Talk:Hamas/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Funding Section

First of all there is no consensus that 972 mag is reliable source is far-left opinion blog site and cannot be use for such WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG claims if such analysis would be WP:DUE it would appear in more reputable news sites.I also remind that WP:ONUS is on those who want to add the material and it doesn't exist --Shrike (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

(1) The funding section does not cite +972 Magazine.

(2) 972 Magazine is webzine, not an "opinion blog." Its articles are written by established, experienced Israeli journalists.

(3) I am going to continue to assume GF for Shrike despite Shrike's sloppy accusations and subjective assessment of sources.--NYCJosh (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

What sources support the WP:UNDUE section that you added about right wing support? If there were so established like you claim there would be printed in regular news outlets but because their views are fringe there are not and hence they are WP:UNDUE. --Shrike (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Have a look at the FNs in that section: A Jerusalem Post article describes the right wing Israeli govt's support by funneling millions of dollars every year to Hamas and PM Netanyahu's reason for this. The 972 Magazine source outlines the support by other leading right wing Israelis and their reasons. Statements of these right wing Israeli leaders are also documented separately by additional footnotes (with English translations of relevant portions where necessary in parantheses).--NYCJosh (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

+972 is a collection of blogs. Regardless - we shouldn't be basing sections off of twitter and blogs. Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The JP source is probably OK but it doesn't speak about right wing support of Hamas but about money transfer mechanisms instead from PA through Israeli government if you want to add a neutral section about that I can agree to that but please present it in talk first so the community can assess it . --Shrike (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, 972 Magazine is not a "collection of blogs." As I wrote, it's a publication of experienced Israeli journalists. I added those additional sources to corroborate the fact that Israeli right wing leaders hold views that the 972 Magazine source says they do.

Shrike, The Jerusalem Post also supports this: “whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for” transferring money to Hamas, said right wing PM Bibi Netanyahu. No sources have been offered to dispute the fact that many on the Israeli right, including right wing PM Netanyahu, hold the view that keeping Hamas in power in Gaza is important for the Israeli objective of preventing Palestinian reunification.

Here is another RS that explains the Israeli right's need for Hamas:

"For the Israeli right, then, Hamas in Gaza is convenient proof of Palestinian disunity and untrustworthiness, and support for its claim that Palestinian independence means more Hamas victories—including missiles coming from the West Bank, too....if increased Hamas violence can be made to seem unavoidable, then Israel’s annexation of the West Bank can be presented as inexorable." The New Yorker, 9 May 2019 "What Netanyahu and Hamas Are Really Fighting for in Gaza" https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-netanyahu-and-hamas-are-really-fighting-for-in-gaza --NYCJosh (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Jpost source doesn't say "right wing PM Netanyahu". We should say exactly what sources say and not add anything.The newyorker piece is opinion piece and can't be used to state unattributed fact in wiki voice.--Shrike (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment SYNTH + use of unreliable sources 7 July 2019

This blanket revert is the umpteenth example of Icewhiz's use of false edit summaries to do something else, in this case, remove both the +972 magazine source (which as he should know is a translation of Meron Rapaport's article at the Israeli website Local Call, and (b) takes out the Jerusalem Post as an 'unreliable source', a unique assertion on Wikipedia since all editors, right, left and centre have accepted it as RS. Icewhiz knows the JP is RS, and yet removed it with an edit summary implicitly arguing it is not RS, pretending he was just removing refs to Twitter (which were in the source NYJosh added) . Disgraceful.

NYJosh's citation of the New Yorker piece by (Bernard Avishai, 'What Netanyahu and Hamas Are Really Fighting for in Gaza,' New Yorker May 9, 2019) likewise, validates the point he is making. Please drop the the ethnonationalist censoring. And Shrike, since you are again making an unfocused observation ('unattributed fact in wiki voice'), please note, in your own words, all that is needed os to add was, 'according to Bernard Avishai.' Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Shrike, First, PM Netanyahu is a right wing prime minister, leader of the right wing Likud faction, intellectual descendant of right wing Revisionist Zionism patron saint Jabotinsky. Second, as I have documented in a number sources, other right wing leaders agree with him. No sources disputing these things has been offered. So this should be a no brainer.

Icewhiz, I didn't come up with the thesis Israeli right wingers support Hamas. Several different journalists did. So no SYNTH. I have already addressed the RS issue.

The objections are meritless and I am losing patience with people repeating the same objections to which I have already responded.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

No further objection has been received from editors so I will restore the right wing Israeli support section.--NYCJosh (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Just following up on Nishidani's comment about Meron Rappaport, he used to be a staff journalist on Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's largest (by sales and circulation) daily newspaper.--NYCJosh (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus that this collection of blogs, tweets, and opinion pieces is even remotely sufficient sourcing for such a dedicated section on "Israeli right wing support." Editors should seek consensus before restoring this disputed text to the article, in whole or in part.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, read more closely. Neither the New Yorker, the Jerusalem Post nor +972 magazine are blogs, the material content is well known, and consensus demands rational, evidenced objections, not mere assertions of dislike.Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Opinion pieces cannot be used for statement of facts and there is no consensus that they WP:DUE.There is clearly no consensus for inclusion.There also WP:BLP issues we need really strong sources that Israeli PM support Hamas --Shrike (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't keep aimlessly waving policy flags that have no bearing on the topic, Shrike. It's utterly boring. We are all familiar with those policies, and they have nothing to do with the edit proposed. The material NYJosh is introducing is a well-documented part of the Israeli Rightsd strategy and not limited to those sources (one can cite twitter draw directly on +972 magazine's use of them). Every objecting editor here reads Israeli newspapers and knows the material introduced is discussed there. The objection is to the English sources reflecting those local analyses.

One could add a more rounded account by adding from the following RS:

• Karin Laub, Fares Akram, Hamas tightens grip on Gaza, fails to break Israel blockade AP News 1 April 2019

The militants’ rule has been strengthened by an unlikely overlap of interests with Israel’s right-wing government. Neither wants to see an independent state established in all the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, as the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And Hamas’ refusal to give up power — the asking price of its West Bank-based Palestinian rival for reconciliation — aligns with Israel’s long-standing policy of maintaining a separation between the West Bank and Gaza. Last month, Netanyahu was quoted as saying that those who oppose Palestinian statehood should back his policy of allowing Qatari aid into Gaza and maintaining the separation between the rival Palestinian governments. “There is a great confluence of interests” between Israel and Hamas, said Tareq Baconi, an analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank. “Netanyahu prefers to deal with Hamas because clear dynamics have been established and Hamas will not seek a final resolution (of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) from Israel.”

• Shlomi Eldar Israel, Qatar interests merge on Gaza,' Al-Monitor 10 May 2019

Israel thus enabled Qatar to transfer millions of dollars to Gaza. At the same time, Israel decided to deduct stipends paid to Palestinian prisoners in Israel from the Palestinian tax revenues collected by the Israeli authorities. Abbas was surprised by how the Israelis held the gates to Gaza open to Qatar with one hand, while they strangled his own PA with the other. His decision to refuse to accept the tax money that rightfully belonged to the PA brought the West Bank to the verge of bankruptcy. Now, the “angels of Gaza” (Qatar) are willing to help the PA that he heads as well. A Palestinian official who spoke with Haaretz claimed that an aid package so big that its political implications would include preventing the PA from collapsing could not have happened without a green light from the White House. At the very least, the White House would have had to turn a blind eye to it. He was not wrong either.

• Akiva Eldar, Netanyahu’s separation policy feeds Hamas violence Al-Monitor 7 May, 2019

On several occasions, Israel has authorized Qatari transfers of financial aid to Gaza. On May 7, Qatar announced that it would transfer more monetary aid both to Gaza and to the West Bank.Israel has been using Qatar to fund the Hamas regime in Gaza even while the regime is attacking Israeli localities in the south, killing Israeli citizens and openly conspiring against a diplomatic arrangement. The same Israeli government is attacking the Palestinian Authority, whose leaders support a diplomatic arrangement, by withholding taxes paid by the residents of the occupied territories and collected by Israel. In fact, Israel passed a law last year to deduct from the PA tax revenues compensatory payments the PA makes to families of Palestinian assailants.While Israel is engaging in contacts with Hamas, an organization that plans and initiates suicide attacks in the West Bank and Jerusalem, to bring about a cease-fire, the Israeli government is robbing members of the Palestinian security forces, who are preventing terrorist attacks in the center of the country, of their salaries.In an April 18 interview with Makor Rishon, the prime minister’s personal adviser Yonatan Orich admitted that security issues have been used as a cover for political ploys. The adviser, whom the article described as one of the people closest to the prime minister, defined the separation of Gaza from the West Bank as a central element of the Netanyahu legacy. "Shattering the vision of a Palestinian state in these two regions [and] … imposing sovereignty over the settlements is the natural outcome of the status quo and its expansion,” he said. Orich did not hide that freezing Palestinian tax revenues over funds destined for the families of prisoners serves the purpose of shattering the vision of a Palestinian state.

The Israeli use of Hamas is no different from what was done when Israel effectively backed the establishment of Hamas to disrupt the PLO. We document the facts of the latter, and this most recent initiative, well reported by specialists, must also go in. No argument above has anything in it other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

To address the objections again:

1. SYNTH and OR--I didn't come up with the notion of Israeli right wing support. The pieces I cited did.

2. WP: BLM--The positions of the right wing Israeli individuals, incl. PM Netanyahu, are discussed in the sources I provided. For example, Netanyahu said “whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for” transferring money to Hamas. In addition I included footnotes with specific statements by these men showing the same ideas. There is no allegation that Bibi didn't say this.

3. Opinion pieces--I am not relying on one opinion piece but a whole bunch written by journalists with years of experience on the Israeli-Palestinian beat that state essentially the same thing. Nishidani added additional ones to remove all doubt. If there is a RS refuting this please let me know. Just using the Bibi quote above as an example, no one doubts that Bibi is a leading right wing Israeli, or that he said what is attributed to him, or that his right wing Israeli govt has funneled money to Hamas on a regular basis. Those transfers alone constitute substantial financial support that together with the quote are sufficient for the section without any other right wingers. Or to put it another way, if Iran had funneled similar funds on a regular basis to Hezbollah in Lebanon, and made a statement analogous to the Bibi quote about the importance and policy significance of such support, no one could reasonably argue that Iran is not a Hizbollah supporter.--NYCJosh (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Most sources covering this are covering this as the Israeli government allowing Qatari funds to reach Gaza, in light of the dire humanitarian condition in Gaza. A few op-eds (both from the right and the left - some of them in quite off-beat venues - e.g. 972) take the spin that this is "right wing" (or in right-wing sources - "false right wing") support for Hamas - this is far from the prevailing description of this in most sources. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "most" sources. In any event, the Bibi quote above provides a policy reason for the funneling of funds, and it is not a "humanitarian" policy reason. And it's not just +972 that is providing this analysis. --NYCJosh (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And the source[1] says - "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended Israel’s regular allowing of Qatari funds to be transferred into Gaza" .... "The prime minister also said that, “whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for” transferring the funds to Gaza,". Funds to Gaza (from Qatar) - not to Hamas. The source notably also does not contain "right wing" - and in fact discusses opposition to Bibi's policy part of which is also usually seen as right-wing (e.g. Liberman, Bennett).Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

We have several sources, so it is pointless suggesting only the Jerusalem Post reportage is useful. NYJosh is perfectly within his editing rights to outline what the respective gists are of those several articles, which do not add up to some idea Israel did this for 'humanitarian' reasons as opposed to strategic calculations. Funds to Gaza (from Qatar) - not to Hamas. Hilarious!!!!!! So the Qatar government went to Gaza and gave the land, not its governing institutions and banks, the money. Oh, to be a fellahin in the Strip, harvesting not greens but all the 'green stuff' Qatar seeded the soil with. Jeeeezus.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Money is for Hamas. Did you read the healine of the piece to which you linked? "Netanyahu: Money to Hamas part of strategy to keep Palestinians divided" Also from the article you linked: "The Blue and White Party’s platform calls to stop allowing the transfer of funds to Hamas, calling it mafia-style “protection” payments....the payments are a “miserable decision,” marking “the first time Israel is funding terrorism against itself.” Also the Bibi quote and rationale (propping up Hamas so as to keep it separate from the PA) make clear that the funds are going to Hamas. --NYCJosh (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Headlines are clickbait and are generally less reliable than an article's body (across all NEWORGs). Partisan commentary is of little weight. "make clear" == WP:OR.Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you rewrite that comprehensibly, so that editors, rather than being blindsided by fashionable dismissive phrases, know what specific policy you have in mind in objecting to coverage of a widely reported fact?Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Rebuttal of objections was posted and no reply has been received from originally objecting editors for over a month. Have to assume it's safe to repost contribution to the article.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Naught was Rebutted. Find mainstream sources, not opeds, and follow language there please.Icewhiz (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

hamas is a militant group

The sentence in the beginning should change from: "Hamas (Arabic: حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah Islamic Resistance Movement) is a Palestinian Sunni-Islamist fundamentalist organization" to:

"Hamas (Arabic: حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah Islamic Resistance Movement) is a Palestinian Sunni-Islamist fundamentalist militant organization"

It is true that Hamas also engage in social activity but that doesn't mean that they are not militant. They were engage in many attacks against Israeli army and Israel civilians. The description as it is right now is misleading. This is not only social organization and its militant activity is part of the core activity of this organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.23.73 (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree looking at the Irgun,Haganah and Lehi pages that say in first sentence "paramilitary". There is no reason that hamas will receive different treatment --Shrike (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

So go for it. Mention it as paramilitary and that will be equal treatment. but it should be mention.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2019

In the first sentence of section 10.1 Human Shields it says "parties to a conflict may not to place military targets in or near densely populated areas." I believe the it should be corrected to "parties to a conflict may not place military targets in or near densely populated areas." If accepted, please remove the errant second "to." Thank you! 75.13.87.96 (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hamas truce conditions

From the article lead:

"Analysts have said that it seems clear that Hamas knows that many of its conditions for the truce could never be met."

I don't think the given citation is sufficient to say this. It is a single article written by Michael Herzog, a retired brigadier general in the Israel Defense Forces, the son of the former Israeli president.

I cannot edit the article to remove this sentence as it is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormx2 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Stormx2, I have removed it. I also agree with what you said. Per WP:UNDUE.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, you removed the source with the edit summary that the opinion of an Israeli politician was undue. What Stormx2 said above isn’t true. The article isn’t written by Herzog, it was just written with the feedback of Herzog, who is NOT an “Israeli politician”. His expertise was sought both as a military commander, and more especially, as a peace negotiator. The article is actually by Martin Fletcher, the NBC bureau chief for Middle East Affairs. This is a reliable source, and even falls into “expert opinion”. Furthermore, Fletcher isn’t stating anything revolutionary, or outside mainstream analysis. Which is why the article states this. It’s the general consensus of both experts and the international community that Israel would reject these terms, especially for a cease fire, instead of a long term truce... The article is analysis on what terms would have been feasible, and which ones would be untenable, or even infeasible. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! I'll have a look for other analyses of the truce terms if I find time later. Herzog's analysis alone seems insufficient if we're to start a sentence "Analysts have said...". Perhaps if he was dispassionately summing up the views of several other analysts it would work. Stormx2 (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Stormx2, no problem. However, once again, that’s not Herzog’s article. The statement you’re referencing is by Fletcher, in journalistic “voice”. The Q&A section obviously incorporates Herzog’s analysis. But yes, it would be better to have more sources bolster such a statement. I don’t think it’s controversial or reasonably disputed by any mainstream sources, though. My main point in posting my original comment is that there seemed to be a fundamental misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the source. I honestly don’t think there’s any policy-based reason for its removal, in addition to the edit summary removing it being inaccurate, and on those grounds it should probably be reverted. Regardless, I’m not opposed to finding alternate or additional sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Add citation to" He fled to Qatar in 2012 as a result of the Syrian civil war.[citation needed]"

https://time.com/khaled-mashaal/ "Mashaal first moved to Kuwait, where he joined the Muslim Brotherhood at age 15, then earned a physics degree and worked as a teacher. He later moved to Jordan, where he led Hamas’s powerful branch in the country, then to Syria and, in January 2012, fled that country’s civil war for Qatar,"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qatar-hamas-meshaal/hamas-denies-exiled-leader-meshaal-expelled-from-qatar-idUSKBN0KF18Y20150106 "Another Hamas source confirmed that Meshaal was still in Doha and has no plans to leave the Gulf Arab country.

Unicameral nado (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, I've added the source. Darren-M talk 00:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Militant?

Most sources distinguishes between Hamas and it's military wing(s). I.e Hamas itself is not militant. ImTheIP (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The military wing is integral part of Hamas. It is true that Hamas is not only a militant group, but it is also a militant group. so yes, Haamas is a militant organization that carried out many suicide bomb attacks.ArmorredKnight (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

No. Hamas is organized similarly to Batasuna and Sinn Féin was. And it is, as always, the side making the claim (in this case that Hamas is militant) that has to provide sources. ImTheIP (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about the Sinn Féin, but the military wing is integral part of Hamas and as such it is a militant organization. From what I know almost 40% of its budget go to militant activity.

Also there are many sources that says Hamas is militant organization here are some:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hamas "militant Islamic Palestinian nationalist "

https://www.haaretz.com/misc/tags/TAG-hamas-1.5598922 "Hamas is a militant and political Islamist group"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-says-it-arrested-hamas-militant-who-fled-strip-by-sea/2020/07/30/8fe7162c-d273-11ea-826b-cc394d824e35_story.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-13331522 Hamas is the largest of several Palestinian militant Islamist groups.

since the sources are saying that Hamas is a militant group, we can safely put it in the article. After all debate about facts should be decide according the sources. If you have reliable sources that say that Hamas is not militant organization, we can talk about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorredKnight (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

someone should please put back the militant in the article. ImTheIP removed it even thought there are sources that support it is militant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorredKnight (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

A lot of Western reporting on Palestinian organizations as frighteningly incorrect. They have trouble distinguishing between Fatah and PLO, and between PLO and PNA, and between Hamas and its military wings. If Hamas is militant because of its military wings, then so is the State of Israel because of IDF and ANC because of uMkhonto we Sizwe. ImTheIP (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The state of Israel is a country. Almost all countries have an army. Most political organization don't have military wing. Also, you asked for sources and you got your sources. We have more than enough sources that say that Hamas is a militant organization. You can NOT just dismiss the sources because you don't like what they are saying. You are welcome to bring reliable sources that say that Hamas is not a militant organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorredKnight (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"Militant" is a fairly mild description and I would not object to it (terrorist organization is worse) although I understand the point the ImTheIP is making about the separate wings a la IRA/Hizbollah. Anyway IRA political wing is now part of government (as is H) and ultimately, I suspect the same sort of thing will happen with Hamas.Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Almost any militant organization that is large enough have a political wing that directly not involved in terrorist activity(e.g Al-Qaeda and ISIS.Anyhow we go according to what WP:RS say and they describe it as militant --Shrike (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Drop the Al-Qaeda/ISIS idiotic pseudo-analogy. The Haganah was the military wing nof the Yishuv, as the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades became the military wing of Hamas. The Irgun played the bad cop version; though the Yishuv could have rounded its militants up in a week, they kept mum. Hamas began as a social-political party sponsored by Israel that adopted terrorism because, in their view (much like the IRA so admired by the Irgun) they regarded the IDF as a force of state terrorism by an occupying power. To note these things carries no judgment or justification of the choices made by any of these actors. But a neutral perspective will note the analogies, and would be wary of espousing a conflation of the two functions, even though they are connected, just as the Yishuv was connected to the Irgun. As things stand Hamas, like Hezbollah, is a political movement, democratically elected, that has an armed branch, but its activities cannot be reduced to terrorism or militancy. Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hamas was involved in terror activity in very early stage. In any case, we have sources that say that Hamas is a militant organization. That should end the debate.Wikipedia follows what the source are saying.ArmorredKnight (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

by the way, Al-Qaeda/ISIS is actually a better analogy to Hamas as they are more close ideologically. Anyway, we have reliable sources that say that Hamas is a militant organization.ArmorredKnight (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Read the banner. You haven't edited enough articles to contribute here, and your talk page comments about what 'we' must do are pointless. In the meantime, read the article and learn something. Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, I suggest you start to behave. I didn't ask for any advice and I do not appreciate your attitude. While I can not edit the article, I can defiantly contribute to the talk page. My point are not pointless, because I mention how Wikipedia works. You are entitled to your own opinion. You can think whatever you want about Hamas. But the decision about what should be written in the article should be only according to the sources. If we have sources that say that Hamas is militant organization than that end the debate. It should be mentioned in the article. You may not like it. But this is what the sources are saying.ArmorredKnight (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, you should not have deleted the word "militant", we have sources for it, including Britannica encyclopedia. You are doing it against the sources that mention that Hamas is militant organization. Please put back the word "militant", as there are sources that support this claim.ArmorredKnight (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously. This is sourced, this has a clear consensus, ergo, we must have it. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously you did not read the edit I made, where I shifted the adjective, retaining it. So, aside from a desire to consciously break 1R to challenge my return to a page to finish what I did in a major rewrite adding 18& of the content,- no one has made any substantive challenge to that work- what are you doing reverting without reading what you revert? Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? I did, and I noticed. I didn't make my revert because of this issue at all, as you can see from the explanatory edit summary. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Again we are back to the old problem. Understanding elementary logic.

• The redlinked intruder here reproved me for deleting the world 'militant', since he did not read what I wrote, which contains the word militant.
• You concurred with the intruder:'Obviously. This is sourced, this has a clear consensus, ergo, we must have it.

I.e. you did not notice that Armorred Knight hadn't read my edit, did not notice I did not remove the word 'militant', and therefore neither did you read my edit. And when challenged, assert 'I noticed'.

So, in the face of the evidence, you are prevaricating. Look the word up. Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

From what I understand, in Wikipedia, when there is a debate about facts, it is decided according to the sources. There are more than enough sources that say that Hamas is a militant organization.

• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hamas
• https://www.haaretz.com/misc/tags/TAG-hamas-1.5598922 "Hamas is a militant and political Islamist group"*
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-says-it-arrested-hamas-militant-who-fled-strip-by-sea/2020/07/30/8fe7162c-d273-11ea-826b-cc394d824e35_story.html
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-13331522 Hamas is the largest of several Palestinian militant Islamist groups.

The term militant is neutral (unlike terrorist) and descriptive of the activity of the organization. It is an Islamist militant organization. We have sources for it, so it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorredKnight (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that is stopping me from reporting you, Debresser, for this egregious and conscious violation of WP:1R is that, I don't know why, Sandstein withdrew my right to appear there, a right (as plaintiff or whinger I have exercised only twice in 14 years. But you are, nonetheless, obliged to self-revert.Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, why does your user page say "this user is no longer active on Wikipedia." if you are still active in Wikipedia? have you taken control on someone else user page?ArmorredKnight (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I regret starting this discussion. Yes, it is not incorrect to say that Hamas is "militant". However, it is perhaps vacuous? I don't think the sentence "Hamas is a Palestinian Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist[13] militant[14] [15]and nationalist organization." describes what Hamas is very well. ImTheIP (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

people can say that it is incorrect that we live on a ball and that the world is flat. Eventually we need to decide according to the sources. What you say contradict what the sources say. The sources say that Hamas is a militant organization. You are insisting to write Wikipedia against what the sources say and only according to your own opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorredKnight (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

My version is worse and will ruin the page if restored?

While Debresser is still holding out, refusing to restore those parts of my edit which remained expunged, SJ asserts that my version in any case is worse than what now exists through several adjustments, and if restored would 'ruin' the article. That is the usual broad swipe, without evidence. For the record, I wrote:

(Hamas) is a fundamentalist national liberation movement and political party marked by a 'dual resistance strategy' - which has not in the past excluded resort to terrorism - of seeking legitimation through the provision of social services and militant engagement in armed challenges to the Israeli occupation. It has a social service wing, Dawah, and a military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.

The version we have after several editors restored parts of what Debresser expunged.

(Hamas) is . .a fundamentalist militant and nationalist organization. It has a social service wing, Dawah, and a military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.

Shrike who nonetheless is eager to report me for not violating 1R said of the merits of my version:'I actually think your edit is a good one'

So Debresser's revert is still largely operative on the article, and that is why he must restore those parts which remain excised.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I could also give several textual reasons for why I made the adjustment. 'Nationalist' for example is misleading since, if editors are familiar with the literature, they would know that Hamas is opposed ideologically to nationalism (Jewish, Palestinian or otherwise, as opposed to a liberation of the land typical of national liberation movements ), despises it, etc. I would have made this clear had I been allowed to continue.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

agree about Hamas and nationalist. I also think we should remove the "nationalist" from the sentence. This organization is more about religion than about nationalism.

Hamas is much more Islamist movement than it is nationalistic movement. That is the main difference between Hamas and PLO. To mark Hamas as simply nationalist movement and to remove the Islamist part is simply misleading. Hamas is acronym for "Islamic resistance movement", if it were not Islamic, it would not be in its name. Also There are so many sources that support the claim that Hamas is militant, that there is no reason to remove, just because some editors don't like it.ArmorredKnight (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It should be clear from the first sentence that Hamas is an Islamist organization, is militant organization and political organization. All this three should be mentioned. ArmorredKnight (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I never had issue with the whole "militant" thingy, and my revert was technically motivated (and a bit because I dislike introducing footnotes), but since I am here now, I agree that all three need to be mentioned specifically, even if one is more defining than the other, because after all, all three are defining to an extent, and all three are well-sourced. Debresser (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I said that about Selfstudier edit which is a compromise edit and a current version.--Shrike (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Format and templates

Despite what has been described as a regular format, templates for sources here are at least six:-

• ref cite book|author=Wael Abdelal|title=Hamas and the Media: Politics and strategy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ebVTDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT122%7Cdate=10 June 2016|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-1-317-26714-0|pages=122–ref
• refSujata Ashwarya Cheema, "Hamas and Politics in Palestine:Impact on Peace-Building", in Rajendra Madhukar Abhyankar (ed.), https://books.google.com/books?id=YopTyDFI1U4C&pg=PA466 West Asia and the Region: Defining India's Role, Academic Foundation 2008 pp. 463–91 ref
• refDavis 2016 https://books.google.com/books?id=kGWFCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA44 pp. 44–45].ref
• refLevitt, https://archive.org/details/hamaspoliticscha00levi/page/16 p. 23]./ref
• refLevitt, pp. 122–23.ref
• ref Majib p. 107">Najib p. 107.ref

At some point, best practice suggests, we are supposed to put every article into some uniform style. I was going to do this before interrupted. It's a lot of work, and boring (though it means one has to in the meantime check through each reference to ensure that everything is linkable and correctly paginated etc.) This monster has 500+ refs many of them saying what a hundred basic and highly reliable sources state, esp. academic books on Hamas of which there are dozens. So, shall we proceed to clean it up, or what? The template and format I suggest removes a huge amount of padding. Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Last time you edited this page, you have messed up the page and broke the code. Please be careful next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.15.143 (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Ha. That was below the belt. Debresser (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

So? Is there any objection to my using a format of choice, one that enables footnotes, and gets rid of a mass of bulky references such as we have now?Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Apropos garbling text,

Debresser, as I showed on Ed Johnston's page, your edit here has screwed up one section, and made the section I opened invisible to the reader. Another example of your mastery of wiki code. So fix it, because as you edited the page, no one has a clue any more about what the two sections say. Making a whole section requesting discussion invisible, if left invisible, means censuring a request for editors' imput by denying them a chance to note the proposal.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

If you refuse to undo the damage you did by hiding a section requesting input, and mangling another, I will revert it to its previous position, where it becomes visible, and the mutilated section restored. Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Excuse you, but it was you who garbled the text. And please, get over it already. Your thread to continue the edit war is not the way to proceed here. Will alert @EdJohnston: to this. Debresser (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(1)With this edit and its sneer you produced this page, which makes invisible (a) the data following the words ‘here are at least six:-‘ in the 'Format and templates’ section that existed and was visible to readers just before your know-all code master edit, and (2) made my new section disappear (just prior to your edit the page looked like this).

The evidence that you damaged the page is irrefutable. Even a donkey can check it. All you need do is pull up the two pages, before and after your edit in parallel windows, and see the difference, the impact of your erasing edit.

You refuse to admit this. Either (a) you persist in not checking (b) do check, but prefer to lie against the evidence of your senses (in order not to concede a point?) or (c) you are not bright enough to understand what other people prove beyond doubt. I don’t know what motivates this misbehaviour, but the facts are as I stated, and your obduracy in refusing to recognize them is, once more, noted. I found the code error and fixed it to avoid the chaos your copy and paste shift of the sections caused, and reverted the damage you did. I see you aren't reverting me any more for doing essentially the same edit which you foun d objectionable before, so that is a tacit admission you screwed up. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

In lead, change:

Israel, the United States and the European Union classify, either in whole or in part, Hamas as a terrorist organization. This classification is one among various and diverse international positions on the nature of Hamas. Iran, Russia, China, and Turkey are some countries that view Hamas in a positive light.

to:

Israel, the United States and the European Union classify Hamas, either in whole or in part, as a terrorist organization; while Iran, Russia, China, and Turkey do not.

"Various and diverse" is WP:EDITORIALIZING, especially since there are just three basic positions here: either the organization is legal, or it's not, or it's legal except for its "military branch". François Robere (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

References

That sentence once read 'It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil.'

Relentless POV pushing over the last 4 years managed to weed out Norway, Switzerland, and Brazil, so that you get the version, with multiple sources when just one academic text gives you those details, that the global enemies of the 'West', i.e. the usual suspects, all gang up to challenge the respectable nations. Your edit does not solve the problem. Brenner , for one, writes:

Many other states, including Russia, China, Syria, Turkey and Iran consider the (armed) struggle waged by Hamas to be legitimate. P.203 n.27 Gaza Under Hamas: From Islamic Democracy to Islamist Governance I.B. Tauris 2017

The problem here is to anchor the page on sound, synthetic scholarship, not crowd it with numerous contemporary newspaper reports, as your sourcing does.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

What has "legal" got to do with the price of bread? Legality has nothing to do with it. Duh. And even if it did, according to who? Isay we wait for protection to expire and return to normal editing process. Meantime, no.Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I support François Robere's text. It's better than the status quo! ImTheIP (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I also support the proposed change as direct language is preferable to roundabout, euphemistic language loaded up with vague qualifiers and editorializing. The same applies to Nishidani's recent contested edit stating that Hamas "has not in the past excluded resort to terrorism"—there has to be a clearer way to convey that information to readers. Finally, Nishidani's comment above, while opaque and hard to decipher, doesn't seem to be responsive to François Robere's edit request, as François Robere merely suggested a copyedit while retaining the current sourcing. (In addition, the academic source helpfully provided by Nishidani actually mirrors the list of countries in the lede, with the addition of Syria.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Robere's edit request ignores a well known fact, that has been suppressed from our article. That Norway, Switzerland and Brazil dispute the label. Now that you all know that, you can't support an edit which erases that fact. Mention the gang of four (Russia, China, Turkey and Iran) only means deliberately trying to impress the reader with the idea that rational state actors, 'the West', call a spade a spade, while the four rogue or kleptocratic or autocratic imperial powers disagree (being enemies of the West). Making encyclopedic edits is not a matter of tweaking the status quo. It consists of thorough reading of available academic sources of which there are over 20 books and numerous articles in specialized journals, in order to get every sentence accurate and balanced. If you read just a little of this, the characterization as a terrorist group was a result of intense pressure from the Bush Administration aimed at breaking attempts by Arab countries to bridge the gap between the two factions (Fatah and Hamas), and the EU fell in line, with some important distinctions. (Muriel Asseburg 2009) to name but one lengthy analysis. Robere's text is decidedly pointy, because by ignoring Norway, Switzerland and Brazil's refusal to bow to the Bush administration's pressure, it leaves a list of four nations that are now intensely disliked (Turkey's dissent occurred well before Erdogan's reputation as a rational actor fell throw the floor). So, better no edit than the suggested version, which is as bad as the text we have.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not erasing anything, since it's not mentioned in the lead as-is. If you want to bring sources that can be incorporated into a new version, we can discuss them, but we need to be clean and straightforward. Also: WP:NOTFORUM. François Robere (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The point of protection is precisely to prevent the shoehorning in of dubious edits. What you are doing here is trying to run a short circuited RFC and it won't wash. Either do a proper RFC or wait for the protection to expire. As has been pointed out this article needs quite a bit of proper editing not some ad-hoc point here and there.Selfstudier (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Robere. As often here,WP:NOTFORUM is the reply of editors who, unfamiliar with the topic they are editing, dislike hearing background, all of which, on request, could be minutely documented, and would have remained in that section of this article were it not so often targeted with POV editors intent on suppressing the fact. Namely, editors who only add 'stuff' from newspapers and cheaply googled netsources which underscore a particular national slant. Anyone, even those unfamiliar with the history of the page, can verify that several academic sources never mention the US/EU/Israel viewpoint that Hamas is 'terrorist' without adding that Norway, Switzerland, Brazil, and the usual four, do not consider it such. Now that you know that, because I told you, and you can verify it, to persist in not tweaking your suggestion by adding that (as it used to be in 2016) is to connive at an omission of relevant data. If you put those three in, then your edit is acceptable. If you leave them out, then you are POV pushing, trying to get maximum spin for the idea the only serious view is that of the US/EU/Israel.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed the whole point of these labels and lists to try and control the narrative. The question is not whether Hamas is "militant" or on this or that list, it is whether it or its representatives has committed any actionable crimes. Hamas has only one enemy afaik and resistance to occupation is legitimate. For example, the ICC has made a pre-trial determination that there is evidence of war crimes having been and continuing to be committed in the OPT....by both sides. Just because it is not the usual practice to label recognized states as terrorist does not mean they are not in fact guilty of something and equally, the application of a label or inclusion in a list does not signify guilt other than in the eyes of the label/list creator.Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani and Selfstudier: Again WP:NOTFORUM. I'm suggesting a simple change to remove WP:EDITORIALIZING and streamline the lead. Do you have any source that supports the "various and diverse" blab? François Robere (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Um, since evidently many editors here don't know anything about the topic, dopey slinging of policy clichés is pointless. If editors refuse to read the evidence, they have to be informed of the implications of their simplistic sound-bite suggestions. I.e. What Selfstudier stated is just what he and people like myself know from reading widely about the topic of this article, and therefore pertinent. I'll share just one gloss, in a source re Hamas, about 'the whole point of these labels and lists is to try and control the narrative'

‘The term terrorism is used here to depict a type of political violence within a broader repertoire of warfare. It is generally associated with particular methods such as hijacking, bombing, assassination, kidnapping, hostage-taking and suicide attacks against civilian targets. However, the use of the term terrorist to describe a particular actor is more problematic, as it solidifies a judgement that such an actor is illegitimate, not just that it uses illegitimate tactics. A ‘terrorist’ will still be regarded as such despite being involved in specifically non-violent actions. Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah can be political parties engaged in electoral politics and nevertheless be regarded as terrorist and therefore beyond the pale of proper political discourse. Nowhere is this more the case than in proscription regimes – or the act of designating armed groups as terrorist organizations. The decision made on who is included in a list of terrorist organisations and who is not is a political one. It has ‘more to do with geo-politics and diplomatic relations between states than with genuine threats to a particular country’s national security and the strict application of law in relation to terrorism’.(Muller 2008 125).’Sophie Haspeslagh and Véronique Dudouet, Conflict resolution practice in conflicts marked by terrorist violence: A scholar-practitioner perspective,’ in Ioannis Tellidis, Harmonie Toros (eds.), Researching Terrorism, Peace and Conflict Studies: Interaction, Synthesis and Opposition, Routledge 2015 ISBN 978-1-317-69789-3 ch.6 pp.103-123 p.104

And what does it have to do with qualifying the entire gamut of three approaches as "various and diverse"? François Robere (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read the above thread carefully. Our text is defective, (a) you trimmed it, taking out the vague part and (b) leaving the POV slant. I agreed with your trim but objected to your (b) solution, because (i) it suppresses information and creates an 'us'(Israel/US/EU)/'them'(CRIT(ters) opposition that misleads the reader by radical Eurocentric simplification. Since people are having trouble understanding this, I'll provide my version of an NPOV emendation. Give me a minute.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

So despite agreeing with my edit, you accused me of POV-pushing because I didn't remove enough? I'm speechless. François Robere (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't keep track of all your edits but the ones I see are invariably of that type, not that I blame you for trying. If you are really speechless, which I doubt, then you can just leave well alone.Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside various WP:FORUM rantings the other countries are mentioned in the body of the article. Significant players are in the lead those who include it in terror list and those who don't, for example Japan it's not in the lead either, should we put it if we put Norway?--Shrike (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for throwing me the softball, Shrike. That's right up my professional alley so a home run's easy and the gift wipes out the current sneering at scholarship in here by allusion to WP:NOTFORUM, which seems to mean 'Don't make me look any further than what an instant google for some source that backs up my POV tells me.' Japan used to be there, -add it and that's no problem. The record of its position underwrites what I wrote above, namely that the designation of terrorist came about in several nations named, including Japan, only after intense pressure was applied by the Bush government, which expected that their client Mahmud Abbas would win the elections and thereby legitimate US policy.

Washington was stunned, . when the Palestinian people elected Hamas -supposedly a mere terrorist organization.as their democratic representatioves to the Palestinian Legislative Councilò. That outcome was definitely not part of the plan. When Hamas emerged as the undisputed winner at the polls, theBush administration immediately shifted directions and declared that winning a free election did not make Hamas the legitimate representative for the Palestinian people.

The sudden and radical turn in US policy took Tokyo by surprise. The Japanese had supported the election process in solidarity with their ally,. but now they were expected to nquickly disown it, in spite of the fact that all observers agreed that the polling had been conducted fairly. .At first, Tokyo balked. A Foreign Ministry spokesman could not deny the obvious:'We have no doubt at all that the election was conducted in a very democratic fashion and very much smoothly. So what you can say is the election of Hamas is itself a product of democracty." Furthermore, Tatsuo Arima, Japan's experienced special envoy to the peace process, indicated that japan would not cut off financial aid to the Palestinian Authority as the United States and Israel were demanding. He asserted, "The Japanese government will not apply pressure; we will just hope that Hamas will make changes according toi their own judgment".

This principled position did not last. behind the scenes the Bush administration pressure on Tokyo to alter its position must have been intense. By April, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had come full circle. A ministry spokesman announced on April 18, 'Our stance is that we want to see whether (Hamas) will adopt peaceful measures and participate in the peace process. Until we have a clearer picture, there will will not be a situation where new aid would be given . . Hamas has clearly had a hostile policy toward Israel and, if that does not change, we will not be in a situation where we can offer aid." In only twpo months, Japan had swung from an official position of calling Hamas' victory 'a product of democracy' to a notion that all aid must be cut off because of Hamas' 'hostile policy toward Israel'.' Michael Penn, Japan and the War on Terror: Military Force and Political Pressure in the US-Japanese Alliance, Bloomsbury Publishing 2014 ISBN 9780857724731

Wait until the protection expires, people can once again freely edit and we will see what happens. The "edit request" is just a waste of time.Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Or discuss it here, now..? François Robere (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence people are discussing here. Evidence is being provided and a troupe of editors reluctant to respond intelligibly to the evidence just keeps harping on their fav POV one-liner solution.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Discuss to what end? In a few days, you can push your POV all you want and see if it gets consensus. If it does, all done and if not, you can do an RFC. You are just trying to get your POV endorsed without doing either thing.Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Again, I'm suggesting a simple change to remove WP:EDITORIALIZING and streamline the lead. What's POV here? François Robere (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

As I have said several times, I don't want a discussion now. I am quite content to wait until the protection is lifted and have it then, if necessary. I'll just leave this here to remind me. John L. Esposito; Emad El-Din Shahin (November 2013). The Oxford Handbook of Islam and Politics. OUP USA. ISBN 978-0-19-539589-1. Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's the point of repeating that. If you don't want to participate, then don't. No one's forcing you. François Robere (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I am participating. Participating doesn't mean I have to agree with you. I don't.Selfstudier (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is based not on numbers but, to avoid vote-stacking, on the quality of arguments. As I offered above, my version of the modification required would be as follows:

The European Union, Israel, Japan and the United States classify Hamas, either in whole or in part as a terrorist organization. Others- China, Iran, Russia and Turkey - see its armed struggle as legitimate. Some states –Brazil, Norway and Switzerland -remain neutral, the latter two maintaining contacts with its organisation.

---

I've put a notice about this discussion at WP:NPOVN#Weird discussion at Talk:Hamas#Edit request. François Robere (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I have no objection to Nishidani's proposed edit. See? I'm not totally unreasonable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• I do have an objection though Russia thinks Hamas its valid political actor, it doesn't support its terror actions for example "Russia's ambassador to Israel Anatoly Viktorov defended his country's contacts with Hezbollah and Hamas as part of a broader political process in an exclusive interview with i24NEWS, but said that Moscow in no way supports violent actions"[2] and China too[3] I don't think Brenner source is enough to contradict statement of government officials also he doesn't gives any source to his claims --Shrike (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The Russian picked his words carefully: 'Moscow in no way supports violent actions', which easily applies to all actors, state and otherwise, in the region and could and has been the general position also of Brazil, Switzerland, and Norway, countries repeatedly critical of Israel's mass bombings of civilian areas in its several wars. Hamas has a 33 years history, a phase of which involved terrorism, just as did the PLO to gain recognition, and the Yishuv to secure Israel's independence. Nations familiar with the area's history know that Israel gave medals and amnestied Lehi and the Irgun (a fair proportion of the Israeli political nomenclature, its powerbroking families, come from that terrorist background), of whom John Bowyer Bell in an important books wrote:'For many the Irgun-LEHI campaign was the epitome of terror, and terror has always appalled and disturbed the West. Few could understand or condone LEGHI's strategy of personal terror or the rationale and explanations of the Irgun.' (John Bowyer Bell, Terror out of Zion, 1976 p.352). Many in short recognize Israel is a valid political actor, but don't pay lipservice to its contemporary arguments about opposition to its occupation being just 'terrorism', let alone endorse the techniques it uses to terrorize the occupied people it holds captive. So the objection is silly. Government advisors don't read Wikipedia, they draw on specialist works written by competent analysts who know the newspaper spin is a political gambit that doesn't sit well with the very complex politics of the area. This comes out time and again in the relevant literature on Hamas and Hezbollah. As the quote I supplied above underlines, this kind of definition is manipulatively strategic, not objective, and therefore one must tread very carefully before one mirrors the rhetoric of powerbrokers, and break NPOV. The error is that of definitional essentialism, describing a complex political movement with adjectives as though these caught the essence of this or that party. Most of its time in power Hamas has not spent its energies day and night plotting to blow up Israeli civilians, and the IDF has acknowledged this (the 2012 ceasefire had Hamas imposing its Qassem militants 500 metres from the periphery, arresting any Gazan who ventured within 100 yards of it, and indeed arresting over 100 operatives from Fatah and other militant groups caught infiltrating beyond the lines agreed to with Israel. This is part of the record. of course, we don't mention things like that. Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, You didn't answered my concern, Russia and China clearly don't support the hamas violence. Also I oppose usage of term "armed struggle" I prefer NPOV term "militancy" Shrike (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I answerer your concern, you just didn't remember. In any case, the flaw in your method is, rather than reading up on the topic, to google for wanted results. I.e. google 'Hamas+China+violence' and you get the desired result. But if you google 'Israel+China+violence' you get the other side of the equation: Apropos the 2014 Israeli onslaught on the Gaza Strip their spokesperson Hong Lei stated (9 July 2014)

[Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei's Regular Press Conference on July 9, 2014 "We believe that to resort to force and to counter violence with violence will not help resolve problems other than pile up more hatred. We urge relevant parties to bear in mind the broader picture of peace and the lives of the people, immediately realize a ceasefire, stick to the strategic choice of peace talks and strive for an early resumption of talks]

Anyone can blow with a googling gun to mug up instantaneous fav info on a topic they don't know much about. We are given the task of writing encyclopedic articles, pitched to neutrality between the sides in conflict in this case as the fundamental priority. To do this one has to read broadly in the topic, which few editors do. If you read broadly, and hew to NPOV, this game-playing with a few words to spin the text this way or that, according to POV, gets us, and the reader nowhere. Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Amossy, Ruth (2017). "Understanding political issues through argumentation analysis". In Wodak, Ruth; Forchtner, Bernhard (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics. Routledge. pp. 262–275. ISBN 978-1-351-72896-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Brenner, Björn (2017). Gaza Under Hamas: From Islamic Democracy to Islamist Governance. I.B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-786-73142-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Haspeslagh, Sophie (2016). ""Listing terrorists"; the impact of proscription on third-party efforts to engage armed groups in peace processes- a practitioner's perspective'". In Tellidis, Ioannis; Toros, Harmonie (eds.). Terrorism: Bridging the Gap with Peace and Conflict Studies: Investigating the Crossroad. Routledge. pp. 189–207. ISBN 978-1-317-66559-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Penn, Michael (2014). Japan and the War on Terror: Military Force and Political Pressure in the US-Japanese Alliance. Bloomsbury Publishing . ISBN 978-0-857-72473-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• In an article like this WP:NPOV is the dominant requirement.
• The names are given in alphabetical order because that avoids prioritizing.
• All of the sources are recent, scholarly and book-based.
• All of the sources unlike the other version are not clipped from pre-existing text, but examined and verified, with the content in notes.
• There are actually three positions. The first defines Hamas's actions as terroristic; the second defines them as legitimate in context; the third abstains from judgment, and maintains links with Hamas.

Robère’s version requires 9 sources. One, Israel Hayom, is notoriously not a reliable source. They are badly formatted: ‘state’ should indicate that it is the US Department of State report (for 2005) etc; newspapers are used, www.WashingtonPost.com. Times of Israel. BBC, Jerusalem Post, Middle East monitor, Newspapers are useful for contemporary events. But there are dozens of reputable book length studies and articles on Hamas by specialists which, given the priority they are accorded for best referencing at WP:RS, must take precedence, since they synthesize and do not suffer from WP:Recentism. My version restricts references to books by academics specializing in the field, and has just 4 refs for this, a notable reduction in space, also for the template used.Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani: "My" version doesn't change anything in terms of sourcing, since it's just copyedit. I'm getting the feeling you're trying to "hitch a ride" on my suggestion to push sourcing changes you couldn't get earlier. Now can you address the copyedit or not? François Robere (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

My rule is, don't copyedit anything without (a) reading every source plunked in by any of the 1000 contributors over 18 years to an article like this (b) if the passage is flawed, oversourced, inept, question-begging etc., proper copyediting requires one to go through the quality literature and find a better way of expressing the generalization, so that it fits NPOV. Famously a copyeditor need not understand the book they are editing or evaluate the accuracy of what is written: all they need do is ensure the spelling is correct, the syntax acceptable, and that the ductus flows. This is an encyclopedia of which the reader expects high quality source control, accuracy of representation, and neutrality. Those issues emerge every time one copyedits.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately this edit is only from December 2019, and it isn't sourced,[4] so we needn't go to those lengths. Now, do you have any concrete objection? François Robere (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You haven't read the thread. Read it. It shows why your suggestion is completely unacceptable, in part because it is based on an unacceptable sentence, in part because you have not listened to objections to it and your version, or sought a compromise. I gave one possible version to edit in which in my view fixes these defects, and you ignore it. So, kindly try and read the thread again, and reply to the suggestions offering tweaks, replacement of old sources, and emendments to your proposed text, and then get back to us.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Your objections thus far have been: a) who determines what's a terrorist organization? (I don't care, that has nothing to do with my edit); and b) the sources are bad (I didn't touch the sources). What you haven't addressed is why the sentence I removed is anything more than WP:EDITORIAL. Oh, and there was that unsigned comment in which you made your suggestion, which you're now complaining I ignored.

Your suggestion is too verbose and makes needless use of footnotes. François Robere (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion is too succinct, tendentious in its calculated reduction of three positions to two where what the West decries as 'terrorist', the autocratic powers of the 'East' deny. We had for substantial periods a nuanced couple of lines on these complexities, which have been dumbdowned to puerile caricature, and now repackaged in the even more misleading précis you propose. And by the way, footnotes allow readers, if they want, to check the data base on which gross generalizations are based, do not harm maintext. I don't think readers should trust wiki editors, particularly on articles like this, which are obsessed over by nationalists. So, whatever the merits of my proposal, yours hasn't got off the ground - too much shoving under the carpet key dissonances (Brazil, Norway, Switzerland etc).Nishidani (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Which again, is just a copy edit, and one that you yourself don't object as such; so I suggest we move along with the copy edit then discuss the matter further.

Not it isn't just a copyedit. It is an attempt to disrupt NPOV. Your trim just juxtaposes civil to non-Western nations, and is decidedly POVpushing.

As for your suggestion: there's no doubt that Hamas has used terrorism - attack of civilian population intended to sow a general feeling of dread - as a strategy. There's also little doubt that the countries that are lenient towards it are autocratic and have a similarly lenient attitude towards human and civil rights. As for the "dissonances" - two of them are neutral and have been so historically (eg. in WWII), so their position doesn't have much to do with how one defined Hamas. The last one, Brazil... well, if we're going that far of we might as well mention Paraguay.[5] François Robere (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I know all about Hamas's historic resort to terrorism,(when I mention the parallels with Israel, endlessly, all POV editors ignore the reminder and keep, just as hasbara advocates (present company excluded) are trained to do, the discourse focused on 'them') as I know all about Israel's use of terrorism in the pre-state error and state terrorism after independence. Don't talk to me at least about sowing a 'general feeling of dread' as peculiar to Hamas. If Amnesty International, an org rightly critical of Hamas, can describe a half century of occupation by Israel as one in which Palestinians from childhood onwards have been constrained to live in 'humiliation and fear', what you say about Hamas is true for a few key days, but historically peanuts by comparison. The decision is not a matter of 'leniency'. Norway has a long history of working for peace, of high quality analysis of the core problems and issues, and that is why it abstains from joining the Western block's general appeasement of Israel's position. The 2014 Eu court annulment of the terrorist label (2003) specified that it had been applied by the Union in violation of standard procedures, i.e., by using press clips and googled internet clues, and had no sound evidential basis or rational analysis to warrant the label. The EU court eventually vindicated the right to use the epithet. Nations like Paraguay adopt positions based on commercial deals, as is well documented, something untrue of Brazil's position - made despite thriving military and commercial deals with Israel.

To repeat, therefore, the line you précis needs expansion because it is already vitiated by a bias, which is the result of constant trimming of important distinctions the article once had in the lead. Trimming it further as you propose only exacerbates the witting drift towards a sound bite of simplistic distortion. Don't put it in, just as I refrain from putting my version in. If that text is to be changed, it should be done consensually.Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is fascinating, but do you have sources that back your assertions regarding eg. Brazil and Paraguay in this context? Would you like to mention both, or neither? Would you like to mention that Norway and Switzerland have remained neutral in world affairs for over 100 and 500 years, respectively, or just state their approach towards Hamas without context? François Robere (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nope. (Of course I have sources for both but this is not a forum for discussing Paraguay or Brazil, as you remind me. Paraguay's move was fence-mending after it reversed its embassy shift to Jerusalem and got heated abuse from Israel in 2018; Israel only reopened its embassy in Asuncion in 2016 after 13 years, when funds were suddenly allocated to do so etc.etc.etc.) You came here out of the blue (a) proposing a trim to one phrase in the lead (b) your proposal gained the usual two or three votes, without discussion (c) two editors examined both the original and the version you proposed and found them wanting (d) alternative emendments, equally valid, were suggested (for discussion) (e) You ignored the alternatives and keep repeating your text, not moving a nano-inch from the text you originally proposed (e) Several academic sources were brought in to throw further light on the issue - all show that the list of countries there is more expansive than either of the versions you are handling (f) you airily ignored this new material and the work done to assist consensus forming (g) So, the picture is, you won't budge under any form of discussion that tweaks, emends, suggests modifications to the form you want. Therefore, the proposal fails the rules governing WP:CONSENSUS formation advised for situations like this. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, WP:NOTFORUM. I'm asking you question about your suggestion. Would you like to propose one that takes into account my comments on neutrality, unrelated nations, and style (verboseness and footnotes)? ATM we're 3-4 votes for my proposition and 2-3 for yours (with TheTimesAreAChanging supporting both), if you're counting. François Robere (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay you refuse to be rational, so I'll call you out, and note what I've known but suppressed per WP:AGF just to give you a chance to observe the rules of consensus-building. You refuse to, ergo

• You have never once edited this article.
• You came in just as it was locked to suggest one small change to the lead, which involved eliding wording that any support existed for Hamas outside the 'gang' of four unwestern autocratic or 'rogue' nations.
• This is exactly the position taken by Icewhiz the permabanned POV warrior whose behaviour you stoutly defended on every arbitration page where he was endlessly reported before admins woke up to him. He devoted 4 of his 14 edits to the article on precisely this piece of text, to remove mention of China and Switzerland, so that the lead had the Israel/EU/USA verdict with no balance. See
• here
• here
• here
• here

Three other edits consisting in suppressing source evidence of China's favourable view of Hamas as the legitimate representative of Palestinians in Gaza after the 2006 election. That is why he didn't even want China mentioned in this specific part of the lead.

In plain man's language, therefore, this is a case of WP:Meatpuppetry. It's also a remarkable case of chutzpah to try and sneak through asking a senior admin who locked down the page, to edit your/Icewhiz's proposal while no one else could object. I suggest you drop it and edit articles you have a known interest and certain competence in.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, Please strike your WP:ASPERSIONS or go to WP:ANI if you think you have any proof that anyone editing on behalf of banned user Shrike (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Facts are not aspersions. I don't report people. I've better things to do than get caught up in those time-sinks. The I/P area is bad enough timesinkwise. Blind Freddy and his dog can see this is meatpuppetry, and you are totally untroubled by it.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Only I didn't suggest we remove any of it. Now, are you going to address my concerns with your suggestion, or not? François Robere (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Waiting on you. François Robere (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I've already answered you abundantly, whereas you never addressed any of my concerns (This practice is actually taught in hasbara tutoring. as a friend familiar with it once told me). As I said, I view your edit as meatpuppetry, misleading in its ostensible simplicity, and question-begging. I won't waste time on this because basically in these situations, logic, evidence have no traction. Numbers are all that count. Of those commenting here, I see seriousness only in the comments of Selfstudier and The Four Deuces, agreeing with the former and dissenting from the reasoned opinion of the latter. The rest of the talk is just a formality to push through Icewhiz's desired edit, in the face of whatever one might say. I'm dropping this page until the iodeological fervor and sudden flocking ebbs, and one may work it, if ever, effectively and rationally. Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

There's an idea, the article International positions on the nature of Hamas is not protected, if a position can be squeezed into it, then it would auto resolve this discussion here, would it not?Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Or... we can discuss it here. François Robere (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

We can't edit here, I'm merely trying to deal with your urgent request for an edit.Selfstudier (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the bluelink of that many words as "classify Hamas, either in whole or in part". It would be enough to bluelink the word "classify". Or even better, to avoid two consecutive bluelinks, we could say "have classified" and bluelink only the word "classified". I do agree that this would be an improvement as it is more neutral and less vague. I mean, "view Hamas in a positive light" is awfully non-enclyclopaedical. Debresser (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• The blue link is required because prior to it, the lead explicitly distinguished Western nations that classify Hamas as terrorist, or only its armed branch as terrorist, meaning for several Western nations Hamas the political party in itself is not terrorist. A few editors disliked this distinction being made clear. preferring the blue link that buried it.
• No one disputes 'view Hamas in a positive light' is inept. But Robere's excision does not remedy the flaw, since strong sources relevant to this point underline the fact that many countries consider aspects of Hamas's militancy as legitimate, to the degree it is employed to throw off an occupation that has locked up 2 million civilians in an open air prison camp for 14 years, as even the rightwing British conservative Prime Minister David Cameron admitted (before conditions deteriorated even further).Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not fond of long blue links other than directly so I would prefer the actual title international positions on the nature of Hamas in some formulation. I also think we might include a lot of the material in that article as a "main" from this article which need only summarize it. At the moment that article says "viewed differently among the governments of various countries" which equates with the "various and diverse" that is being complained about currently. The distinction between the two is hardly worth the argument but I suppose we can find some suitable summary form.Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

In this matter of contrary opinion, we ought to somewhere do more than merely mention in passing in the China section that the US failed in December 2018 to get a resolution past the UNGA that condemned Hamas as a terrorist organization. This despite weeks of arm twisting and pulling out all the diplomatic stops. Instead a resolution calling for a “comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,” based on U.N. resolutions passed by a wide margin."U.S. Resolution Against Hamas Is Defeated in the United Nations". WSJ. December 6, 2018. Retrieved October 7, 2020.Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• I support François Robere's previous version per ImTheIP. People are quibbling with words, but there's nothing factually inaccurate about François Robere's version at all. It's concise, fair, and perfect for the LEDE. ErinRC (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

People quibble over words, not with words (pleonasm). As such, you appear not to have read the thread, which is about the omission of words several sources note as not using the terrorist designation of Hamas. Those countries 'Norway, Switzerland, Brazil' existed at various times throughout the edit history of this page and have persistently been removed by POV pushers. The omitted countries are 'facts', and not mentioning them creates the inaccuracy, since 'China, Russia, Turkey and Iran' will suggest to contemporary readers that only countries in conflict with the West support Hamas. We report what sources say, and are not allowed to cherry pick data, highlighting some names while repressing the others to slant readers' perceptions.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I support that too. Because it is more interesting that Norway and Switzerland does not classify Hamas as a terrorist org than that Turkey does not. However, perfect is the enemy of good and that can be fixed later imho. ImTheIP (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you ever considered why the proposer won't simply add Norway and Switzerland to the edit he wants the admin to put on the page? I mean he won't include the three words you consider also as important. If an edit is to be done by an admin, it should reflect a refusal to compromise on such simple wording. It should reflect a rational consensus. To say, I agree but we can add 'Norway and Switzerland' afterwards, is to stabilize the admin-version and leave the adjunct words up for future edit warring. We are supposed to collaborate here, not strongarm the place with a proposal that admits of no tweaking?Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, your first comment on my suggestion was as follows: