not bear the organization's symbols. These sites, led by the two largest sites in the Palestinian information arena - Shahab and Al-Quds Al-Akhbariya, each of which is followed by approximately one and a half million Palestinians living in the Territories - helped Hamas set the media agenda that translates into political power. He used it in order to encourage terrorist attacks. --שמי (2023) (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pedantical (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest referring to the chapter dealing with the history of the organization (the period of the second and third decade of the 21st century) the information dealing with the research done by the doctor and his conclusions. Possible wording:
- According to Dr. Harel Horev, historian and researcher of Palestinian affairs at Tel Aviv University, "Hamas has also educated the general public to dehumanize Israelis/Jews - in mosques, schools and on social media. According to his research, Hamas took over the most popular accounts on Palestinian networks in a covert manner that did not reveal its involvement. This control gave him the ability to significantly influence the Palestinian discourse online through content that denies the humanity and right to life of Israelis. These included posters, songs and videos glorifying threats; computer games that encourage the murder of Jews; Training videos for carrying out effective and indiscriminate stabbing and shooting attacks; and anti-Semitic cartoons as a central means of dehumanizing the Israeli/Jew in the Palestinian online discourse.
- These are 2 articles he published, within the university and in the newspaper ] ] שמי (2023) (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Probably the best place to add it would be the Media section, in which we could create a new Social Media subsection. Btw, do you know if he or someone else published similar findings in peer-reviewed journals? Alaexis¿question? 20:57, 19 November 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)"
شباب الزواري Hamas Youth
Unsurprisingly Hamas has a youth wing, if the cover of 'Hamas: From Resistance To Regime' by Paola Caridi is any indication. Provenance is Mahmud Hams/AFP. The headbands the two girls are wearing has elements distinct from the parent organization, but in going to the websites listed here the .ps site gets me "Try Again", even on Tor, whereas the putative Arabic site yields English with an Arabic option. First, is that website legitimate, or a honey pot? (I am not donating to Hamas either way!) Secondly, are there any secondary sources on the Hamas Youth, or Hamas Cubs? If so, this article needs a subsection on them. Thx. kencf0618 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
"Do not change this to "terrorist" without gaining consensus on the talkpage first"
I see this comment inside the text, asking to not change the designation of Hammas to be "terrorist", but to keep it as "political and military organization". I would like to understand what's the missing piece by fellow editors to agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization. I see that the infobox already mentions that Hamas is: Designated as a terrorist group by
Australia Canada European Union Israel Paraguay United Kingdom United States
So why can't Misplaced Pages editors also agree to call it that? I understand that countries such as Russia, China, and Turkey, don't call it a terrorist organization. And that the UN got a plurality of votes to call it a terror organization (but not a 2/3 majority).
Is the bar the UN? What do the editors find that is missing?
Tal Galili (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly, this debate crops up frequently on this, and a whole host of other pages, but MOS:TERRORIST advises extreme caution in using the term and using attribution when doing so. As such, this article seems to follow the MOS guidance because it attributes the label to those who have proscribed Hamas as such. The hidden text is likely there bc any such change would undoubtedly be opposed by other editors and so you cannot make changes to contentious topics that you know would potentially do so, without first gaining consensus. Yr Enw (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- It isn't just that some countries do not call them terrorists, some countries like Turkey specifically call them liberators and freedom fighters. To call any indivdual or group a terrorist in Misplaced Pages's voice, there needs to be very broad agreement amongst reliable sources. You were a little closer in attributing use of the term to the specific countries that do, but I still think that doing so in the lead requires a consensus. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Yr Enw and 331dot.
- Thanks for the reference to MOS:TERRORIST.
- I can understand that given that Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization only by the US, UK, EU, etc. - is not a broad enough consensus to just use the term "terrorists".
- In which case, I'd like to ask if there is agreement to move the section at the end of the lead (forth paragraph) to be at the end of the first paragraph. i.e.: that at the end of the first paragraph that says:
- "Hamas .... is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist political ... in which its secular rival Fatah exercises control."
- we will move into it the section:
- "The group's attacks, including suicide bombings against civilian targets and indiscriminate rocket attacks, have been described by academics as acts of terrorism and has led many countries to designate Hamas a terrorist organization. A 2018 attempt to condemn Hamas for "acts of terror" at the United Nations failed."
- The paragraph itself seems to be fine in terms of keeping the balance with regards to NPOV. However, I think it should be pushed to be the end of the first paragraph because the "notable" of the organization's definition seems more critical to convey to the casual reader as early as possible in the text. The the current second paragraph starts describing the history of Hamas (i.e.: In 1987,...), which seems less notable than the (debate over the) military tactics of the Hamas organization.
- My proposition is based on the description in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section which suggest that "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." An example of this can also be seen at the wiki page of an organization such as ISIS, in which the relation it has to terror is already presented in the second sentence:
- "The Islamic State (IS)—also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL; /ˈaɪsɪl/), the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and by its Arabic acronym Da'ish—is a Salafi jihadist transnational Islamist terror group and former unrecognised quasi-state."
- What to others in this thread think about my suggestion? (thanks upfront) Tal Galili (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I’m not sure I am entirely understanding. Are you suggesting we move the reference to Hamas’s violent tactics higher up in the lede? I am a bit ambivalent about using ISIS as an guide bc I think, for Hamas, there is a need for emphasis on violence being a tactic not an end in and itself, whereas with ISIS violence was very much an end in and of itself. Yr Enw (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to respond.
- "Are you suggesting we move the reference to Hamas’s violent tactics higher up in the lede?" - yes, that's exactly what I'm proposing.
- I think the current article lead for the Hamas article does not comply with Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section since, as I mentioned above, the notability of the article is not established in the first paragraph. And I think the notability of the organization is less to do with when it was founded (i.e.: second paragraph), and more to do with its actions (which deemed it, again, by many countries, to be a terrorist organization).
- If you think ISIS is not a good example, I've looked for another organization to compare against, I came across Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, in which the first paragraph included the sentence "Some sources, including United States Department of State, as well as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan listed it as a terrorist organization."
- To be honest, I also think the example of ISIS is a good one.
- You wrote that "with ISIS violence was very much an end in and of itself.", however from the Wiki article Islamic_State#Goals it says: "Since at latest 2004, a significant goal of the group has been the foundation of a Sunni Islamic state. Specifically, ISIL has sought to establish itself as a caliphate, an Islamic state led by a group of religious authorities under a supreme leader – the caliph – who is believed to be the successor to Muhammad. "
- While for Hamas, the wiki article states that:
- "The founding charter of Hamas mandates the killing of Jews, the destruction of the state of Israel, and advocates for the establishment of an Islamic state in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank."
- So it sounds to me like both Hamas and ISIS (based on the Wiki text at present) share the goal of establishing a state, and both seemed to believe that attacking civilians (e.g.: "killing of jews" in the case of Hamas) to be a legitimate way of achieving their goals of gaining a state.
- So given that both ISIS, and Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, seem to be articles dealing with organizations that have been designated as a terrorist organization - and both seem to indicate that designation by some countries in the lead section - hence I think the same rule should apply to the current article.
- WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree, see below.VR talk 04:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- That is a convincing argument. Personally I don’t have an issue with the lede mentioning the proscription higher up (so long as it’s clearly attributed and not used in Wikivoice). I would imagine that the reservations may be about how much weight academic scholarship gives it specifically. Yr Enw (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Yr Enw.
- @331dot - WDYT? are you also o.k. with what I propose? If so - how long would you like us to wait for others to weigh in before making the change? Tal Galili (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have no objection at this time. I would suggest waiting a day or two to see what develops here. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds good (Y). Tal Galili (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have no objection at this time. I would suggest waiting a day or two to see what develops here. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Let's stop drawing parallels between Hamas and ISIL, particularly at this time when this is essentially Israel's PR playbook - aside from being jarring for that fact alone, the parallels are thin and the comparison weak. Hamas is, for one thing, an organization with considerably more history, dating from 1987, and thus as a subject as a whole requires the careful balancing of its extremely lengthy and encyclopedically worthy history with more recent content, lest we risk WP:RECENTISM. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hey @Iskandar323,
- I don't want to get into the is Hamas similar to ISIS discussion, since I don't think this would help us reach a resolution. So for the sake of discussion, let's (friendly) agree to put that discussion aside.
- If you have other organization that has carried out "what have been described as terrorist attacks" as part of their agenda of forming a state that you want us to compare us against, please propose it for us to discuss.
- Here, I'll propose another one: Irgun. This is a zionist organization, and its wiki page also says in the lead of the article, in the end of the first paragraph, that "The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts.".
- So I think what I'm proposing appears to be consistent both with my understanding of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section, as well as examples I can find in existing articles.
- As for the risk of WP:RECENTISM, I've googled to see from how early there have been acts described as terrorist attacks attributed to it. For example, I found the link here which seems to indicate cases at least from 1994. So I don't see how this designation is something which is only started appearing recently.
- With all of that said - would you agree to continue with my proposal? Tal Galili (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- If you have other organization that has carried out "what have been described as terrorist attacks" as part of their agenda of forming a state that you want us to compare us against, please propose it for us to discuss. Lets go with United States of America, British Empire, Israel. JVL is not a reliable source. Your example on Irgun actually illustrates the point. They committed undeniable acts of terrorism. And our article says has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts. Our article here says The group's attacks, including suicide bombings against civilian targets and indiscriminate rocket attacks, have been described by academics as acts of terrorism and has led many countries to designate Hamas a terrorist organization. We say who says they are a terrorist organization. nableezy - 19:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- As I understood, their proposal was more about where we put that description. But I could be wrong. Yr Enw (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ditto. I think initially it was that we call them a terrorist organization in WikiVoice (or asking why we don't), and then turned into "OK, fine, but can we say that x, y, and z call them a terrorist group, but higher up in the lead." --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Nableezy, what @Yr Enw and @Orgullomoore wrote is correct.
- I was convinced to not call them "terrorists", but think the text in the lead should move from paragraph 4 to 1.
- Would you be o.k. with this suggestion? Tal Galili (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I was mostly answering the whataboutism showing that there are any number of states founded on terrorist acts, including Israel, that dont mention it at all. Id be fine moving the characterization as a terrorist organization by such and such to the first paragaph, along with the view that it is a resistance organization. nableezy - 21:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- As a point of interest, the Provisional Irish Republican Army article has it in the lead, when it was obviously not recognised as such by a great number of states. I’m not keen on over-emphasising the point, but it does seem notability could have role to play here. Yr Enw (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- cool, thanks. Tal Galili (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I was mostly answering the whataboutism showing that there are any number of states founded on terrorist acts, including Israel, that dont mention it at all. Id be fine moving the characterization as a terrorist organization by such and such to the first paragaph, along with the view that it is a resistance organization. nableezy - 21:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- As I understood, their proposal was more about where we put that description. But I could be wrong. Yr Enw (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- If you have other organization that has carried out "what have been described as terrorist attacks" as part of their agenda of forming a state that you want us to compare us against, please propose it for us to discuss. Lets go with United States of America, British Empire, Israel. JVL is not a reliable source. Your example on Irgun actually illustrates the point. They committed undeniable acts of terrorism. And our article says has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts. Our article here says The group's attacks, including suicide bombings against civilian targets and indiscriminate rocket attacks, have been described by academics as acts of terrorism and has led many countries to designate Hamas a terrorist organization. We say who says they are a terrorist organization. nableezy - 19:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- There are many similarities between ISIL and Hamas, in particular their shared philosophy that sharia should be imposed by force and that suicide attacks on civilians are a means of attaining paradise. That this or that country incorporates this similarity into their PR playbook, or that you find that jarring, is irrelevant for our purposes. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Similarities are easy to find: we're all human, for instance, or at least I assume that there are not AI chatbots patrolling here yet. Leaving aside the rather two-dimensial description above, the devil-in-the-detail of defining things hinges on the differences. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- All humans, yes. All believe that sharia should be imposed by force and that suicide attacks on civilians are a means of attaining paradise, no. If so, we would all be Islamists and jihadists. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, doubling down. Good talk. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- All humans, yes. All believe that sharia should be imposed by force and that suicide attacks on civilians are a means of attaining paradise, no. If so, we would all be Islamists and jihadists. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Im not aware of Hamas believing Sharia should be compelled by force, rather than through democratic means. As far as suicide bombings, thats a wee bit simplistic view of their motivation. nableezy - 21:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- We're entering forum territory; send me an email and we can chat all day long about it. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well I feel its still content, Im disputing the usage of the term Jihadist and the comparison to ISIS. nableezy - 21:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- In that case what you and I (and Iskandar) believe is not relevant. As for scholarly/reliable resources calling it jihadi(st), see: ("Hezbollah, a Shiite militia, and Hamas, a Sunni jihadi group and an affiliate of the Muslim Brothers, are both supported by the Iranian regime.") (" By emphasizing the centrality of “Jihad of the Sword” Hamas's ideas reveal a certain similarity to, or inspiration by, radical Salafi-jihadist Islamic movements.") ("Al Qaeda Confronts Hamas: Divisions in the Sunni Jihadist Movement and its Implications for U.S. Policy" . . . "To explore these distinctions, this article examines the different historical trajectories and current arguments between two of the most well-known Sunni jihadists: Al Qaeda and Hamas.") ("Al-Qa'ida and Hamas: The Limits of Salafi-Jihadi Pragmatism") ("Hamas: A Further Exploration of Jihadist Tactics" . . . "The Islamist answer to solving the Palestinian question, Hamas advocates violent jihad until Israel is destroyed. All attempts at negotiation or a peace settlement are looked upon as a short-term truce and not a permanent peace. The organization began during the first Palestinian uprising, in December 1987. It evolved from a collection of Islamic fundamentalist and jihadist movements in Gaza, such as the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, and it absorbed the Palestinian jihadist movement, Al-Jihad (PIJ).") ("Nationalist jihadi groups, such as Hizbullah and Hamas, are able to attract high levels of public support, whereas all other types of jihadi groups typically remain marginal to society . . .") ("Hamas combines the Islamist ideology with Jihadist action.").
- As for the comparison with ISIS, see: ("In the opinion of Hamas, the solution of the Palestine problem rests in the uprooting of the State of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in its place.") ("In addition to the doctrine of the Islamic state, Hamas also adheres to the doctrine of Palestine sacrality.") ("Accordingly, Hamas adopts violence as a strategic choice, first in its struggle to seize power from Fatah, and second in its struggle to destroy the state of Israel and replace it with an Islamic state.") ("Moreover, Hamas in the Gaza Strip considers itself an Islamic party more than a national party. Especially since they supported the Islamic brotherhood when they took control of the government in Egypt. During that time relationships with Egypt enhanced. This relationship was not a result of national gathering but rather an Islamic gathering. Additionally, several announcements have been distributed in Gaza during the past few weeks with the ISIS name, along with several ISIS flags found in the region. If Hamas is not an ally in the current phase, it might be in the future due to the common values.") ("Hamas Seeds Violent Videos on Sites With Little Moderation: The strategy mirrors efforts by extremist groups like the Islamic State and Al Qaeda in years past.") ("On the surface of it, the Sunni Islamist group Islamic State would seem like a logical partner for the Sunni Islamist group Hamas.") --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, of course they advocate for the establishment of an Islamist state in all of Palestine. But they do so under the view of gaining that through democracy within an established state in Palestine. And they have been denounced by jihadist groups for that. See for example here (Yet it is important to recognize that Hamas and the global jihadi groups are deeply at odds ideologically. Indeed, in its early days, ISIS declared takfir, or excommunication, on Hamas for a host of perceived transgressions. ... But ideological divergences will limit the extent to which jihadis will be able to seize this moment to reenergize their movement. ... Yet in 2006, Hamas participated in and won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections, going on to form a unity government with Fatah, the dominant faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Al Qaeda’s leadership erupted in condemnation. Bin Laden warned Hamas about the polytheistic nature of democracy, underscoring the “prohibition on joining polytheistic assemblies.” In a 2007 speech, he went so far as to say that the Hamas leadership, by embracing the Palestinian Authority and thereby acknowledging the “agreements” that recognize Israel’s right to exist (referring to the Oslo accords), had “forsaken their religion.”) It consistently treats jihadist groups in one camp, Hamas as an Islamist militant group on the other. Or Rand Corportation: (The charter published by Hamas in 1988 perhaps clarifies the group’s reluctance to join the al-Qaeda network. It makes a clear distinction between global Islamist movements and the Hamas movement in Palestine: --The Islamic Resistance Movement is an outstanding type of Palestinian movement. It gives its loyalty to Allah, adopts Islam as a system of life, and works toward raising the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine. Therefore, in the shadow of Islam, it is possible for all followers of different religions to live in peace and with security over their person, property, and rights. In the absence of Islam, discord takes form, oppression and destruction are rampant, and wars and battles take place.-- So while al-Qaeda and Hamas have similar ideological roots, Hamas’s interpretation of its role in the Islamic community is narrower and focused fundamentally on the Palestinian question. This narrow focus is an important element in Hamas’s ideology. Moreover, the group has been consistent in its beliefs. Nevertheless, a shift in its focus toward the United States is possible under some circumstances, given Hamas’s strategic and operational objectives. ... It continues to argue that it does not want a civil war in the territories and will pursue its Islamic agenda through democratic means after the creation of a Palestinian state.) nableezy - 22:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- So you've come to accept the term Jihadist? I didn't see anything contradicting that term in your response, and the Foreign Affairs article seems to support it. The FA article and many others make the distinction that Hamas focuses its jihad on the Islamicization or de-Judaization of Palestine as opposed to the whole world, i.e., they are a (mostly) nationalist jihadist group as opposed to a global jihadist group, but I don't think there is any dispute that they openly endorse and advocate jihad in pursuit of an Islamic state. ISIS and Hamas have many similarities. They even do sharia patrols, allow male guardians to block women who want to travel for education (HRW), and execute political opponents. Hardly a beacon of democracy.
- As for their willingness to pretend to use democratic process as a stepping stone to sharia, that's an interesting little feature, but it doesn't change the basic nature of the beast. I'm happy to agree Hamas and ISIS are not identical. --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, my point on the first source is it separates jihadist groups from Hamas, treating them as competing interests basically. Hamas is militant, Islamist, nationalist, not about imposing Sharia over the west, but aims to establish an Islamist state in Palestine through democratic means. Most sources I see do not describe them as jihadist, which from my reading is used in western contexts for groups that seek to impose such an order globally through violent means. Hamas’ terror attacks are about Palestine not about Islam. The Islamist part is their internal platform for Palestine. Their violence is Palestinian nationalist. nableezy - 00:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, of course they advocate for the establishment of an Islamist state in all of Palestine. But they do so under the view of gaining that through democracy within an established state in Palestine. And they have been denounced by jihadist groups for that. See for example here (Yet it is important to recognize that Hamas and the global jihadi groups are deeply at odds ideologically. Indeed, in its early days, ISIS declared takfir, or excommunication, on Hamas for a host of perceived transgressions. ... But ideological divergences will limit the extent to which jihadis will be able to seize this moment to reenergize their movement. ... Yet in 2006, Hamas participated in and won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections, going on to form a unity government with Fatah, the dominant faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Al Qaeda’s leadership erupted in condemnation. Bin Laden warned Hamas about the polytheistic nature of democracy, underscoring the “prohibition on joining polytheistic assemblies.” In a 2007 speech, he went so far as to say that the Hamas leadership, by embracing the Palestinian Authority and thereby acknowledging the “agreements” that recognize Israel’s right to exist (referring to the Oslo accords), had “forsaken their religion.”) It consistently treats jihadist groups in one camp, Hamas as an Islamist militant group on the other. Or Rand Corportation: (The charter published by Hamas in 1988 perhaps clarifies the group’s reluctance to join the al-Qaeda network. It makes a clear distinction between global Islamist movements and the Hamas movement in Palestine: --The Islamic Resistance Movement is an outstanding type of Palestinian movement. It gives its loyalty to Allah, adopts Islam as a system of life, and works toward raising the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine. Therefore, in the shadow of Islam, it is possible for all followers of different religions to live in peace and with security over their person, property, and rights. In the absence of Islam, discord takes form, oppression and destruction are rampant, and wars and battles take place.-- So while al-Qaeda and Hamas have similar ideological roots, Hamas’s interpretation of its role in the Islamic community is narrower and focused fundamentally on the Palestinian question. This narrow focus is an important element in Hamas’s ideology. Moreover, the group has been consistent in its beliefs. Nevertheless, a shift in its focus toward the United States is possible under some circumstances, given Hamas’s strategic and operational objectives. ... It continues to argue that it does not want a civil war in the territories and will pursue its Islamic agenda through democratic means after the creation of a Palestinian state.) nableezy - 22:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well I feel its still content, Im disputing the usage of the term Jihadist and the comparison to ISIS. nableezy - 21:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- We're entering forum territory; send me an email and we can chat all day long about it. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Similarities are easy to find: we're all human, for instance, or at least I assume that there are not AI chatbots patrolling here yet. Leaving aside the rather two-dimensial description above, the devil-in-the-detail of defining things hinges on the differences. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I’m not sure I am entirely understanding. Are you suggesting we move the reference to Hamas’s violent tactics higher up in the lede? I am a bit ambivalent about using ISIS as an guide bc I think, for Hamas, there is a need for emphasis on violence being a tactic not an end in and itself, whereas with ISIS violence was very much an end in and of itself. Yr Enw (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- It isn't just that some countries do not call them terrorists, some countries like Turkey specifically call them liberators and freedom fighters. To call any indivdual or group a terrorist in Misplaced Pages's voice, there needs to be very broad agreement amongst reliable sources. You were a little closer in attributing use of the term to the specific countries that do, but I still think that doing so in the lead requires a consensus. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
If Jihadist means "militant Islamic movements that are perceived as existentially threatening to the West," as Misplaced Pages says, then the only thing keeping Hamas from being indisputably jihadist would be that it is not "perceived as existentially threatening to the West," because Hamas is definitely a militant Islamic movement. Now, two questions arise: (1) Is it true that to be jihadist an organization must be threatening to "the West"? I don't see why. It is axiomatic that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, so we shouldn't say it's so because Misplaced Pages says it's so. According to the article, it was first used by Indian and Pakistani mass media, obviously not part of the West. (2) Is Israel part of the West? Many would say that it is. It is west of Australia. Again consulting Misplaced Pages: "In modern usage, Western world refers to Europe and to areas whose populations largely originate from Europe, through the Age of Discovery's imperialism." Some would say that "Israel is a quintessentially 'Western' entity—democratic, wealthy, educated, teeming with immigrants from white-dominated regions like Europe and the United States." That is one of the major criticisms of Israel, no? That it is a Western invention carved out and propped up by Western superpowers in the middle of the Orient. Though Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel right now, it certainly aspires to be. Assuming the "the West" aspect of the definition is correct, what part of "the West" is perceived as threatened? Intuitively, I would say liberalism, democracy, separation of church and state, etc.: the so-called "Western ideals." Hamas, if it were powerful enough, would threaten these, as evidenced by its patrolling of beaches for un-Islamic swimsuits, its willingness to allow men to control women, its summary execution of political opponents, and its insistence on framing literally everything in terms of religious fundamentalism. Given all of this, are we arguing that Hamas cannot be jihadist merely because it's not perceived as threatening enough? Or because it is only perceived as threatening to non-Western Israel? Seems arbitrary. On the other hand, Firestone, quoted in the first footnote of Jihadism writes that, while the term is ill-defined, jihadism is essentially transnational or global Islamism/political Islam. Adopting this definition, the characteristic disqualifying Hamas from the jihadist category is not its failure to threaten the West but rather the confinement of its activities to Palestine, although, this assumes that Israel does not exist and that Tel Aviv and Sderot are located inside the State of Palestine. Applying this definition, Jaish-e-Mohammed would not be Jihadist ("The group's primary motive is to separate Kashmir from India and merge it into Pakistan"), but it frequently is described as such, and is described as such on Misplaced Pages.--Orgullomoore (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I know your Arabic is probably stronger than mine but i think you’re using jihadist the way an Arabic speaker would, not how an English speaker would. Jihad fi sabil illah covers a range of things that western audiences wouldn’t really association with "jihadism". From my reading of western sources jihadism is usually meant to denote acts of international terrorism by Islamist or even just Islamic organizations or people, though usually with the aim of establishing an Islamist state. But I do think there is a distinction between nationalist and and religious ones, and I think sources put Hamas's violent actions in the former camp more often. nableezy - 02:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I was the one who added the note initially. Misplaced Pages is supposed to present events from an impartial international perspective. Hamas just isn't universally reviled by world governments in the say way ISIS is that would justify flat-out calling it a terrorist organisation in the opening sentence, or mentioning its terrorist designation by (largely Israel alligned) countries within the first few sentences. That said, I'm not opposed to saying that A. that Hamas is a jihadist group and B. that Hamas has carried out what have been described as terrorist attacks. (I added the latter to the lead in fact). Reading Britannica, their position on describing Hamas is similar . Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I would oppose calling Hamas jihadist, the literature calls them Islamist much more consistently Yr Enw (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. I think "jihadist" is fair, though, given their charter and istishhad worship. Sources calling them this abound. I think one must be an Islamist to be a jihadist, though an Islamist is not necessarily a jihadist. --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t know of many scholars who apply the term “jihadist” to Hamas (certainly not consistently)? They might mention “jihad” as part of their programme, but “jihadist” is a label that (as far as I know) mostly tends to get used with Salafi groups. Obviously there’s not a consistent definition across all scholarship, but Islamist is much broader Yr Enw (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Jihadist in a western context usually refers to acts of international terror by Islamist groups, and I dont think it is usually applied to Hamas, which has thus far restricted its attacks to Israel and the occupied territories. nableezy - 21:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hey @Hemiauchenia, thank you for the context and discussion.
- As I mentioned in other parts of this discussion, I understand the considerations mentioned regarding MOS:TERRORIST, and I agreed that in the current state of things (having a range of countries taking different positions), then calling it a terrorist organization in Misplaced Pages will not be appropriate. So we're in agreement about that.
- What I've instead proposed is to move the text, which is already available in the article's lead, from the 4th paragraph to the 1st paragraph. My claim is that doing so would be in the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section (as I've mentioned above), as well as aligned with other articles such as Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia and Irgun, have also taken.
- I think this aligns with the B item you've mentioned "hat Hamas has carried out what have been described as terrorist attacks.", all I'm suggesting is to move it to the first paragraph.
- WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree, see below.VR talk 04:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Most of the characteristics you describe are simply Islamist. Also Israel = "liberalism, democracy, separation of church and state" ... pfft ... less and less according to the news the last few decades. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not Iskandar dissing Israel again! --Orgullomoore (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hey, don't take it from me - just ask any human rights monitor. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I'm an Israeli (my family has lived here for at least 8 generations), and I agree with you that the Israeli government for at least the past 15 years has become more radical, less democratic, and more religious. This is why so many of us are taking part in the 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests. That said, I think the focus of the current thread should be on including the terrorist discussion in the lead section (which a consensus seems to have been reached). Thank you all for your input <3 Tal Galili (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not Iskandar dissing Israel again! --Orgullomoore (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for a fruitful discussion, I feel I've learned from it. I have moved forward and made the change, as discussed throughout this thread. Please let me know if you have any open issues with the edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hamas#%22Do_not_change_this_to_%22terrorist%22_without_gaining_consensus_on_the_talkpage_first%22. Thanks all for caring about our shared resource and striving, in good faith, to find common grounds for productively describe reality as best as we can. <3 Tal Galili (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if anyone agrees with that above. I certainly don't because the long-standing placement made sense because it was adjacent to Hamas' anti-Israeli ideology. The previous placement was also chronologically consistent. One thing we can do is give a note at "Hamas... is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist political and military organization" to indicate that some countries consider it terrorist.VR talk 04:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Let's consider organizations that have been considered terrorist organization by many countries but also have formed governments:
- Hezbollah. The terrorist designation is mentioned in the 4th paragraph of a 4 lead paragraph (meaning last paragraph).
- African National Congress. The terrorist designation is mentioned at the end of the second paragraph (in a three paragraph lead).
- Palestine Liberation Organization. The terrorist designation is mentioned in the second paragraph of a two paragraph lead (meaning the last paragraph).
- Muslim Brotherhood. The terrorist designation is mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 6 of a 6 paragraph lead.VR talk 04:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think a better comparison for Hamas is the Provisional Irish Republican Army (which currently sits in government as Sinn Fein), which mentions the terrorist designation early on. I agree that "many" is a WP:WEASEL word, though any attempt to clarify it seems likely to run into opposition. I don't think we're going to get unanimous agreement regarding almost any element of this article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm confused by that sentence "
It was designated a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom and an unlawful organisation in the Republic of Ireland, both of whose authority it rejected.
" If the Irish designation was repealed, it is incumbent upon that sentence to say so. If not, I'm curious why PIRA didn't repeal it after coming to power? VR talk 04:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)- The PIRA and Hamas are different in that the political and military wings of the PIRA/Sinn Fein denied (and continue to deny) that they were affiliated, even if it is obvious to everybody else that they were in fact inseparable. Therefore there was no reason for Sinn Fein to try to rehabilitate the moribund PIRA one they got into government, as making the connection explicit would expose them to liability. This is getting quite off topic though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- SF aren't in government in the Republic. Yr Enw (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Even if we use that example, it only contains a single sentence on the terrorism while the rest of the military activities are covered later below. The way Talgalili edited the lead, pretty much most of Hamas' military activities are in the lead, making it seem like Hamas is mainly known for rocket attacks, which is a very Israel-centric view and denies Hamas' long history as a political, social and religious organization.VR talk 20:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hey @Vice regent,
- I accept your argument that the current phrasing in the lead is too long. I share with you the wish to not make the lead be too "Israeli centric", but also don't want to have it be too "Palestinian centric" (by ignoring the terroristic aspect of the organization in the lead first paragraph all together).
- I propose to move forward with discussing a shortening of the lead sentence in a way that we would agree in it, I will leave a proposal in response to your other comment down below. Tal Galili (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Even if we use that example, it only contains a single sentence on the terrorism while the rest of the military activities are covered later below. The way Talgalili edited the lead, pretty much most of Hamas' military activities are in the lead, making it seem like Hamas is mainly known for rocket attacks, which is a very Israel-centric view and denies Hamas' long history as a political, social and religious organization.VR talk 20:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm confused by that sentence "
- Talgalili this is edit-warring. The longstanding version before your bold edit on Nov 21 does not contain most of the military activities in the first paragraph. Indeed this is how the lead was before October 7 (when the current war started). It was like this in 2022 and so on. I suggest you leave the long-standing discussion in place while discussion is ongoing. Other options are WP:MEDIATION and WP:RFC.VR talk 20:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hey @Vice regent,
- First - I'd like to invite both of us in this discussion to Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, and do our best to keep the discussion friendly and honest.
- I am not trying to start an edit war. I did not make a "bold edit" out of no where. I started a discussion here, read and responded to every concern - and after I got several people to accept my suggestion (with no objection), I proceeded with my edit (while announcing it clearly). 3 days after that you came and changed my edit, without leaving a response in the talk page. I assume you did not see the talk page discussions (which were moved to the archive), and that you made your change in good faith, so I reverted your change to what was discussed and also went to your talk page to let you know I did so. So calling my actions an edit war seems to somewhat ignore my efforts here - and I'd appreciate it if you could express recognition of my efforts here as well.
- In that spirit, I've now also changed back my edit for us to continue the discussion now that you've raised further concern. But it doesn't mean I want the "status quo" to stay - I believe it should change.
- Second - I read what you wrote above, I accept your concern that the proposed new lead is too verbose, and am o.k. with keeping the original text were it was, and instead add to the lead a shorter phrasing.
- How about instead of:
- Hamas has waged an armed campaign against the state of Israel, which has included suicide bombings against civilian targets and indiscriminate rocket attacks, the former of which have been described by academics as acts of terrorism and has led many countries to designate Hamas a terrorist organization. A 2018 attempt to condemn Hamas for "acts of terror" at the United Nations failed.
- To simply add:
- Due to its ongoing military actions against civilian targets, Hamas was designated as terrorist organization by several countries, including the United States, European Union, and others.
- This way the sentence is shorter, and is explicit about some of the major countries involved in the definition.
- @Vice regent - WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry to nitpick, but I don’t think we should assume the cause of the designation (ie. Through the words “due to”). Yr Enw (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Yr Enw - I'm all for nitpicking :)
- The reason I went with "due to", is because the original sentence said "the former of which have been described by academics as acts of terrorism and has led". So I thought that using due to would fairly reflect that original sentence's intent. If you have an alternative suggestion, I'd be happy for improvements. Tal Galili (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, although I think the original sentence has the same problem. I would just suggest two separate statements adjacent to one another: 1. Short sentence mentioning criticisms or scholarly emphasis on violence of their tactics (if indeed the scholarship supports such a sentence), 2. Matter of fact statement on the proscription and by whom. Yr Enw (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Yr Enw I've made a revised proposal, please let's continue the discussion here:
- Talk:Hamas#Adding_a_"Criticism"_sentence_to_the_lead's_first_sentence Tal Galili (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, although I think the original sentence has the same problem. I would just suggest two separate statements adjacent to one another: 1. Short sentence mentioning criticisms or scholarly emphasis on violence of their tactics (if indeed the scholarship supports such a sentence), 2. Matter of fact statement on the proscription and by whom. Yr Enw (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry to nitpick, but I don’t think we should assume the cause of the designation (ie. Through the words “due to”). Yr Enw (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Might I suggest we start a new thread on whatever the actual issue is here? This one is becoming hard to follow. It started out asking why we are not calling Hamas a terrorist organization in WikiVoice, then changed to a discussion on re-ordering some sentences in the lead, contains a forum-ish sidebar between me, Iskandar, and Nableezy about (dis)similarity with ISIS, then was archived, then re-opened, and now there are some accusations of edit warring, discussion of possible mediation or dispute resolution, and so forth. I think we should narrow down what we are actually talking about and start a new thread. --Orgullomoore (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Orgullomoore following your suggestion, I've started this new thread:
- Talk:Hamas#Adding_a_"Criticism"_sentence_to_the_lead's_first_sentence Tal Galili (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
rape and other war crimes
 | It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Hamas. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
- What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
I think the rape testimonials that have been published should be included. All quotes below are from the CNN article in the references below.
1. According to Israeli police superintendent, "officers have collected more than 1,000 statements and more than 60,000 video clips related to the attacks that include accounts from people who reported seeing women raped", and that witnesses to the aftermath say that "women and girls caught in the rampage were brutalized sexually, as well as physically tortured and killed."
2. A paramedic said that the body of a teenage girl was found "on the floor was on her stomach her pants are pulled down toward her knees and there’s a bullet wound on the back side of her neck near her head There’s a puddle of blood around her head and there’s remains of semen on the lower part of her back.” He added that a second teenage girl on the bed "had bruises all over her body and a bullet wound to the chest".
3. "Others reported similar horrors at the Nova music festival where hundreds of young people were killed". "An organizer of the festival said he saw female victims with no clothes as he made his escape." He said that “their legs were spread out and some of them were butchered".
4. A survivor told about the rape she witnessed, "she was alive, she stood on her feet and she was bleeding from her back. I saw that he was pulling her hair. She had long brown hair. I saw him chop off her breast and then he was throwing it toward the road, tossed it to someone else and they started playing with it." The witness added: "I remember seeing another person raping her, and while he was still inside her he shot her in the head."
5. It should also be included that babies and children were kidnapped (it is mentioned only in the more general sentence that Hamas "took civilian and soldier hostages back to Gaza").
- Why it should be changed:
In my understanding these details are extremely relevant to the topic at hand. Not including any of them amounts to hiding information dearly relevant to the understanding of Hamas and its tactics. The detailed testimonials are necessary as well because they are unusual in their cruelty, once more proving relevance to the understanding of many aspects of the organization named Hamas and its war tactics. The age of the kidnapped (the fact there are dozens of children and even babies among them) is also relevant to understanding the methods of Hamas.
- References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
Jake Tapper and Kirsten Appleton, CNN: Israel investigates sexual violence committed by Hamas as part of October 7 horror Quickly-now (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
References
Fake website
The domain Hamas.com is owned by an Israeli company called wix.com that specializes in websites and the link isn’t the real link of the organization. The real link is https://hamas.ps/en/ Someone should fix this 84.32.71.40 (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wix is a website building company. It seems that many Palestinians sites choose to host their websites at this platform. Is there any source that it is not one of them, but some-kind of Israeli conspiracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a06:c701:4b36:7100:aff8:db82:23d2:a03e (talk • contribs) 11:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Apparently it was hijacked."Israelis Hijack Hamas.com, Turning It Into a Display of October 7 Atrocities". Haaretz. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- That said, I don't see that we link to Hamas.com from the article. Am I missing it? If not, why are we talking about it, IP? --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is a draft about this site at Draft:Www.hamas.com. As I just said on it's talk-page, this is obviously fake, and worse: virus-infected. Do not look at it, unless through places like https://archive.is/www.hamas.com. The web-site might warrant an article, though; if for noting else, as a warning for people not to look at it, cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Edit warring
This revert is hopelessly POV, I changed this a while back so as not to treat the past as if it were current and now it is reverted back in doing exactly that.
Editors opinions invited as to the appropriateness of this material in this location and worded as is? Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think the current formulation is good and provides historical context without which the reader cannot understand what Hamas is. I am open to other formulations, but I think the original treaty need to be mentioned in the lead. Dovidroth (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see how overemphasizing a single political document from the late 80s does help readers understand anything. It certainly helps paint a picture, but I don't think that picture has anything to do with helping readers understand. The old charter is barely referenced by Hamas; they have said over the years to ignore it; and in 2017 they expressly overwrote it, presumably in response to the massive over-fixation on the moribund charter released amid the South Lebanon conflict. Politics evolve. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- The current formulation as mentioned above is a reflection of Hamas' ideological ideas and history. Indeed the charter was Hamas' charter for 85% of its history. Indeed it is well backed that Hamas seeks the establishment of a state that reflects Sunni Islamic law. Furthermore, rhetoric and Hamas actions continues to reflect anti-Semitic tropes. Indeed Hamas' intentions has been documented and spoken of extensively. Since this remains an important aspect of Hamas' ideology. It remains relevant to maintain it in the Lead. We should attempt to reflect the truth, especially in light of the danger of accidentally misinforming the reader. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think a lit review might be in order, as we ought to lean much more into the weighting scholarship gives to the documents. You could be right (or not), but it’s WP:OR without a look at how the scholarship weighs the two. Yr Enw (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- The inclusion of the original founding charter of Hamas in the lead section of its Misplaced Pages page is both due and relevant. This charter, a critical document for understanding the group's historical and ideological origins, is essential for providing a comprehensive and timeless view of Hamas, avoiding the negative implications of WP:RECENTISM.
- Here is how I see it:
- Providing basic details on the founding charter in the lead section is particularly important for understanding the evolution of Hamas ideology from its original, openly antisemitic stance to a position more focused on anti-Zionism. In line with WP:LEDE, the lead section should provide a concise overview of the article's topic. This includes identifying the topic, establishing context, explaining why the topic is notable, and summarizing important points, including prominent controversies.
- Furthermore, the current length of the lead section does not exceed the rule of thumb. This version stands as a comprehensive overview of Hamas, including its foundation, objectives, and notable shifts in policy and ideology, without being excessively detailed or lengthy.
- Based on a quick lit review that I performed, prior to 2017, all sources (naturally) talk about the original charter, while after 2017, most sources appear to discuss both the new and the original charter, highlighting the difference.
- One example for how scholarly works on Hamas frame the topic can be seen in this quote
The main source of Ḥamās’ philosophy can be seen in the Ḥamās Covenant which was published by Aḥmad Yāsīn on 18 August 1988 (Hamas Covenant 1988). The principles of the charter emphasise that ideologically this is an Islamic revivalist movement with a militant dimension. The two main pillars of Ḥamās ideology are: Palestinian nationalism and Arab Islamism (Gleis and Berti 2012: 134–143). In May 2017, Ḥamās published “A Document of General Principles and Policies” emphasising the nationalistic character of the movement (Hamas 2017). According to Ḥamās, the Jews do not have a right to any portion of Palestinian land.
- Marokwitz (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think a lit review might be in order, as we ought to lean much more into the weighting scholarship gives to the documents. You could be right (or not), but it’s WP:OR without a look at how the scholarship weighs the two. Yr Enw (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The above assertion "the Jews do not have a right to any portion of Palestinian land" (presumbly referring to the entire land from river to the sea) is contradicted by most scholarly sources that have studied Hamas in depth. See the sources below.
17 scholarly sources that say Hamas accepted the 1967 borders (hidden, click "show" to see)
Here are 6 scholarly sources that say Hamas accepted the 1967 borders in 2017. WP:SCHOLARSHIP indicates that scholarly sources are preferred:
- 1. The book The Foreign Policy of Hamas was written by Leila Seurat, a researcher at the prestigious School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences. In it she writes,
Khaled Mesh’al describes the Document of General Principles and Policies published on 1 May 2017 as a new political benchmark for Hamas. Although the recognition of 1967 borders goes back to the Cairo Agreement and the Prisoners Document, respectively, signed in 2005 and 2006 and is an integral part of all intra-Palestinian agreements signed since then (2007, 2011, 2012, 2014), this document introduces for the first time the recognition as an integral part of the Islamic resistance’s programme, and not simply as a programme shared by the set of Palestinian political players. page 61-62
Indeed, since 2006, Hamas has unceasingly highlighted its acceptance of the 1967 borders, as well as accords signed by the PLO and Israel. This position has been an integral part of reconciliation agreements between Hamas and Fatah since 2005: the Cairo Agreement in 2005, the Prisoners’ Document in 2006, the Mecca Agreement in 2007 and finally the Cairo and Doha Agreements in 2011 and 2012. Yet these compromises linked to the strict framework of reconciliation agreements between Palestinians had never been displayed as an integral part of Hamas strategy. From 2017 on, Hamas would endorse them as its own political stands and not as simple concessions to Fatah. page 18-19
- 2. Maria Koinova. Diaspora Entrepreneurs and Contested States. Oxford University Press. p. 150.. Author is Professor of International Relations, University of Warwick.
The 2017 Hamas charter accepted a Palestinian state with 1967 borders, but still without recognizing Israel.
- 3. Mohammed Ayoob. The Many Faces of Political Islam, Second Edition. University of Michigan Press. p. 133.
In its May 2017 charter, Hamas expressed willingness to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders of Israel and Palestine. The statement, however, done not include recognition of Israel or acceptance of the solution proposed by the Oslo Accords. Nevertheless, acceptance of the 1967 borders can be interpreted as a de facto acceptable of the preconditions for a two-state solution.
- 4. Bjorn Brenner. Gaza Under Hamas. I. B. Tauris. p. 206. Author was a lecturer at Swedish Defence University.
The new document still referred to Palestine as territory 'from the river to the sea'. However, it also added that it accepted the pre-1967 lines as the borders of a Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital and the right of return for refugees. While not explicitly saying what would be on the other side of these borders, this nevertheless acknowledged the existence of another entity there.
- 5. Asaf Siniver (ed.). Routledge Companion to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
The year 2017 saw another significant development inside Hamas...the accept of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, which Hamas hoped would improve its relations with the West.
- 6. Jonathan Zartman. "Conflict in the Modern Middle East:An Encyclopedia of Civil War, Revolutions, and Regime Change". ABC-CLIO. p. 230. Zartman is associate professor at Air Command and Staff College.
Hamas updated its charter in early 2017, accepting the idea of a negotiated two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, implicitly recognizing Israel's right to exist.
- 7. Tareq Baconi. Hamas contained: The rise and pacification of Palestinian resistance. Stanford University Press. p. 230,245.:
demonstrated that on the most official level, Hamas accepted the creation of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, UN Resolution 194 for the right of return, and the notion of restricting armed struggle to operate within the limits of international law. Although not breaking any new ground in terms of political concessions, the document was a powerful intervention that restated more forcefully than before the position Hamas has adopted since at least 2007, if not since the 1990s. page 245
Hamas said “Why should we be forced to explicitly recognize Israel if we’ve already indicated we have a de facto acceptance of its presence?” Hamas’s implicit acceptance of Israel has gone far beyond what many Israeli political parties, including the dominant ruling Likud party, have offered Palestinians within their charters. page 230
- 8. Tom Lansford (2019). Political Handbook of the World 2018-2019. SAGE Publications. p. 1815.
In May 2017 Hamas announced a major policy reversal and declared that it was willing to accept the creation of an independent, though interim, Palestinian state, alongside Israel, if that state existed along the pre-1967 borders. Hamas had previously been unwilling to compromise on territorial issues. The organization emphasized that its statement did not imply a recognition of Israel.
- 9. Jacqueline S. Ismael, Tareq Y. Ismael, Glenn Perry. Government and Politics of the Contemporary Middle East Continuity and Change. Taylor & Francis. p. 106?.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Hamas on multiple occasions has accepted, in principle, the existence of Israel, as delineated by its 1967 borders and dropped the call for destruction of Israel from its manifesto. When asked whether Hamas would abandon the destruction of Israel as part of its platform, Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas leader and a 'hard-liner', answered 'If Israel is ready to tell the people what is the official border, after that we are going to answer this question'. Khaled Meshal, Hamas' political bureau chief then based in Damascus admitted in 2008 that Hamas' leadership are 'realists' who recognize the existence of an 'entity named Israel'. Pushed further, Meshal continued that Hamas accepts 'the national accord for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders'. More specifically, another Hamas leader, Ghazi Hamad went even further in January 2009 (in spite of the sustained Israeli attack Gaza had just suffered), admitting that Hamas would be satisfied with the minimalist goals of reclaiming the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem (i.e. territories lost in 1967), implicitly accepting Israel's pre-1967 borders.
- 10.
- 11. Basem Ezbidi. "Not Rebel Governance? Hamas's Rule". Rebel Governance in the Middle East. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 308.
The 2017 update of its charter that obliterates the movement's relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, indicates Hamas's acceptance of the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders — with the implication of recognising Israel—and the willingness to negotiate and accept a renewable hudna (armistice) with Israel.
- 12. Shameer Modongal:
There are two competing interpretations over the purpose of Hamas’s Hudna. While some consider Hamas’s offer as a tactic to get time for a future military attack and conquer all the land of Palestine, others see it as an Islamic way of conflict resolution to achieve permanent/long-term peace in the future (Tuastad 2010b: 5)...On the one side...the Islamist movement will never give up the dream of establishing a Palestinians state and wiping out Israel...On the other ...the demand for Hudna seems to be a genuine demand for peace... "In Arab and Islamic tradition, a Hudna constitute a phase: first the ceasefire, Hudna, then the sulh, reconciliation. The most common outcome of the Hudna phase is a final peace agreement”.
- 13. Baconi, who wrote one of the more comprehensive books on Hamas, writes:
stressed that the constant offering of ceasefires on land occupied in 1967 was another indication that Hamas implicitly recognized Israel. Meshal’s views were mirrored by others; Hamas’s finance minister in Gaza stated that “a long-term ceasefire as understood by Hamas and a two-state settlement are the same. It’s just a question of vocabulary.”
- 14. Tristan Dunning writes:
"A hudna extends beyond the Western concept of a ceasefire and obliges the parties to use the period to seek a permanent, non-violent resolution to their differences." Hamas has also repeatedly and publicly committed itself to accepting a popular referendum on any peace agreement reached by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Instances of this may be found in... Hamas’ acceptance of the Arab League initiative, entailing full normalisation with Israel in return for a withdrawal from Arab territories captured in 1967 and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
- 15. Loren Lybarger writes:
Hamas too would signal a willingness to accept a long-term "hudna" (cessation of hostilities, truce) along the armistice lines of 1948 (an effective acceptance of the two-state formula).
- 16. Krista Weigand writes:
Hamas's offers of long term cease-fires and acceptance of a two-state solution with pre-I967 borders...Hamas leaders continue to suggest that they are willing to compromise on their claim for all of historic Palestine, yet their claims are mostly ignored...Though Hamas has not stated it explicitly, the conditions under which it proposed the truce would in fact provide recognition of the existence of the state of Israel with its pre-1967 boundaries. Because of Hamas's unwillingness to explicitly recognize the state of Israel...
- 17. Ayoob (2009, page 126) writes:
The Hamas leadership has increasingly begun to emphasize the importance of Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as the precondition for a long-term truce (hudna). Hamas's leaders have also accepted the idea that the future of Palestine ought to be determined either on the basis of a popular referendum or by freely elected representatives of the Palestinian people and that Hamas will abide by such a decision. Such statements have often implied that the long-term truce as conceived by Hamas leaves open the possibilities of mutual recognition by Palestine and Israel and of a settlement based on the borders of 1967, if the Palestinian people accept it of their own volition. Hamas's decision to participate in the 2006 elections to the Palestine National Council after having boycotted the 1996 elections because they were held within the Oslo framework is probably the best indication that it has decided to work within the two-state framework, without explicitly admitting that fact.
- I reverted this major change to the lead. This major change was never discussed and completely changed the long-standing lead for which there is some consensus. It also misrepresents what the sources say. If you want to make such a major change, please discuss on talk first.VR talk 03:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Christie, Niall (2020). Muslims and Crusaders: Christianity’s Wars in the Middle East, 1095–1382, from the Islamic Sources.
- ^ Bartal, Shaul. “Ḥamās: The Islamic Resistance Movement.” Handbook of Islamic Sects and Movements, edited by Muhammad Afzal Upal and Carole M. Cusack, Brill, 2021, pp. 379–401. JSTOR,
- Shameer Modongal (2023). Islamic Perspectives on International Conflict Resolution. Routledge. p. 121.
- Baconi (2018), page 108
- Tristan Dunning (2016). Hamas, Jihad and Popular Legitimacy. Routledge. p. 179-180.
- Loren D. Lybarger (2020). Palestinian Chicago. University of California Press. p. 199.
- Krista E. Wiegand (2016). Bombs and Ballots: Governance by Islamist Terrorist and Guerrilla Groups. Taylor & Francis. p. 165.
New proposal
Following my reading of the literature, I'd like to make a proposal for a shorter, more neutral version of the text in dispute that keeps the most important elements. Hope that this is accepted:
The main pillars of Hamas ideology are Palestinian nationalism and Arab Islamism.The 1988 founding charter of Hamas, published by Aḥmad Yasin, frames its ideology as a struggle against Jews and calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in the area that is today Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. In 2017, Hamas updated its charter to support a transitional Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, without recognizing Israel. The long-term goal of Hamas is disputed: some view Hamas's offer of a truce based on the 1967 borders as consistent with a two-state solution, while others believe Hamas retains the long-term objective to establish one state in former Mandatory Palestine. While the original covenant is often criticized as antisemitic, referencing a hadith which states that the Day of Judgment would not come until Muslims fight and kill the Jews, the 2017 charter removed the antisemitic language, clarifying that Hamas's struggle is with Zionists, not Jews.
Marokwitz (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I like it. --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Fine with this compromise. Dovidroth (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree with the above version for two reasons:
- 1. is that the topic of the hadith is so nuanced it can't be covered in the lead. The hadith you refer to predates the existence of Hamas by more than a thousand years. The discussion belongs in the body and would be off-topic for the lead.
- 2. You completely omitted the Hamas agreements on the 1967 borders with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007.VR talk 03:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also what exactly is "Arab Islamism"? There is no mention of that anywhere in the body, and the lead should not be introducing novel concepts that are not covered in the rest of the body.VR talk 03:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: Would you be OK with
While the original covenant was antisemitic, the 2017 charter . . .
? --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)"While the original covenant is often criticized as antisemitic, the 2017 charter removed the related components, clarifying that Hamas's struggle is with Zionists, not Jews."
? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)- Yes, I prefer Iskandars version. VR talk 14:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I struck out the first sentence.Marokwitz (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- That works for me. Thanks. --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I prefer Iskandars version. VR talk 14:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: Would you be OK with
- I tried to preserve chronological order. I omitted the Hamas agreements with Fatah since I assessed it as undue weight, after surveying the academic sources; I have no significant problem with putting it back if you think this is a crucial detail. Regarding Arab Islamism, you are right that the term is not used elsewhere , this sentence can be removed as it is not crucial for the proposal. Marokwitz (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, "Arab Islamism" should just be "Islamism." I didn't catch that. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that this is a good compromise, as it appropriately balances the original charter, fundamental for understanding Hamas' ideology, with debates surrounding later actions and revisions.
- The hadith mentioned is crucial for understanding the ideological foundations of Hamas, and the agreements with Fatah are not leadworthy. I agree with Orgullomoore, the term 'Arab Islamism' should be replaced with 'Islamism,' which is directly supported by the sources. Eladkarmel (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Did you see the scholarly sources above? I provided 17 which agree that Hamas accepted the 1967 borders. We must give WP:DUE weight. VR talk 14:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I do think the Farah agreements are crucial detail because of two reasons. First scholarly sources emphasize that 2017 wasn't the first time Hamas accepted the 1967 borders. Second Hamas Fatah conflict and conciliation are a significant series of events over the last 20 years. VR talk 14:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, "Arab Islamism" should just be "Islamism." I didn't catch that. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also what exactly is "Arab Islamism"? There is no mention of that anywhere in the body, and the lead should not be introducing novel concepts that are not covered in the rest of the body.VR talk 03:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, this seems to follow NPOV as well. I also find its better written. Although I do find it a bit long. Following VR's comment on Arab Islamism, perhaps it ought to be described as Sunni Islamism or just Islamism? Otherwise well termed. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. It gives too much weight to elements of the 1988 charter even though scholarship has started to give overwhelming weight to tracking the evolution of Hamas ideology. See the 17 scholalrly sources I provided above. VR talk 14:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is exactly my point: Tracking the evolution of Hamas' ideology is important, and this is why the proposed version clearly states this evolution from the original charter to the new one. For this we need to talk about the foundational charter and updated charters and how they differ. This is crucial for understanding of Hamas. Marokwitz (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- But the version below does that, along with providing intermediate steps taken by Hamas in 2005, 2006 and 2007. VR talk 02:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is exactly my point: Tracking the evolution of Hamas' ideology is important, and this is why the proposed version clearly states this evolution from the original charter to the new one. For this we need to talk about the foundational charter and updated charters and how they differ. This is crucial for understanding of Hamas. Marokwitz (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. It gives too much weight to elements of the 1988 charter even though scholarship has started to give overwhelming weight to tracking the evolution of Hamas ideology. See the 17 scholalrly sources I provided above. VR talk 14:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding the hadith some insist on mentioning, scholars believe it is misunderstood and taken out of context. Professor David Cook writes this hadith "stands virtually alone" in classical Islamic sources and the "
vast majority of classical Muslim apocalyptic literature is concerned with the power enemies facing Islam during the seventh to ninth centuries, namely the Byzantines and Turks. It was not concerned with Israel or the United States, neither of which existed yet and both of which were well beyond the range of imagination that produced the classical literature.
" Hussein Solomon and Arno Tausch (both professors at University of the Free State) point that even Salafis agree that this hadith is contradicted by "Whoever kills a non-Muslim living under Muslim ruler will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." The analysis of this hadith is beyond the scope of the lead of this article. I can provide more sources too that show this hadith doesn't mean what you think it means.VR talk 15:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)- I think the relevant consideration would be what the writers of original charter thought it meant. But I do agree that it's too complicated to properly explain in a single sentence and should therefore be left for a different part of the article. --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- This complicated offshoot topic is not fitting well in the lead. Even for other sections, it should be used with care. Mhhossein 21:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think the relevant consideration would be what the writers of original charter thought it meant. But I do agree that it's too complicated to properly explain in a single sentence and should therefore be left for a different part of the article. --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Current version
But the lead already says
While initially seeking a state in all of Mandatory Palestine, Hamas began accepting the 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007. In 2017, Hamas released a new charter that supported a transitional 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 charter of Hamas was widely described as antisemitic, Hamas's 2017 charter removed the antisemitic language and said Hamas's struggle was with Zionists not Jews.
It covers both the issue of the 1967 borders and antisemitism. It is also more concise than the proposal above, while covering more ground (such as the 2005, 2006 and 2007 agreements).VR talk 03:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think this version toned down the original treaty and aspirations upon which Hamas was founded, and according to many scholars maintains to this day. Therefore, I think the above proposed versions better reflect the situation. Dovidroth (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I provided 17 scholarly sources showing that the overwhelming amount of scholars believe Hamas ideology has evolved and is no longer the same as it was back in 1988. VR talk 14:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- +1, sourcing settles this. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I strongly object to this version - As I have shown above, in my survey of reliable sources I found they mention the old and new charter with roughly equal weight (or provide more weight to the original foundational charter of 1988), and placing much stronger emphasis on the 2017 charter is an issue with recentism as well as not inline with our due weight policy. Marokwitz (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I see your analysis of Bartal, are you referring to it, or is there another survey somewhere else? Alaexis¿question? 21:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- The vast majority of sources I found are older than 2017, so they give weight only to the original covenant. The newer sources that I found, including a book by Dr. Niall Christie covering the Hamas covenant (cited above), as well as Bartal, both seem to talk about the old charter, the new charter, and how they differ. Marokwitz (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- The older sources should be given less weight here per WP:AGEMATTERS. Pretending like older sources that predate later developments retain their authority is silly. We arent writing an article in 2015. nableezy - 23:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that older sources should be given equal weight. Not at all. I'm saying that the academic sources covering Hamas after
20072017 seem to talk about the old charter and the new charter, in chronological order, and explain how the new charter is different, and this is what I think we should do in the lead - as shown in my 'New proposal' above. Marokwitz (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)- I think you meant 2017, right? --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Markowitz, I cited 17 scholarly sources and you have thus far only cited 2. VR talk 02:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand. How many of those 17 scholarly sources don't talk about the 1988 charter? My main problem is giving vastly undue weight to the Hamas foundational charter in your version. Marokwitz (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Based on my reading, all of those sources emphasize that Hamas's views have evolved and place greater emphasis on its later views. VR talk 22:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand. How many of those 17 scholarly sources don't talk about the 1988 charter? My main problem is giving vastly undue weight to the Hamas foundational charter in your version. Marokwitz (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that older sources should be given equal weight. Not at all. I'm saying that the academic sources covering Hamas after
- Seurat (2022) at pp. 16-19 contains a pretty thorough post-2017 analysis of the evolution of Hamas's stance in 1988, 1990s, 2005-2012, and 2017 - present. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's one of the sources I cited! I think comprehensive sources like Seurat should be preferred over sources that mention Hamas ideology in passing. Another detailed description is contained in Tareq Baconi's Hamas Contained, published by Stanford University Press. VR talk 02:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- How would you summarize the evolution of Hamas's ideology in one paragraph? This is what we should include in the lead. "While initially seeking a state in all of Mandatory Palestine" is vastly under-weighting the ideology of Hamas for its first ~20 years. Marokwitz (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. The ideology for the vast majority of the history of the organization cannot be summarized in half a sentence and needs to be given more weight. Dovidroth (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Fresh scholarly sources should be preferred when judging what to include and how to frame the group's history. Also, I am not fan of adding historical details from old sources per WP:AGEMATTERS (which should be enough for the current discussion). Mhhossein 21:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. The ideology for the vast majority of the history of the organization cannot be summarized in half a sentence and needs to be given more weight. Dovidroth (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- How would you summarize the evolution of Hamas's ideology in one paragraph? This is what we should include in the lead. "While initially seeking a state in all of Mandatory Palestine" is vastly under-weighting the ideology of Hamas for its first ~20 years. Marokwitz (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's one of the sources I cited! I think comprehensive sources like Seurat should be preferred over sources that mention Hamas ideology in passing. Another detailed description is contained in Tareq Baconi's Hamas Contained, published by Stanford University Press. VR talk 02:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- The older sources should be given less weight here per WP:AGEMATTERS. Pretending like older sources that predate later developments retain their authority is silly. We arent writing an article in 2015. nableezy - 23:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- The vast majority of sources I found are older than 2017, so they give weight only to the original covenant. The newer sources that I found, including a book by Dr. Niall Christie covering the Hamas covenant (cited above), as well as Bartal, both seem to talk about the old charter, the new charter, and how they differ. Marokwitz (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I see your analysis of Bartal, are you referring to it, or is there another survey somewhere else? Alaexis¿question? 21:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I strongly object to this version - As I have shown above, in my survey of reliable sources I found they mention the old and new charter with roughly equal weight (or provide more weight to the original foundational charter of 1988), and placing much stronger emphasis on the 2017 charter is an issue with recentism as well as not inline with our due weight policy. Marokwitz (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- +1, sourcing settles this. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I provided 17 scholarly sources showing that the overwhelming amount of scholars believe Hamas ideology has evolved and is no longer the same as it was back in 1988. VR talk 14:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Second new proposal
Despite lack of consensus above, some users have edit-warred in the following version:
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. This shift was further solidified in 2017 Hamas released a new document described as accepting the concept of a transitional Palestinian state within the 1967 borders as consistent with the two-state solution, 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.
There are several problems here:
- It gives more weight to the older charter than the newer one. As Marokwitz acknowledged, the post-2017 sources give significant space to the newer charter and how it differs from older one, and as nableezy pointed out, we need to be mindful of WP:AGEMATTERS.
- I provided 17 scholarly sources that found this shift to be significant. See #17scholarlysources
- The version says " In later years, specifically during agreements with Fatah between 2005 and 2007, Hamas began acquiescing to the 1967 borders as an interim solution", but I don't think the source says "interim". Speaking of which, why was the citation removed?
- The following sentence doesn't seem to make sense and seems to have dangling qualifiers "This shift was further solidified in 2017 Hamas released a new document described as accepting the concept of a transitional Palestinian state within the 1967 borders as consistent with the two-state solution, without recognition of Israel."
- Described by who?
- And what did they describe: that Hamas accepted the 1967 borders or that these borders are consistent with a two state solution?
- Also the word "transitional" doesn't appear in either of the two citations at the end of that sentence.
- "many observers believe that Hamas's ultimate goal remains the establishment of a single state in the area of former Mandatory Palestine". Most of the citations that follow that sentence don't actually say that.
- "Despite...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." This looks like WP:SYNTH. How many sources say that Hamas's 10-100 year truce proposal implies the establishment of a single state? Those that say that typically point to other pieces of evidence, not this one.
VR talk 17:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree entirely, and I reverted the edit-warred in lead. nableezy - 17:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Should "Anti-communist" be listed as a Hamas ideology?
The charter explicitly blames Jews for the "communist revolution" which would imply opposition to communism. I believe the reason "anti-communism" has been removed from the "ideologies" section is because of communists that support Hamas. I could not think of any other way to phrase that, I am sorry if what I said sounds conspiratorial NesserWiki (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- is because of some communist support* is what I meant to say.
- NesserWiki (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have secondary sources supporting this assertion? Basing it solely on the charter would be considered WP:OR. I am not sure this is a primary focus of Hamas ideology. Marokwitz (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I did a quick search in my Hamas-related PDFs, and it seems to me that any anti-communist tinge they have can be subsumed into either their anti-Zionism or their Islamism. They consider communism a form of atheism (and, as Islamists, they are obviously anti-atheists), and their 1988 charter, according to Filiu in Gaza: A History: "is steeped in conspiratorial language according to which international Zionism’s historic links with freemasonry enabled it to manipulate ‘the French revolution, the communist revolution and most other revolutionary upheavals’." (p. 204). And they rhetorically attack political opponents for being communists. So, I don't know... it doesn't seem to me like a defining ideology. They certainly are not pro-communist, but they also are not spending a whole lot of energy on opposing communism. --Orgullomoore (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Mainstream political groups everywhere are rarely pro-communist. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but anti communism is an ideology within itself HoopaRoopa (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Which goes hand in hand with "nationalism", which no one would argue hamas is not nationalist. Really before this 2023 nakba, no one had a problem describing hamas as anti-communist before, but now that is taken out to distance anti-communist governments from their less formally composed counterparts. Jester6482 (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but anti communism is an ideology within itself HoopaRoopa (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Mainstream political groups everywhere are rarely pro-communist. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- "I believe the reason "anti-communism" has been removed from the "ideologies" section is because of communists that support Hamas" reads to me like an admission that we prefer the reader to just assume hamas is communist like all of the west's other bad guys; it would be strange to assume otherwise, yet hamas is in fact anti-communist as explicitly stated in their charter multiple times so it doesn't seem honest to cover that up.
- We want to leave that up in the air for reasons I don't feel like being charitable about. It's pretty obvious that after the 2023 nakba started and this page got more traffic, that was removed so that the reader can make the logical leap from "communists, socialists, and other leftists support Palestine" > "hamas is the Palestinian government" > "leftists and communists must therefore support hamas" > "hamas may as well be communist themselves, we no longer feel like admitting that they are anti-communist, only the good guys are ever 'anti-communist' ". Extremely dishonest and it's infuriating editors will just allow changes like this that leave more room for people to develop vague, malformed pictures of these organizations' ideologies. Jester6482 (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Adding a "Criticism" sentence to the lead's first sentence
I would like to propose to add the following sentence to the first paragraph of the lead:
- Hamas has been widely criticised for a variety of reasons, and has been designated as a terrorist organization by countries such as the United States, the European Union, and others.
This is a followup proposal to the discussion at Talk:Hamas#"Do_not_change_this_to_"terrorist"_without_gaining_consensus_on_the_talkpage_first". My proposition aims to better align with Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section which indicates that "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences". And I believe that given the level of disagreement this article draws, I find it self evident that a major part of the notability of the article's subject is also the criticism Hamas has gained (as well as its designation as a terrorist organization by some countries).
I'm looking forward to your input to my proposal, and hoping to reach a broad consensus. Tal Galili (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- FYI: @331dot, @Hemiauchenia, @Iskandar323, @Nableezy, @Orgullomoore, @Vice regent, @Yr Enw. I've started this new thread to re-focus our conversation in the hopes of reaching a consensus. I'd appreciate your constructive feedback. Tal Galili (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- "Variety of reasons" is vague and the Easter egg is bad, it is taking Criticism of Hamas and expanding it to "widely criticized for a variety of reasons" without a source for that. Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- This sentence is taken verbatim from the article, see: Hamas#Criticism (which itself leads to an entire article on the topic - since there has been quite many criticisems...). How would you propose to improve it? Tal Galili (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Should we add to the first paragraph of the Likud article that it has been widely criticized for a variety of reasons too? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Makeandtoss, given that the Likud article doesn't have a Criticism section, is not locked for editing, nor was it considered to be a terrorist organisation by various countries, I think it is less relevant. But if you want a good parallel, you can take a look at Otzma Yehudit party (currently part of the Israeli government), in which the first paragraph looks like this:
- Otzma Yehudit (Hebrew: עָוצְמָה יְהוּדִית) or Jewish Power is a far-right political party in Israel, which has been referred to as Kahanist and anti-Arab. It was originally formed as Otzma LeYisrael (Hebrew: עָצְמָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל; lit., "Strength for Israel"), on 13 November 2012 by MKs Aryeh Eldad and Michael Ben-Ari, who split from the National Union to form a new party ahead of the 2013 elections.
- Which, honestly, I'd be happy to see the Hamas article written similarly. I.e.: similarly to how it indicates in the first sentence that it is "Kahanist and anti-Arab." But I'm trying to reach a consensus, so feel fine adding the sentence I proposed to the end of the first paragraph. Tal Galili (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- MOS:LEDE states that the opening paragraph should be neutral, so neither here nor at Otzma Yehudit being described as anti-Arab. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- The article Israel has in the first paragraph: "while its seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, although Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is unrecognized internationally."
- Should the last sentence be removed?
- I would say no, since the lead includes that Jerusalem is it's captial. In a similar way, since Hamas is called a "militant" group, it should be mentioned (IMHO) that there are nations that consider it a terrorist organisation. I am convinced by your argument that the first part of my proposed paragraph should be omitted (i.e.: critisized by...). WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also, looking at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view it says that:
- All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
- I think the concern seems to be about "all the significant views". I think the designation of terrorist is a significant view. Tal Galili (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Being unrecognized is a matter of factuality; being anti-Arab is a matter of perspective. There is no resemblance here. Please read MOS:LEDE and MOS:OPEN. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- The sentence on its terror designation is already more meaningful than any broad statement on "wide criticism" - it says who, i.e.: the countries involved, and for what: activities deemed terroristic. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Iskandar323 - I accept the concerns raised about "has been criticised". I still think the terrorist designation should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead. Tal Galili (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- MOS:LEDE states that the opening paragraph should be neutral, so neither here nor at Otzma Yehudit being described as anti-Arab. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Makeandtoss, given that the Likud article doesn't have a Criticism section, is not locked for editing, nor was it considered to be a terrorist organisation by various countries, I think it is less relevant. But if you want a good parallel, you can take a look at Otzma Yehudit party (currently part of the Israeli government), in which the first paragraph looks like this:
- @Talgalili: Thanks for starting the new thread and for the ping. I understand that you want to get the terrorist buzzword in the first paragraph of the lead. Obviously, you are going to get a lot of pushback from fellow editors who believe that's not neutral. The lead as it is now mentions in the second paragraph that Fatah renounced its terrorism and other acts of violence, and in the third paragraph mentions their attacks on civilians and terrorist designations by "many countries." You have argued that the first paragraph should not "ignore the terroristic aspect of the organization in the lead first paragraph all together", but allow me to point out that there is nothing overtly laudatory in the first paragraph either. So, I think you need to convince others why having that word in the first paragraph, as opposed to the second and third and infobox to the right is so important to achieve NPOV. There is no doubt that in Israel and NATO (minus Turkey) countries that is the prism through which Hamas is viewed, but you have to take into account that in Turkey, Iran, etc. Hamas is seen as a completely legitimate and even heroic resistance force. We are not supposed to take sides. --Orgullomoore (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- How long has the "Fatah renounced its terrorism and other acts of violence" sentence been in the lead? That's not in the Oslo Accords and isn't attributed to a scholar. Yr Enw (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Since 11 October 2023 (diff). --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- It can be found on p. 226 of Jerome Slater (2021), Mythologies Without End. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! Most helpful. I'm going to stick that citation in the text because presently it reads a bit POV without it. Yr Enw (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Orgullomoore,
- I admit this discussion is forcing me to be very clear about my own thoughts about this, given the great points you are raising.
- Before trying to convince "everyone", I'd like us two to try and convince each other on one direction or another for this article. And I acknowledge that I might be wrong here, but here goes:
- I think the terristic designation touches the reflection about one of the "core activities" of Hamas. And as such, I believe it should be mentioned (briefly) in the first paragraph.
- Why the first (and not just the third)? Because the first paragraph should be "an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents." , as stated in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section. And I think the debate is if the terrorist designation is one of the "most important contents" that should be mentioned.
- The current way the first paragraph is structures includes:
- 1. How Hamas should be called
- 2. That it's Palestinian Sunni Islamist
- 3. political and military organization
- 4. governing the Gaza Strip of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.
- 5. Headquartered in Gaza City,
- 6. it has a presence in the West Bank, the larger of the two Palestinian territories, in which its secular rival Fatah exercises control.
- I could ask - why include "the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories." in the lead? I mean - we can just say that they are "governing the Gaza Strip", why is the fact that it is called "Israeli-occupied" appear there? Is that NPOV?
- Well, I think it should appear there - because the conflict of Hamas with Israel is a central part of its definition.
- And in a similar way, calling it a "military organization" seems to glance over the fact that the way in which this military force is used is considered by many western countries to be terroristic.
- Another example of this is the article Wagner Group. The lead paragraph says:
- Evidence suggests that Wagner has been used as a proxy by the Russian government, allowing it to have plausible deniability for military operations abroad, and hiding the true casualties of Russia's foreign interventions.
- Now, this sentence is clearly going to be denied by Russia (and I'd guess also Iran etc.). But still, it's in the lead. How come? Because that "suspicion" by western countries is part of the most important content about the topic.
- And regarding NPOV, it doesn't require us to discuss only topic of consensus (we all agree that they are militants), but also include "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". And the terrorist designation is IMHO a significant view.
- WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Talgalili: I'm fine with helping you to refine your argument, but there is no need to convince me because I am mostly indifferent. My suggestion would be that, once you have a concrete proposal—you seem to be a bit unsure yourself about what you are asking for)—you start a somewhat formal Request for Comment to try to build consensus. For that, you are going to need a question that can be answered simply (like Yes or No or Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3). That way the consensus can be clearly assessed, and you don't run into the GIGO phenomenon that is often produced when the question is unclear. With respect to what the article x, y, or z says, I would advise against relying too heavily on that. You are always going to get editors who respond to that sort of argument with reference to WP:WHATABOUTX and say, of course there are other articles that get it wrong, but Misplaced Pages is not perfect, and we have to focus on this article for the time being. It's fine to draw analogies from other articles—especially if they are featured articles or have been the subject of rigorous community debate. But you are going to need to come up with good reasons why your proposal is an improvement upon the status quo.
- So if you are going to go with a yes/no RfC, it appears to me that your question is "Should the fact that Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by some countries be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead?" If you are going to go with a multiple choice RfC, you're going to need to come up with two or three proposals that other editors can choose from.
- The guidance for the first sentence in the lead is that it answer two questions: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" Currently the "what" is answered as "a Palestinian Sunni Islamist political and military organization" and the "why" is answered as " govern the Gaza Strip of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories." The guidance on the first paragraph of the lead (which, in our case, is only two sentences long) is that it "define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific."
- With those principles in mind, you should come up with a reasoned argument about why the "terrorist" buzzword should be placed with the prominence you are proposing. Probably, your best argument is that the opening paragraph can afford a third short sentence and that should be: "It has been designated as a terrorist organization by many Western countries, though numerous other countries view it as a legitimate resistance force and a 2018 United Nations resolution to condemn it for acts of terrorism failed." You will need to be prepared to address the argument that many people view "terrorist" as an arbitrary loaded word that is per se judgmental and non-neutral.
- I think you're doing a great job of remaining calm, maintaining civility, and listening. From my perspective, Vice regent was wrong to say you were edit warring and should apologize. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @Orgullomoore for your extremely helpful response! This is all very instructive and constructive. I'll work to carve out my proposal in the coming day or so. Tal Galili (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- As a sidenote, I don't think any hypothetical argument about "terrorist" being a loaded term is entirely relevant to what's being proposed anyway. As I understand it, @Talgalili isn't proposing using it in wikivoice (which I would strongly oppose), so I think we avoid that problem because it's being attributed matter-of-factly. Yr Enw (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I agree. Tal Galili (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- How long has the "Fatah renounced its terrorism and other acts of violence" sentence been in the lead? That's not in the Oslo Accords and isn't attributed to a scholar. Yr Enw (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I think we need to mention some of the "reasons", in the spirit of summarising some of the article information - the most notable of which is, of course, the use of violence, particularly against civilian targets. But, as I have said previously, we also need to be careful to avoid linking one clause (criticised for violence) to another (designated a "terrorist" org by the US, UK, Israel and EU) ourselves. I remain of the view the sentences should be two adjacent statements, not adjoined into one. And they should both, of course, be cited. Yr Enw (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Yr Enw,
- After seeing the various responses, I came to the realization that mentioning the criticisms would be too much. Instead, I think it make sense to focus only on the terrorist designation, and leave the rest for the rest of the article.
- WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- I share the belief in the need for brevity in lead paragraphs, although I think the specific criticisms of violence meet the notability standard. That said, if others don't, I'm not fighting it. Yr Enw (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Yr Enw,
- I'm still debating this within myself. I'll soon open a new discussion thread, and pose this as an option. Tal Galili (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I share the belief in the need for brevity in lead paragraphs, although I think the specific criticisms of violence meet the notability standard. That said, if others don't, I'm not fighting it. Yr Enw (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think that "has been criticised" is a useful sentence structure. We should simply say what Hamas has done, and what other countries have designated it as. I didn't really oppose the movement of the suicide bombings and terrorist designation section up. It needs to be in the lead somewhere obviously, but I don't really think it matters where. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with you. To me, it's insignificant. Apparently @Vice regent feels very strongly about it. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- I do, because we have not done the same for various other similar organizations like Palestinian Liberation Organization, Hezbollah, African National Congress, Muslim Brotherhood etc. All of these organizations - and Hamas - have a very significant political and social dimension, and thus we don't overemphasize the military dimension any higher than the political and social dimension.VR talk 22:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Hemiauchenia - I accept the concerns raised about "has been criticised". I still think the terrorist designation should be mentioned. And as @Orgullomoore, it does appear that @Vice regent opposes it. Tal Galili (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with you. To me, it's insignificant. Apparently @Vice regent feels very strongly about it. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- In my opinion, if the main consideration is neutrality - then presenting only one side (doesn't matter which one) damages neutrality. So I think we have two options. The first option is to be satisfied with the general description "organization" without specifying which type - because as far as I understand there are no differences of opinion about it. The second option is to say both how that organization defines itself, and the controversy that exists regarding the various possible definitions in the international community. That way the reader can get an impression of the situation as it is. Chenspec (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
2023 Israel–Hamas war
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Under the subheading "2023 Israel–Hamas war," the death toll mentioned for the Oct. 7 attack is inaccurate. It falsely says 1,400; the Israeli government itself said this number was incorrect and media outlets have widely reported that the accurate number is actually 1,200.
- Why it should be changed: The number is inaccurate and has since been corrected by multiple outlets including the Israeli government itself.
- References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/12/world/middleeast/israel-death-toll-hamas-attack.html
216.165.95.187 (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Done Thanks, I've updated the article. Tal Galili (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Bartal, Shaul. “Ḥamās: The Islamic Resistance Movement.” Handbook of Islamic Sects and Movements, edited by Muhammad Afzal Upal and Carole M. Cusack, Brill, 2021, pp. 379–401. JSTOR,
- David Cook (2008). Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature. Syracuse University Press. p. 25-26.
- Hussein Solomon and Arno Tausch (2019). Islamism, Crisis and Democratization Implications of the World Values Survey for the Muslim World. Springer International Publishing. p. 171-172.
{{cite book}}:|author=has generic name (help); External link in|author=|title=at position 37 (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - Seurat 2019, pp. 17–19
- "What does Israel's declaration of war mean for Palestinians in Gaza?". Al Jazeera.
- "What will the Israeli-Palestinian conflict look like in 30 years?".
Even Hamas in 2017 said it was ready to accept a Palestinian state with 1967 borders if it is clear this is the consensus of the Palestinians.
- ^ "Hamas accepts Palestinian state with 1967 borders: Khaled Meshaal presents a new document in which Hamas accepts 1967 borders without recognising state of Israel Gaza". Al Jazeera. 2 May 2017. Cite error: The named reference "Jazeera,2May2017" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- Al-Mughrabi, Nidal; Finn, Tom (1 May 2017). "Hamas softens stance on Israel, drops Muslim Brotherhood link". Reuters. Retrieved 16 November 2023.
- Cite error: The named reference
atranwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Halim Rane (2009). Reconstructing Jihad Amid Competing International Norms. p. 34.
Asher Susser, director of the Dayan Centre at Tel Aviv University, conveyed to me in an interview that "Hamas' 'hudna' is not significantly different from Sharon's 'long-term interim agreement." Similarly, Daniel Levy, a senior Israeli official for the Geneva Initiative (GI), informed me that certain Hamas officials find the GI acceptable, but due to the concerns about their Islamically oriented constituency and their own Islamic identity, they would "have to express the final result in terms of a "hudna," or "indefinite" ceasefire," rather than a formal peace agreement."
- Baconi 2018, p. 108Hamas’s finance minister in Gaza stated that “a long-term ceasefire as understood by Hamas and a two-state settlement are the same. It’s just a question of vocabulary.” sfn error: no target: CITEREFBaconi2018 (help)
- Loren D. Lybarger (2020). Palestinian Chicago. University of California Press. p. 199.
Hamas too would signal a willingness to accept a long-term "hudna" (cessation of hostilities, truce) along the armistice lines of 1948 (an effective acceptance of the two-state formula).
- Tristan Dunning (2016). Hamas, Jihad and Popular Legitimacy. Routledge. pp. 179–180.
- Alsoos, Imad (2021). "From jihad to resistance: the evolution of Hamas's discourse in the framework of mobilization". Middle Eastern Studies. 57 (5): 833–856. doi:10.1080/00263206.2021.1897006. S2CID 234860010.
- ^ Faeq, Nasir; Jahnata, Diego (2020). "The Historical Antecedents of Hamas". International Journal of Social Science Research and Review. 3 (3): 33. doi:10.47814/ijssrr.v3i3.49. S2CID 234607095. Cite error: The named reference "Faeq" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- May, Tiffany (October 8, 2023). "A Quick Look at Hamas". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 14, 2023. Retrieved October 9, 2023.
- Staff, The (October 9, 2023). "Two-state solution: Israeli-Palestinian history". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 9, 2023.
- "Have war crimes been committed in Israel and Gaza and what laws govern the conflict?". CNN. 2023-11-16. Retrieved 2023-11-18.
- Seurat, Leila (2019). The Foreign Policy of Hamas. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 17. ISBN 9781838607449.
- Qossay Hamed (2023). Hamas in Power: The Question of Transformation. IGI Global. p. 161.
- Timea Spitka (2023). National and International Civilian Protection Strategies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Springer International Publishing. p. 88-89.
- "Khaled Meshaal: Struggle is against Israel, not Jews". Al-Jazeera. 6 May 2017. Retrieved 19 November 2023.
- Al-Mughrabi, Nidal; Finn, Tom (1 May 2017). "Hamas softens stance on Israel, drops Muslim Brotherhood link". Reuters. Retrieved 16 November 2023.
- Scott Atran, Robert Axelrod (2008). "Reframing Sacred Values" (PDF). Negotiation Journal. 24 (3): 221–246. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.2008.00182.x.
- Seurat 2019, pp. 17–19
- * "What will the Israeli-Palestinian conflict look like in 30 years?".
Even Hamas in 2017 said it was ready to accept a Palestinian state with 1967 borders if it is clear this is the consensus of the Palestinians.
- Halim Rane (2009). Reconstructing Jihad Amid Competing International Norms. p. 34.
Asher Susser, director of the Dayan Centre at Tel Aviv University, conveyed to me in an interview that "Hamas' 'hudna' is not significantly different from Sharon's 'long-term interim agreement." Similarly, Daniel Levy, a senior Israeli official for the Geneva Initiative (GI), informed me that certain Hamas officials find the GI acceptable, but due to the concerns about their Islamically oriented constituency and their own Islamic identity, they would "have to express the final result in terms of a "hudna," or "indefinite" ceasefire," rather than a formal peace agreement."
- Loren D. Lybarger (2020). Palestinian Chicago. University of California Press. p. 199.
Hamas too would signal a willingness to accept a long-term "hudna" (cessation of hostilities, truce) along the armistice lines of 1948 (an effective acceptance of the two-state formula).
- Tristan Dunning (2016). Hamas, Jihad and Popular Legitimacy. Routledge. pp. 179–180.
- Halim Rane (2009). Reconstructing Jihad Amid Competing International Norms. p. 34.
- May, Tiffany (October 8, 2023). "A Quick Look at Hamas". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 14, 2023. Retrieved October 9, 2023.
- Prusher, Ilene (2023-12-07). "Opinion: I reported on Hamas for over a decade. The questions I'm asking myself now". CNN. Retrieved 2023-12-08.
Lede
No prominent mention of music festival in article; neither of Biden or EU motions; nor of the third information. Lede is a summary of body; not a collection of cherry picked information. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at the edit, I see it removed the following two parts:
- Since then, it has run Gaza as a de facto autocratic and one-party state.
- The European Parliament passed a motion stating the need for Hamas to be eliminated and US President Joe Biden has expressed the same sentiment.
- Where are these mentioned in the text? (i.e.: what is it a summary of?) Tal Galili (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have restored
- Since then, it has run Gaza as an autocratic and one-party state.
- but removed “de facto” which I think is what is generating controversy/edit warring. Yes, Hamas has killed “its political rivals execution style in the streets, in hospital shootouts, and by throwing them off the rooftops of high-rise buildings.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/israel-hamas/2023/11/21/gaza-hamas-palestinians-views-government-israel-war/71589840007/
- but at the end of the day they were voted in winning parliamentary majority. Because they were voted in, I think that is why some editors are objecting to the words de facto. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wasn't the vote in 2006? It's ~17 years now with no election. If this is considered a democracy, I suspect it is contesting for the democracy with the longest streak of years with no election. Tal Galili (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hm.. good point. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wasn't the vote in 2006? It's ~17 years now with no election. If this is considered a democracy, I suspect it is contesting for the democracy with the longest streak of years with no election. Tal Galili (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have restored
- I must be honest. I find that mentioning the most "successful" single terror attack by the organization as lead worthy. I also find that if the President of the United States of America and the European Union call for the elimination of an organization; it too is very lead worthy. Indeed you have pointed an important issue.
- The true issue is not that it is not Lead worthy, but that more information regarding this is not included in the body! Indeed I find this can be an important avenue and I think it's good you've pointed the issue.
- Regarding Re'im festival, please note Al-Qaeda's lead:
- "In 2001, Al-Qaeda carried out the September 11 attacks, resulting in nearly 3,000 deaths..."
- It is worth mentioning Re'im which was Hamas' most single most successful attack.
- Furthermore, the t the nature of governance of a political organization on its ruled territory is lead worthy.
- However the issue stands the same. That it is vital that we mention that a country considered the most powerful on Earth has called to destroy this organization and that the European Union, a body representing about 500,000,000 has also called the same on this organization. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Homerethegreat
- I agree with both of your points. But regardless of how the discussion about the lead would end - I think it's worth adding these inputs into the body of the article as well (I don't plan to work on it - but if you will - you have my blessing). Tal Galili (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- What precisely is being discussed or proposed here? It appears there are a few potential points of discussion about the lede, which have themselves branched off from previous discussions. At risk of creating a series of subsequent branches ad infinitum, wouldn’t it be most helpful to start specific RfCs on the key issues, one by one? Yr Enw (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Why would a EU resolution be in the lead of the article? It isnt even referenced at all in the body. That is an absurd amount of undue weight. Do we mention the UN resolutions about Israel in its lead? Even the lead as it currently stands is absurdly tilted towards 2023, as though October 7th is the sole defining trait about Hamas. Do we include Israel bombing refugee camps in its lead? Its unreal how people are trying to tilt this article. nableezy - 17:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Do you think the Oct 7th attack should be included in the lead? If so, which details of it do you think are most relevant to include? Tal Galili (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes it should be and as it is now is imo fine. nableezy - 19:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Nableezy -
- Given that the article of states that "Hamas meticulously planned for a massacre of Israeli civilians with the goal of provoking Israel to invade Gaza."
- Then would you agree that this was a terrorist attack?
- E.g., instead of writing:
- The attack has been described as the biggest military setback for Israel since the 1973 Arab–Israeli War.
- Write:
- The terrorist attack has been described as the biggest military setback for Israel since the 1973 Arab–Israeli War.
- Using the wiki voice? Tal Galili (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Its a terror attack, not a terrorist attack, a terrorist is a person who commits terrorism, which is an act of terror. And I dont think thats a good sentence in that article. I would rather say
The attack, which included killing scores of civilians in Israeli territory near Gaza, has been described as the biggest military setback for Israel since the 1973 Arab–Israeli War.
I get that doesnt include the word "terror" and if thats big a deal we can include it somehow, but I also think it is much better writing in that it says what happened instead of trying to get some buzzword in to as many sentences as possible. nableezy - 20:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)- @Nableezy - I want to avoid buzzwords, they do not add in my view. At the same time, I also want it that when intention is known and clear, to make it clear in the text. The way the sentence you wrote reads is that Hamas did some attack, and it just happened to include the killing of civilians. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the attack of civilians was planned and intentional (and celebrated) - and I think the wording should reflect that. WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just happened to include? No it says directly they killed scores of civilians during the attack. I did not also add they attacked military bases and captured soldiers, though that was also part of the attack. But I think my wording does reflect intentionality. nableezy - 20:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I am not sure killing is a strong enough word for me. It seems more like a massacre sort of situation. But I don't see value in discussing this much here.how about massacring instead of killing? Tal Galili (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just happened to include? No it says directly they killed scores of civilians during the attack. I did not also add they attacked military bases and captured soldiers, though that was also part of the attack. But I think my wording does reflect intentionality. nableezy - 20:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Nableezy - I want to avoid buzzwords, they do not add in my view. At the same time, I also want it that when intention is known and clear, to make it clear in the text. The way the sentence you wrote reads is that Hamas did some attack, and it just happened to include the killing of civilians. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the attack of civilians was planned and intentional (and celebrated) - and I think the wording should reflect that. WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I would strongly oppose using the term "terror/terrorist attack" in Wikivoice. It adds nothing and gets us bogged down in labels rather than improving the lede. Yr Enw (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- But isn't it what it is? It was an attack meant to incite terror and lead to war. Is there an alternative narrative for the motivation of the attack? (Even from Hamas's side) Tal Galili (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:OR and MOS:TERRORIST, it’s not up to us as editors to determine what is or isn’t a terror attack, or what labels to use. If the sources use them, then yes we can say it with attribution. But otherwise, in my opinion, highly contentious terms like that just bog us down in discussions and should be avoided. Yr Enw (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I very much agree with this sentiment. What I'm asking is if there are credible sources which did not deem this to be a terror attack? what did they say it was? Tal Galili (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Most media sources use the term “terror attack” and so yes, there’s an argument to be made for using the term, just attributed rather than in Wikivoice. I think the way it’s currently formatted is better though, attacking military and civilian targets is more descriptive, whereas “terror” is a bit ambiguous. Yr Enw (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- In September 11 attacks the attack is described as a terrorist attack. The term seems to be less ambiguous than just calling it an attack. Tal Galili (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Most media sources use the term “terror attack” and so yes, there’s an argument to be made for using the term, just attributed rather than in Wikivoice. I think the way it’s currently formatted is better though, attacking military and civilian targets is more descriptive, whereas “terror” is a bit ambiguous. Yr Enw (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I very much agree with this sentiment. What I'm asking is if there are credible sources which did not deem this to be a terror attack? what did they say it was? Tal Galili (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:OR and MOS:TERRORIST, it’s not up to us as editors to determine what is or isn’t a terror attack, or what labels to use. If the sources use them, then yes we can say it with attribution. But otherwise, in my opinion, highly contentious terms like that just bog us down in discussions and should be avoided. Yr Enw (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- But isn't it what it is? It was an attack meant to incite terror and lead to war. Is there an alternative narrative for the motivation of the attack? (Even from Hamas's side) Tal Galili (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Its a terror attack, not a terrorist attack, a terrorist is a person who commits terrorism, which is an act of terror. And I dont think thats a good sentence in that article. I would rather say
- Yes it should be and as it is now is imo fine. nableezy - 19:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- The European Union, a 18.5 trillion USD bloc, 500 million people, with a Nuclear armed country, with some of the most powerful militaries in the world, a block that is geographically close to the Gaza Strip did a resolution saying that Hamas should be eliminated. Not lead worthy? Homerethegreat (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- It feels more like news reporting than encyclopedic narrative. In any case, it needs to be in the body in order for it to be in the lede. Yr Enw (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Yr Enw, Is that the only barrier to it being in the lead? Homerethegreat (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Yr Enw I agree with you. Tal Galili (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- It is true that the EU and the US have insisted that Hamas is not involved in post Gaza war rule. They are also insisting that there be a political horizon for Palestine at the same time. Including the first half but not the second is POV. I can see another editor has added "massacred" to the article, will it be OK to add massacred for all the Gaza civilians killed at the Israel article? Or is it only Israeli citizens that can be massacred? Selfstudier (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- i think massacred has to do with intention.
- AFAIK the IDF doesn't say it wants to kill palastenians. Does Hamas say it doesn't want to kill Israeli civilians? Tal Galili (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- No genocide has to do with intention. Massacre is usually used when a killing was particularly bloody or violent “under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty”. That is the primary dictionary definition although there are also secondary and tertiary definitions for massacre. I agree with Selfstudier that massacre should not be used in the lead. This is a page about Hamas not the Oct. 7 attack or the 2023 war. We don’t need to be reminded of what they did on that day, there are plenty of other things you could write about them some positive some negative. Massacre in the lead is very distracting, detracts from the neutral quality of a page about a political militant entity and it currently isn’t even mentioned in the Wiki page for the 2023 Israel Hamas war. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Clarifying, massacre not currently mentioned in the lead of the 2023 Israel Hamas war wiki page. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Where them do you think Re'im music festival massacre should be placed then?
- If it's part of the 2023 war, then that description should include that a massacre occured. If it shouldn't, then the incident should be mentioned on its own.
- I believe, in general, that if an organisation is responsible for a massacre, that mentioning it is lead worthy. And also that not mentioning it is failing the goal of a NPOV.
- In general, I feel that we can't have it both ways: if Hamas is a terror organisation then we don't need the lead to include every terrible thing they did. But they are not called that in the lead. Hence, if they are simply a "militant group" (i.e.: not engaging in war crimes etc. on a regular basis), then I'd argue that having them be responsible for a massacre is so unbelievable that it should be mentioned in the lead.
- For reference, I'm not aware of cases in which the IDF has conducted massacres (e.g.: went into a music festival and had soldiers shot people while they ran away for their lives. And were they to do it, I'd find it remarkable that it would not be mentioned in their lead as well) Tal Galili (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, at least on Wiki, there was the Khan Yunis massacre. :’( I only learned about it here a month ago! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- You feel that way only for Hamas or also for Israel, the IDF, the Hagannah, ... ? Qibya massacre, 1984 Sohmor massacre, Kafr Qasim massacre, Rafah massacre, Ras Sedr massacre, Hula massacre, there wont be room for much else in the lead of Israel. nableezy - 03:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- What are you talking about, Nableezy? I don't understand your question. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I see you edited and expanded your response. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Was a question to Tal Galili, you can tell by the indentation. nableezy - 03:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I see you edited and expanded your response. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Nableezy - do you want to know what I feel or what I think?
- I feel that I have respect and care for all human beings, be them Jewish, Muslim, or atheists (as myself). And that all the suffering that we are discussing here is heartbreaking, regardless of sides.
- As for what I think:
- I think Hahganah (from what I know) focused on fighting "British authorities", and were not designated as a terrorist organization by anyone (if I'm wrong, it should be included in the wiki page).
- In contrast, Irgun (which was later absorbed by IDF), did perform terrorist attacks, and it is indeed mentioned in the first paragraph there of the lead:
- "The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts."
- As for Israel - the lead's first sentence doesn't indicate the "occupation" of Gaza, although that's written in detail in the third paragraph. When I compare this to other countries, it seems similar. For example, ] doesn't have the first sentence in the lead an indication of their war in ukraine (although down several paragraphs it does).
- But to the core of your question - I don't think IDF is designated as a terror organization by anyone. Also, I don't think it is mandated (by the Israeli government) to kill civilians in any way that is outside of international law. I do agree with you that the cases you mentioned are terrible, should not have happened, and should be condemned. But I think the bigger question is if these are inherent to the IDFs operation in general, or if these are unusual (terrible) things that happened - that do not define the IDF as a whole.
- IF Hamas were to generally fight the Israeli military, and would by accident heart civilians, then I wouldn't think that discussing it in the lead is essential. But Hamas has killed it's opposition members after they got into power, they have refused to allow democratic elections in the past 17 years (since 2006), they regularly fire rockets indiscriminately into Israeli cities (with the clear purpose of harming civilians). And when they made their incursions and got into the music festival, they had the rare opportunity to show they are against Israel as a country and not against Israelis and Jew People. They could have decided to make an effort to not kill these people, but instead they did. Including elderly and children.
- I don't see here an unusual case of their actions, but an example of what happens when they manage to do what they want to do all the time.
- Hence, their actions should be described not as killing civilians, but as a massacre. Their strategy of terror should be mentioned in the lead in general (which it is). And I further think that it should be mentioned in the first paragraph (but that's a discussion to have in another place).
- And I'd like to finish and say that I clearly loath Hamas. But at the same time please know that I LOVE Misplaced Pages. And my purpose here is not to spew buzzwords to describe Hamas, but to give them the most neutral and accurate description possible. Tal Galili (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, we really dont discuss our feelings here. But the point I was trying to make was you wrote if an organization committed a massacre that massacre should be in the lead. We dont discuss My Lai massacre in either the lead or the body of United States Army, much less United States, we dont discuss any of the massacres committed by the IDF, the Border Police, or whoever in the leads of those articles, in the IDF article not in the body either, though the Border Police one includes a bit on Kafr Qasim, though it says "was involved in" instead of "carried out". My point was that if your belief on including massacres that a state or organization committed in the lead were to be implemented without bias it would fill up the leads of most of the country articles we have. Going back to say Irgun, as you say it says
The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts
. This article's lead is actually very poorly written, but it does includeHamas has attacked civilians in Israel, including with suicide bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks – acts that have led many countries to designate Hamas a terrorist organization.
nableezy - 13:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)- Ok, I think there are several points here:
- 1. I think that whenever possible, each article should include a relevant criticism section. That should be the case for the US army, IDF, and whichever other entity in the world. I believe this type of transparency is good (e.g.: I wasn't aware of all the articles you mentioned, which is a shame).
- 2. I agree that the criticism of an organization should not always be in the lead. But,
- 3. For some cases, the criticisms of organizations are an important part of the information around them. How should that be decided? That's a great question (which is the one we're discussing here). In the case of Hamas and the events of Oct 7th, I think it's a big deal which will be a major part of Hamas's story. So I think it deserves to be in the lead. Also, the fact that many countries designate it as a terrorist organization is, IMHO, a big part of Hamas's story, and should be in the lead. It is already there, and I personally think it should be there - and also that it should be mentioned in the first paragraph. But that last point we don't need to discuss here (I'll open another thread on it when I get to it). Tal Galili (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, we really dont discuss our feelings here. But the point I was trying to make was you wrote if an organization committed a massacre that massacre should be in the lead. We dont discuss My Lai massacre in either the lead or the body of United States Army, much less United States, we dont discuss any of the massacres committed by the IDF, the Border Police, or whoever in the leads of those articles, in the IDF article not in the body either, though the Border Police one includes a bit on Kafr Qasim, though it says "was involved in" instead of "carried out". My point was that if your belief on including massacres that a state or organization committed in the lead were to be implemented without bias it would fill up the leads of most of the country articles we have. Going back to say Irgun, as you say it says
- Israel is a country, Hamas is an organization. I would not expect Iran to have on its lead its biggest attack. Al Qaeda mentions 9/10. Why should Hamas' not mention 7/10? Homerethegreat (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- We need to be clear that Hamas is not a country so regarding consistency it should be compared to other organizations that are similar to it and their lead. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS though? Al-Qai'dah's notability is in large part due to its involvement in 9/11, whereas I'm not sure we can honestly say Hamas's notability arises from the 7/10 attack. The prominence of 9/11 in sources about AQ far outweighs the prominence of 7/10 in sources about Hamas. It might change as more scholarly analysis is dedicated to the impact of October 7, but it's not the case yet and thus doesn't - in my eyes - justify the inclusion in the lede. It's a bit too close to WP:RECENTISM. Yr Enw (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Examples of organizations that are comparable to Hamas include Hezbollah, Palestine Liberation Organization, African National Congress etc. All of them only very briefly mention allegations of terrorism in the lead. VR talk 00:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- What are you talking about, Nableezy? I don't understand your question. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- No genocide has to do with intention. Massacre is usually used when a killing was particularly bloody or violent “under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty”. That is the primary dictionary definition although there are also secondary and tertiary definitions for massacre. I agree with Selfstudier that massacre should not be used in the lead. This is a page about Hamas not the Oct. 7 attack or the 2023 war. We don’t need to be reminded of what they did on that day, there are plenty of other things you could write about them some positive some negative. Massacre in the lead is very distracting, detracts from the neutral quality of a page about a political militant entity and it currently isn’t even mentioned in the Wiki page for the 2023 Israel Hamas war. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- No lol, a resolution by the European parliament is not lead worthy. nableezy - 20:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Nableezy I agree with you. Tal Galili (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. The US and the EU are some of the most powerful blocs on Earth. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- So what? An EU parliament resolution is meaningless, so is a statement by a US president. There is no indication that any of the crap youre trying to put in here has any weight in sources at all. nableezy - 01:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- It feels more like news reporting than encyclopedic narrative. In any case, it needs to be in the body in order for it to be in the lede. Yr Enw (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- It has been officially designated as a "terrorist group" in 8 major countries. Should an organization, which is widely known as a terror/terrorism organization, be described as such in the lead? Yes, it should. It is another matter if Hamas should be described as a primarily terrorist organization. Yes, it is widely known for conducting the multiple massacres of civilians. But perhaps they do a lot of other things that are more important? Good balance here can be found by using strong tertiary sources, as I already noted on this page above , except that the coverage of Hamas has recently been changed due to all these massacres they just conducted in Israel. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Important to note Misplaced Pages:NOTNEWS and Misplaced Pages:Recentism. Hamas is not primarily a militant organization, and it's political and social aspects are just as important as it's militant aspects. VR talk 00:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
References
- "How powerful is Hamas?". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved October 17, 2023.
In 2006, a year after Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas won a majority of seats in a Palestinian election and later formed a new unity government with Fatah, its nationalist rival. In June 2007, after a brief civil war, it assumed sole control of Gaza, leaving Fatah to run the Palestinian Authority (pa) in the West Bank. In response Israel and Egypt imposed a suffocating blockade on the coastal strip in 2007, strangling its economy and in effect confining its people in an open-air prison. There have been no elections since. Hamas has run Gaza as an oppressive one-party state, leaving some Palestinians there disenchanted with its leadership. Nevertheless, Palestinians widely consider it to be more competent than the ailing, corrupt pa.
- "Gaza Strip: Freedom in the World 2020 Country Report". Freedom House. Retrieved October 17, 2023.
Since 2007, Gaza has functioned as a de facto one-party state under Hamas rule
- Burton, Guy (2012). "Hamas and its Vision of Development". Third World Quarterly. 33 (3): 525–540. doi:10.1080/01436597.2012.657491. ISSN 0143-6597. JSTOR 41507185. S2CID 144037453.
The joint Hamas-Fatah government did not last long. Within months the two sides were fighting again, eventually leading to a political split of the occupied territory, with Fatah controlling the West Bank and Hamas establishing a virtual one-party state in Gaza
- Staff, ToI; Agencies. "European Parliament calls for Hamas to be 'eliminated,' urges release of hostages". www.timesofisrael.com. Retrieved 2023-10-21.
- Bose, Nandita; Jackson, Katharine (2023-10-16). "Biden says Hamas must be eliminated, US officials warn of escalation". Reuters. Retrieved 2023-10-21.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2023
| It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Hamas. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
Please correct the transliteration of حركة from Ḥarakat to Ḥarakah. Even a cursory glance by non-readers of Arabic shows the matching endings in Arabic are not matched in the transliteration. The correct form is used elsewhere on the page. 139.218.115.211 (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I should have added, the other possibility is that the ending in t is correct if it is supposed to be plural, Movements. Either way, the transliteration doesn’t match, even though the internet is littered with the same mismatch. So is the Arabic correct (singular), or the transliteration correct (plural)? 139.218.115.211 (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think this might be because it reflects the pronunciation of taa marbuta within an idafah, but interested to see what other editors think Yr Enw (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Which change are you requesting? I can (and my preference would be to) change the mention in "Etymology" from Ḥarakah al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah to Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah, although your Arabic is undoubtedly better than mine, shouldn't Muqawamah then also be Muqawamat? Yr Enw (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Very interesting question about muqawama! Grammatically, it would be harakatu l-muqawamati l-islamiyyah. I think we need a reliable source to base our changes on, as opposed to relying on me. But as IP points out, the web is full of "reliable" sources who are wrong about this. So we need to find a correct reliable source. --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Its not plural. Harakaat (حركات) would be movements. The last vowel would be doubled. --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- The T should be there if we are seeking to transliterate in accordance with pronunciation. In Fusha, it's technically harakatu l-muqawama (حركةُ المقاومة) in nominative case. It's H if in pausal form. Theoretically it makes sense for the transliteration to be one way and the etymology to be another, since in etymology the words are examined in isolation (pausal) and in transliteration we are trying to approximate pronunciation (elision). The taw article does a decent job of explaining how the taw marbuta loses its "t" sound when pausal. --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2023 (2)
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add these lines back in:
In 1973, Yassin founded the social-religious charity al-Mujama al-Islamiya (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Al-Mujama_al-Islamiya) ("Islamic center") in Gaza as an offshoot to the Muslim Brotherhood. 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/Palestine_Liberation_Organization). 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". Israel's religious affairs official in Gaza, Avner Cohen (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/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.
This has now been changed to remove IMPORTANT CONTEXT 2603:7000:37F0:6C00:4D64:4423:A6B0:F99B (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Davest3r08 >:) 19:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Polisario Front Ally?
Sorry for being logged out. The article cited as a source for the Polisario Front being a Hamas ally seems kind of dubious. All it really says pertaining to the issue is that the Polisario support a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. Not really openly pro-hamas. 2600:1700:5DB0:5860:4B7E:7E89:577B:B6B2 (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Hamas is no longer "anti-communist"?
When did this happen? Are they now promoting Lenin and saying they want to create a dictatorship of the proletariat in Gaza? Hamas is and always was explicitly anti-communist. Change it back. Jester6482 (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Emulsification92 (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC) This is kind of reaching into discussion of the topic territory as opposed to discussing the article, but I think that given their cooperation with the PFLP in the current war, they arent exactly stringently devoted to anti-communism. (sorry if this is formatted wrong, i dont edit much)
- Wartime alliances don't change an organizations underlying ideologies. Obscuring that is POV. Jester6482 (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Israel ally of hamas?
Both of the citations provifed dont make the controversial claim israel is or was allied with Hamas. Either provide better citations or remove it. 46.121.146.123 (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've checked the sources and you're right. Of course, Israel supported Hamas, or at least looked the other way in the 1980s, but if our sources do not call them allies the proper place to describe their relationship is the article body. Alaexis¿question? 18:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- It is straightforward to find sourcing re the Israel Hamas relationship, Israel was never an ally but it has suited Israel to keep Palestinians separated, at least until the recent events. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- I removed it . Whoever puts it back should explain why Israel's refraining from opposing it or using it as a way of dividing and conquering the Palestinians is the same as being a state ally. --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Skitash previously removed Israel from the list of state allies in the infobox with the edit summary
This took place before Hamas existed. It belongs in Muhama al-Islamiya.
(20:28, 17 November 2023). It was re-added by MaliMail without any edit summary (20:46, 19 November 2023). --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)- Dovidroth removed it with the edit summary
Unsupported. Too big of a stretch. There's no indication Hamas was Israel's ally back then, even if they got some help to counter Fatah. See also WP:EXCEPTIONAL
(05:02, 23 October 2023). MaliMail re-added it with the edit summaryit is supported on the source
(13:27, 23 October 2023). @MaliMail, you need to stop edit-warring. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC) - I believe this is its original inception in the infobox by, no shocker, MaliMail: (23:03, 21 October 2023) (no edit summary). --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- What does the Washington post article say? I can only read the headline that "Israel helped create Hamas". VR talk 00:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- The archived link has the full text. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Should the other countries be reviewed in the same way as a similar argument could be going by the sources cited for Afghanistan and Venezuela Hamas allies?--Imran786 (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Worth checking all of them. There is a big difference between supporting someone and being their ally. Alaexis¿question? 07:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Should the other countries be reviewed in the same way as a similar argument could be going by the sources cited for Afghanistan and Venezuela Hamas allies?--Imran786 (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- The archived link has the full text. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- What does the Washington post article say? I can only read the headline that "Israel helped create Hamas". VR talk 00:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Dovidroth removed it with the edit summary
Russia
I've reverted adding Russia as an ally. The two sources that were provided do not establish this to the necessary degree of certainty
Kyivpost article quotes Khaled Mashal's words and does not say it in its own voice
| “ | Hamas relies on the support of its allies, including major powers such as Russia and China, Mashal stated in an interview with an Egyptian TV channel. | ” |
In fact, or at least according to MEMRI, whose tweet Kyivpost links to, and whose translations are usually accurate, Mashal doesn't say that Russia or China are his allies.
Yahoo news article only talks about allies in the last paragraph.
| “ | Whose ally is Israel? The United States of America," one Russian official and member of the defense committee, Andrei Gurulev, posted on Telegram, per the Journal. "Whose ally is Iran and its surrounding Muslim world? Ours. | ” |
So should we declare every single Muslim country an ally of Russia based on a post of an obscure member of Russian parliament? Alaexis¿question? 21:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Whatever, should be consistent with Russia–Hamas relations. Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The 1980s were very different
Somebody removed a key early ally, but I think they possibly didn't look at the date very closely? Irtapil (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- See Talk:Hamas#Israel_ally_of_hamas? --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the archive link, I'll have a closer look at that later. But I was in the process of writing more detail about above. I saved a topic heading as a place holder because other people editing the page kept glitching my attempts to write more.
- As far as i am aware that info re 1980s is true from reliable sources and i can provide additional reliable sources if needed.
- That's not ideal, the opening comparison is a bit unrealistic, and I need to find an official human-curated transcript. There is an auto generated transcript on the YouTube version, but the ABC usually do proper transcripts.
- The removed content did have two references already.
- Possibly instead of just "1980s" it should give a specific end date and specify "pre-militant era", to avoid future confusion.
- A suitable end date would be around the time Ahmed Yassin was first arrested.
- The alleged support from נתניהו … i HATE Latin vowels… Netanyahu et al. after that date warrants inclusion in the article (if it isn't already), but not the info box. While you're at it @Orgullomoore: are there any relevant talk archives about that?
- Irtapil (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- The issue is not that the sources are untrue. The issue is that they do not support the claim that Israel and Hamas had an alliance. They support the claim that Israel "enabled its rise" (WaPo) and "stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled" (WSJ) for the purpose of countering the PLO. This is not the same as being in an alliance. --Orgullomoore (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
References
- "Israel Gaza War:: The Man That Created Hamas | If You're Listening". www.abc.net.au. ABC Australia. 20 October 2023. Retrieved 4 December 2023.
- Tharoor, Ishaan (2021-12-01). "How Israel helped create Hamas". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2023-10-22.
- Higgins, Andrew (January 24, 2009). "How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on September 26, 2009. Retrieved January 25, 2023.
When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza in the 1970s and '80s, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel. The Israeli government officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called Mujama Al-Islamiya, registering the group as a charity. It allowed Mujama members to set up an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs and schools. Crucially, Israel often stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled, sometimes violently, for influence in both Gaza and the West Bank. 'When I look back at the chain of events I think we made a mistake,' says David Hacham, who worked in Gaza in the late 1980s and early '90s as an Arab-affairs expert in the Israeli military. 'But at the time nobody thought about the possible results.' Israeli officials who served in Gaza disagree on how much their own actions may have contributed to the rise of Hamas. They blame the group's recent ascent on outsiders, primarily Iran. This view is shared by the Israeli government. 'Hamas in Gaza was built by Iran as a foundation for power, and is backed through funding, through training and through the provision of advanced weapons,' Mr. Olmert said last Saturday. Hamas has denied receiving military assistance from Iran.
"Start" of the war
The removed comment admittedly didn't make any very actionable suggestions, but raised somewhat valid concerns with the last "History" sub-sub-section "2023 Israel–Hamas war" and a few other sections. Irtapil (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Occupation
Quite interesting how the entire movement bases its legitimacy on fighting the occupation, but the word was never mentioned once in lede; now it has after my edit, and more should be elaborated on when they were formed during occupation, their grievances with the occupation, etc..; as the body already mentions some of these topics. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2023
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are a few grammar mistakes 2601:280:C400:30C0:FCD0:35DC:3DCA:4A0A (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- You'll need to be specific. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Russia supports Hamas
Russia (partly) supports Hamas. Add Russia to the list. 1 2 3 46.104.6.215 (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not done, support is not the same thing as being an ally. Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Lede 2
@Dovidroth: Did you just turn the lede into 7 long paragraphs, claimed there is a consensus for it here, and called it constructive? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I made a mistake, it should be better now. Dovidroth (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Dovidroth: You still indiscriminately reverted all of my edits. What are the ones you disagree with? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- My intention was to revert another mass-revert and things got out of hand. I will go over and redo your edits later, or you can do them meanwhile. Dovidroth (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Dovidroth: You still indiscriminately reverted all of my edits. What are the ones you disagree with? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Dovidroth: you seem to have made major changes to the lead. There was some discussion at Talk:Hamas#Edit_warring on making changes to how to present Hamas' position on 1967 borders and antisemitism, but your changes were not what is proposed, and in any case there wasn't yet consensus to the proposed changes either. There appears to be absolutely no consensus for your edits. Please self-revert.VR talk 18:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
State oponents
Jordan and Egypt banning/clamping down on activities in their respective countries does not mean they are state opponents; a more explicit source is needed like the one for the UAE which states that it is hostile to Hamas. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2023
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
147.235.210.133 (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Please change that Hamas has become a terorr organization after 7th October 2023 after the massacre involved and after holding over 240 hostages including children women and men and don't allow the red cross to enter visit the hostages and do their job.
Not done This has been discussed before. This article already notes which nations consider Hamas to be a terror group- not all nations do(Turkey explicitly does not). To call them a terror group in Misplaced Pages's voice, the preponderance of reliable sources must call them this- that seems unlikely to occur. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Lead 3
Dovidroth recently edit-warred in some content into the lead. There was an ongoing discussion on what content to have relating to Hamas's various political positions at Talk:Hamas#Edit_warring. But the content Dovidroth added was never proposed before. Per WP:ONUS, you need consensus to include content. Keep in mind that we do indeed have consensus that "Hamas accepts the 1967 borders, and the 1967 borders are seen as consistent with a "two-state solution" should be in the lead. (See Talk:Hamas/Archive_23#RFC:_Should_Hamas_be_described_as_accepting_the_1967_Israeli_borders_in_the_lead?) But how should Hamas's past antisemitism should be included in the lead is subject to discussion before inclusion. I think further discussion on the exact wording should keep happening at Talk:Hamas#Edit_warring, and we should keep the consensus version for now until its clear consensus changes.VR talk 15:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- The RfC option that got the most votes was "Hamas is predominately described as accepting the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders, post 2017. Early viewpoints are significantly trimmed from the article." Now there is only one sentence in the lede on the pre-2017 views, which is in line with the RfC outcome. Alaexis¿question? 23:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Couple of things. First, the early points are given a lot of weight currently in the lead even though, as you said above, the option that got most votes called for them to "significantly trimmed from the article". Second, later discussion, showed that there was consensus for including "the 1967 borders are seen as consistent with a "two-state solution" (unless you disagree with the closure, in which case we would take this to WP:AN or start a new RfC). But the current lead, which was edit-warred in, clearly has no consensus, as discussion here and in Talk:Hamas#Edit_warring shows.VR talk 00:45, 15 December 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)
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)
- i agree. Tal Galili (talk) 17:11, 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.VR talk 16:01, 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)
- 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 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, andwhich 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. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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, 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.VR talk 11:32, 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)
- Given that Nableezy has reverted to the last stable version, 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)
RfC: 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)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
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: Accused of furthering the growth of Hamas, Netanyahu denies. More sources on matter, , "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)
- 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 as such. 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)
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, 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 promotes Palestinian nationalism in an Islamic context.
| 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. 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)
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)
- 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)
- @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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You have not discussed either question before bringing them to RfC. VR talk 14:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I have. Is there still a problem ? Marokwitz (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Marokwitz; Did you read WP:RFCBEFORE? --Mhhossein 12:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- High-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- Low-importance Islam-related articles
- B-Class Sunni Islam articles
- Unknown-importance Sunni Islam articles
- Sunni Islam task force articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- B-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- B-Class organization articles
- High-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class political party articles
- Mid-importance political party articles
- Political parties task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Unassessed Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- Unassessed Terrorism articles
- High-importance Terrorism articles
- Terrorism task force articles
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
- Misplaced Pages extended-confirmed-protected edit requests
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment