Talk:2017 Hamas charter: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:21, 12 October 2024 editRaskolnikov.Rev (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,441 edits →also referred to as the new or revised Hamas charter: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:26, 13 October 2024 edit undoXDanielx (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,280 edits →also referred to as the new or revised Hamas charter: ReplyTag: Reply Next edit →
Line 124:		Line 124:
	:::::::In fact it is so often referred to as a new charter that it is ], hence why the page is named that. If you and @] want to argue otherwise and contest its usage as such, then it's not only about adding "some" to the first sentence, it's about an RM, as @] noted.		:::::::In fact it is so often referred to as a new charter that it is ], hence why the page is named that. If you and @] want to argue otherwise and contest its usage as such, then it's not only about adding "some" to the first sentence, it's about an RM, as @] noted.
	:::::::If you want to go ahead with that, good luck. I oppose it for reasons mentioned. ] (]) 23:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)		:::::::If you want to go ahead with that, good luck. I oppose it for reasons mentioned. ] (]) 23:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::It seems like you haven't fully grasped some of our policies:
			::::::::* ] - we give very little weight to them. Typically they're not even written by the author, but an editor with less context.
			::::::::* ] - a dissertation by a (now) PhD holder in the field is a reliable source, regardless of where it's published. It also seems farfetched to call a dissertation a "obscure fringe source" for being published in IGI Global, when traditional journals don't accept dissertations due to length etc. You also seem to be misreading Beall's List, which calls IGI Global vanity press but not predatory (not that it would be relevant anyway).
			::::::::* ] tells us to {{tq\|represent ''all'' significant viewpoints}}, which means that if two articles disagree (whether or not they're under the same publication), we normally represent both, unless one can be shown to be ''insignificant'' which is a high bar.
			::::::::The fact remains that the aforementioned dissertation is the ''only'' source we have where a subject matter expert discusses this exact semantic question in depth. Merely using a word in passing isn't exactly an argument that that label fits precisely and isn't subtly wrong. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 00:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:26, 13 October 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palestine

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force

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:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

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.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

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.

Ongoing discussion regarding this article at Talk:Hamas Charter#New article for 2017 charter

There is an open discussion regarding this article ongoing at Talk:Hamas Charter#New article for 2017 charter. Feel free to join. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

On "Repudiating the 1988 charter"

Meshal very clearly and explicitly states in response to a direct question about whether or not the new document is intended to replace the old one that this document is meant to serve as the new guiding principle for the party, and calls out the old document as a "product of its time," then notes that "we live in a different world today." Pretending that this statement is in any way ambiguous regarding the intent of the new document and its relationship to the old one is disingenuous, ahistorical, and revising my sourced edit to return the prior disingenuous language while leaving the source I've provided that contradicts this language regarding "not repudiating" the old document is inexplicable. Stating that it was a product of its time but irrelevant today IS a repudiation of it for today. If this is insufficient for you, Marzouk has been "repudiating" it since 2007, in his article in the LA Times titled "Hamas' Stand." --Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you are not allowed to edit articles until you are extended confirmed (see your talk page). You are allowed only to make edit requests on the talk page.

However, @Jayen466:, I am a bit confused by your edit, the source does not seem to support "Hamas fell short of repudiating the original"? Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, Deadlyhandsomeman: The source is cited in the body. It's Brenner, pp. 205 and 206. Other scholars comment on the lack of explicit revocation as well. Would you like me to look them up? Andreas JN 466 13:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, the misleading ref has been removed, that was what was bothering me. Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "misleading ref," it's literally the words of the person who was most responsible for the re-write. Brenner, the person he's citing, even wrote an op-ed in Haaretz saying the following:

"After several years of internal deliberations, hundreds of thousands of Hamas members have agreed on substantial revisions to their organisation’s 30-year-old founding document. The new text excludes anti-Semitic language and embraces a Palestinian state on pre-1967 lines. For Hamas, this amounts to nothing less than a departure from its original goals and a compromise with its thus far rejectionist ideology ... these changes are now a fait accompli, inked into its key ideological document." It's on his own website.

Paola Caridi also makes these points in her 2023 revision of Hamas: From Resistance to Regime. Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It misled me, because it didn't support the sentence, but Jayen has cleared that up. As I said below, if there are independent reliable sources saying repudiated or similar we can look at those. Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Off topic discussion with non EC editor
::::::You understand why your proposition makes little sense, right? The only people who could repudiate the original charter are not "independent" sources, but the people who are responsible for the repudiation. A repudiation can't be an external observation, it must necessarily be by the people who are called on to repudiate it. In what reality is the leader of the organization at the time -- prior to Haniyeh's takeover, which is why they pushed to get the document out when they did -- saying "the old document was a product of its time and no longer relevant today" not a "repudiation" of that document? Regardless, I have linked you above the exact same author that Andreas is citing explicitly saying that it's a "departure from its original goals and a compromise of its ideology," and "changes inked into its key ideological document." Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC) I don't want to engage in discussion with you over this because you are not allowed to do anything other than make edit requests. However, Hamas or their representatives can be cited as saying (it's called attribution) that it was repudiated. But to say something as a fact in WP voice (no attribution), we need independent reliable sources confirming that it was so. Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC) You can become your own independent reliable source by reading the interview where he repudiates it and writing about it in a book, I suppose. So can anyone who writes a book and cites that exact same interview. However, if you'd like a book to point at, you can read Paola Caridi's "Hamas: From Resistance to Regime," page 116-117, wherein she writes: "According to Tamimi, this assessment is shared by Khaled Mashal, who has reportedly said that the Charter was written 'by mistake' -- a recognition made in private conversations by the leadership itself, albeit not in public. There are those who maintain that no one within Hamas can recall the Charter, nor cite from memory its main points, and that it is better known to the movement's opponents than its own members." And on page 380-385: "Indeed, the document represents a significant change in the movement's discourse, compared to the 1988 foundational charter. ... Far from being quantitative and philological exercise, attention to the kind of words used in the document and approved by the whole movement through a long-lasting internal debate is necessary to understand the differences from the 1988 Charter, dictated by the urgency of the contingent movement. Moreover, attention to specific language is necessary for comprehending the evolution of Hamas over thirty years. ... If such assumptions are founded on principles for Hamas, where is the difference in the 1988 Charter? It is a strategic distinction in pursuit of Palestinian national consensus, as explained in Article 20. ... The document in its entirety represents a fundamental breakthrough for Hamas, mainly because it shifts the axis of discourse on a platform involving international responsibility on the Israel-Palestine issue. ...This is Meshal's imprint on the recent history of Hamas, which delivers to his successor, Haniyeh, a new charter that is the result of an internal consensus not at all taken for granted, judging by the contrasts between the constituencies in more recent years." Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC) The first paragraph, attributes Khaled Mashal. The second does not say anywhere "repudiates" or anything like that, instead it uses language like "a significant change in the movement's discourse", " shifts the axis of discourse on a platform involving international responsibility on the Israel-Palestine issue". I would agree with that because I added this material to the Hamas article the other day. If you do not want to make an edit request, that's fine, perhaps another editor will edit something on your behalf. Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC) I'll, again, point out that an "independent source" cannot REPUDIATE anything, it must necessarily cite someone REPUDIATING it, hence me citing Meshal's interview doing so. I'm not sure what the communication gap is here, but a third party cannot repudiate something on behalf of someone else. Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC) The communication gap is that you do not understand WP policies because you are a new editor. That is the reason we have rules governing contentious topic areas like this. And now I am done talking with you. Ttfn. Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC) Editing policies are not related to your complaint about "repudiation," so instead of deflecting, can you answer the question about why you're insisting on an "independent source" to prove "repudiation" rather than an interview with the person who would be responsible for the repudiation itself? Be as specific as possible, because your request makes zero sense. Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Off topic discussion with non EC editor

::::::You understand why your proposition makes little sense, right?

The only people who could repudiate the original charter are not "independent" sources, but the people who are responsible for the repudiation. A repudiation can't be an external observation, it must necessarily be by the people who are called on to repudiate it. In what reality is the leader of the organization at the time -- prior to Haniyeh's takeover, which is why they pushed to get the document out when they did -- saying "the old document was a product of its time and no longer relevant today" not a "repudiation" of that document?

Regardless, I have linked you above the exact same author that Andreas is citing explicitly saying that it's a "departure from its original goals and a compromise of its ideology," and "changes inked into its key ideological document." Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in discussion with you over this because you are not allowed to do anything other than make edit requests. However, Hamas or their representatives can be cited as saying (it's called attribution) that it was repudiated. But to say something as a fact in WP voice (no attribution), we need independent reliable sources confirming that it was so. Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You can become your own independent reliable source by reading the interview where he repudiates it and writing about it in a book, I suppose.

So can anyone who writes a book and cites that exact same interview.

However, if you'd like a book to point at, you can read Paola Caridi's "Hamas: From Resistance to Regime," page 116-117, wherein she writes:

"According to Tamimi, this assessment is shared by Khaled Mashal, who has reportedly said that the Charter was written 'by mistake' -- a recognition made in private conversations by the leadership itself, albeit not in public. There are those who maintain that no one within Hamas can recall the Charter, nor cite from memory its main points, and that it is better known to the movement's opponents than its own members."

And on page 380-385:

"Indeed, the document represents a significant change in the movement's discourse, compared to the 1988 foundational charter. ... Far from being quantitative and philological exercise, attention to the kind of words used in the document and approved by the whole movement through a long-lasting internal debate is necessary to understand the differences from the 1988 Charter, dictated by the urgency of the contingent movement. Moreover, attention to specific language is necessary for comprehending the evolution of Hamas over thirty years. ... If such assumptions are founded on principles for Hamas, where is the difference in the 1988 Charter? It is a strategic distinction in pursuit of Palestinian national consensus, as explained in Article 20. ... The document in its entirety represents a fundamental breakthrough for Hamas, mainly because it shifts the axis of discourse on a platform involving international responsibility on the Israel-Palestine issue. ...This is Meshal's imprint on the recent history of Hamas, which delivers to his successor, Haniyeh, a new charter that is the result of an internal consensus not at all taken for granted, judging by the contrasts between the constituencies in more recent years." Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph, attributes Khaled Mashal.

The second does not say anywhere "repudiates" or anything like that, instead it uses language like "a significant change in the movement's discourse", " shifts the axis of discourse on a platform involving international responsibility on the Israel-Palestine issue". I would agree with that because I added this material to the Hamas article the other day.

If you do not want to make an edit request, that's fine, perhaps another editor will edit something on your behalf. Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll, again, point out that an "independent source" cannot REPUDIATE anything, it must necessarily cite someone REPUDIATING it, hence me citing Meshal's interview doing so.

I'm not sure what the communication gap is here, but a third party cannot repudiate something on behalf of someone else. Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The communication gap is that you do not understand WP policies because you are a new editor. That is the reason we have rules governing contentious topic areas like this. And now I am done talking with you. Ttfn. Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Editing policies are not related to your complaint about "repudiation," so instead of deflecting, can you answer the question about why you're insisting on an "independent source" to prove "repudiation" rather than an interview with the person who would be responsible for the repudiation itself? Be as specific as possible, because your request makes zero sense. Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you make a WP:EDITREQuest, properly citing the source(s) supporting the request. Selfstudier (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the LA Times article. Hadn't seen that before. Andreas JN 466 13:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Deadlyhandsomeman: If there are independent reliable sources that say "repudiation" or similar, we can look at those. Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

1967 borders

I want to leave a link here to an RfC at Talk:Hamas where there was a discussion of whether or not Hamas accepted the 1967 borders and about a dozen scholarly sources that say Hamas had. A longer list of scholarly sources that say Hamas had accepted the 1967 borders is at Talk:Hamas/Archive_25#17scholarlysources.

There are also sources that explain why Hamas doesn't recognize Israel even though it accepts the 1967 borders, which obviously implies another country on the other side of those borders. I'll add that soon.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thematic organization

@Jayen466: excellent job in creating this article!

I wanted to propose organize the contents of the charter thematically as opposed to by paragraph. So the contents section would contain subheadings like "1967 borders", "Antisemitism", "Armed struggle" etc. I think that will be easier to navigate and more useful to the reader than headings like "Preamble", "Paragraphs 1-42" etc. What do you think? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Vice regent! I agree about the organization ... I always meant to change it eventually but never got round to it. So have at it! Best, Andreas JN 466 18:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Palestinians returning to homes in Israel

The page mentions that in a hypothetical two state solution, it’s an obvious logical inconsistency to advocate for Palestinians to return to their homes in Israel without a source. ConlanO (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair and true presentation of this (new) charter

Hamas in their 2017 ‘charter’ didn’t just advocate or allow for such a Pal. state in ‘1967-borders’ (as our lead section correctly stated) but also still strove (and “struggled”) to “liberate” all (mandatory) “Palestine” from "the Zionist entity". This may seem or sound like a very difficult (for some perhaps even insolvable) puzzle; but that is for the reader to decide; it is not up to us, to make that puzzle seem simpler by leaving (the hardest and most controversial?) part out of our presentation of it. We then shouldn’t depict or suggest the Hamas’s new charter here as to be more simple, harmless and constructive (and practical and workable) than it really is. Such a more (fair and) true presentation of that charter does, however, not contradict or forbid the fact that we perhaps at the same time also feel pity for the civilian population of the Gaza Strip (and West Bank) who are suffering great distress, misery, hardship (since decades and perhaps even more severely since October 2023). --Corriebertus (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Fair and true"? We go by the sources, whether or not they are fair and true is for the reader to decide. I see no sources in the above comment, however. Selfstudier (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Misleading title: not a new charter

I believe the Hamas ("Principles..." etc. vs "Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement") and Benny Morris on that. The Covenant remains the covenant, and the Principles are A) something else - and a lesser something, and B) people might argue with this, but the Principles are dust in the eyes of the West & taqiyya: tell them what they need to hear to support you, until you win. Because the Koran remains the Koran, and the Muslim Brotherhood remains loyal to Koran & Brotherhood teachings.

Good night, sleep tight. Arminden (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

On limiting itself to Palestine: A.) In general, the work is split between the Iran proxies, where the Quds Force & Hizbollah do the overseas work (see Argentina, Bulgaria etc.), but B.) Hasmas also got the taste of it. Here the Haaretz article (not much of a Netanyahu mouthpiece), and if you're not willing to pay, then here at The Times of Israel, not an... etc. either, but more towards the Zionist centre. Quoting Danish police ("terror" attack), not famous for being a Zionist stooge. Not good enough? What about the BBC? Arminden (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hamas is a creature of Israel, invented by them, nurtured by them and any consequences are just deserts. Israel/Netanyahu did it to keep Palestinians divided and now we see the results, along with Israeli true colors. If you want to change the title, as opposed to just ranting about it, there's a thing called an RM, you're welcome (don't forget the sources). Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

also referred to as the new or revised Hamas charter

This makes it sound like everyone accepts that this is a new charter. This is obviously not the case, I've provided a source that doesn't describe it as a charter and says that it's seen "by some" as a charter. Alaexis_¿question? 08:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the "some" part, needs more than just a single ref for that. Selfstudier (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's tally the sources currently in the article

Slater: explicitly calls it a new charter
Dunning: explicitly calls it a new charter
Ayoob: explicitly calls it a new charter
Schulz: explicitly calls it a new charter
Hroub: this document "can be considered a new charter"
Musgrave: "which was seen by some to be a new Charter"
Seurat: calls it a document
Milton-Edwards: calls it a new document
Spoerl: calls it "2017 “Document”"
Bartal: calls it “A Document of General Principles and Policies"
Levitt & Rich: calls it a "new statement"

Media articles

Abu Saada: doesn't call it a new charter
Dunning: explicitly calls it a new charter

This is what we have in the Reception section, I'm not including politicians from both sides, non-scholars and the Israeli think tank. The sources in the "Assessments..." subsection are mostly media outlets and think-tanks so they have less weight.

Given this distribution, I think it's clear that while some sources do call it a charter, this is not a universally accepted name. Musgrave and Hroub are correct in saying that it's sometimes considered a new charter, and this is what we should say here. Alaexis_¿question? 21:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

We have clear high quality RS that explicitly refers to it as a new charter. The fact that other terms are also used for it like "document" or "statement" elsewhere does not undermine that fact. Unless you can find non-fringe RS of equal weight and prominence that explicitly say it is not a charter and those RS who refer to it as such are wrong to do so, we should not artificially add any ambiguity here, as again it is not reflected by cited high quality RS.

Also, stop adding highly contentious lines into long-standing consensus pages that without seeking consensus first. You clearly did not establish consensus for it and yet you still keep adding it after other editors reverted it. This violates WIKI:EDITWARRING. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Your demand for "RS of equal weight and prominence" isn't appropriate, WP:WIKIVOICE has no such standard. Our policy is simply to not use wikivoice for opinions or interpretations.

We don't need a source explicitly saying "this is not a charter" to see that it's an opinion or interpretation; the sources Alaexis mentioned already make that quite clear. — xDanielx /_C\ 17:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

If an article designates a name as a bolded aka, then it is perfectly OK to use that aka (wikilinked) until such time as it is no longer a bolded aka, for which an RM is needed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx Fortunately it's not a mere opinion or interpretation, it's how high quality RS "also refers to it as", per the sentence and cited sources.

We don't add ambiguity where there is no reason to do so, which would be the case if there are non-fringe high quality RS explicitly disputing its designation as such. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the sources Alaexis mentioned are somehow fringe? How so?

Here's another, Haaretz: Hamas isn’t renouncing ; nor is the new document called a “charter.” Do you think Haaretz is fringe also?

Here's one more: Hamas in Power (Qossay Hamed): In Arabic, similar to English, there exists a semantic difference between Wathiqa (Document) and Methaq (Charter). In the context of Hamas, called the new literature a ‘Document’ has a significance. Ahmad Al-Betawi and Adnan Asfour explain that Hamas has never declared that the New Document is an alternative, amendment, or replacement of the Charter. Hamas’ Charter of 1988 is a long-term eternal covenant and promise that accounts for the movement’s moral and honorary commitment toward Palestine..

The latter is from a book which discusses this particular semantic distinction in depth, which carries a lot more weight than sources which simply use one or the other term in passing, with no indication that the author thought through the semantic distinction. — xDanielx /_C\ 21:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, stop making edits to long-standing text that are being discussed in talk for which there is clearly no consensus. Both you and @Alaexis are edit warring, and you have a habit of doing that. If you continue with this behavior, I will bring it up in arbitration. And I will revert your latest malicious edit, you have to obtain consensus for it here first.

The majority of the sources on the page noted by @Alaexis explicitly call it a charter, and none of them say that it should not be called a charter. In fact, some of them explicitly call it a charter themselves in other texts:

Milton-Edwards: As Hamas leaders now set about revising the charter, they’ve set aside the exhortation to jihad against Israel. And the new charter emphasizes leaders’ long-held willingness to move from maximalist positions. The revised charter, for example, offers the possibility of Hamas accepting political solutions to achieving Palestinian statehood in the territory of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. In short, this could be Hamas’ two-state solution moment.

Also, of those who don't call it a charter, Spoerl, Bartal and Levitt & Rich aren't subject-area experts. And @Alaexis is wrong about the Abu Saada Al Jazeera piece not calling it a charter, it explicitly does under the name of their senior political analyst Marwan Bishara: He said their philosophy and the philosophy behind writing a new charter is that “we are going to be a dynamic and open organisation”.

Regarding the Haaretz piece, do you think people will not bother to click on the links you provide? The title of that Haaretz piece calls it a "new charter": Why Hamas' New Charter Is Aimed at Palestinians, Not Israelis, and there are also links to other Haaretz articles on the same page explicitly referring to it as a charter:

Hamas Presents New Charter Supporting Palestinian State Along 1967 Borders: After some initial delays, Hamas presented its new charter on Monday.

House Foreign Affairs Head Dismisses Hamas's New Charter as 'Rebranding Effort'

Moreover, Hass concludes: But the Hamas charter is no longer the organization’s official ideological platform. Do you agree with this conclusion? Because I recall you arguing against that.

So I suppose you believe Haaretz is fringe when it disagrees with you, but a highly credible reliable source when you can nitpick it through a quick Google search.

Regarding the other source, that's from a PhD dissertation, not granted at a reputable institution, that was published through "IGI Global", a vampire publisher that has no editorial standards and is a PhD publishing mill, listed as a Vanity Press (meaning pay to publish) on Beall's List of predatory publishers. The fact that you had to resort to this obscure fringe source that you found through a Google search, and decided to ignore the rampant grammatical errors strewn throughout, shows I think what is actually happening here.

And though it shouldn't even be entertained; it merely explains the distinction between the terms, and doesn't say that it is not also referred to as a charter, which it plainly is by high quality RS, or that it shouldn't be.

Again, there are countless high quality RS that confirm (along with your precious Haaretz) the current lede description, namely that it is "also referred to as a new Hamas charter."

In fact it is so often referred to as a new charter that it is WP:COMMONNAME, hence why the page is named that. If you and @Alaexis want to argue otherwise and contest its usage as such, then it's not only about adding "some" to the first sentence, it's about an RM, as @Selfstudier noted.

If you want to go ahead with that, good luck. I oppose it for reasons mentioned. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you haven't fully grasped some of our policies:

WP:HEADLINES - we give very little weight to them. Typically they're not even written by the author, but an editor with less context.
WP:EXPERTSPS - a dissertation by a (now) PhD holder in the field is a reliable source, regardless of where it's published. It also seems farfetched to call a dissertation a "obscure fringe source" for being published in IGI Global, when traditional journals don't accept dissertations due to length etc. You also seem to be misreading Beall's List, which calls IGI Global vanity press but not predatory (not that it would be relevant anyway).
WP:NPOV tells us to represent all significant viewpoints, which means that if two articles disagree (whether or not they're under the same publication), we normally represent both, unless one can be shown to be insignificant which is a high bar.

The fact remains that the aforementioned dissertation is the only source we have where a subject matter expert discusses this exact semantic question in depth. Merely using a word in passing isn't exactly an argument that that label fits precisely and isn't subtly wrong. — xDanielx /_C\ 00:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: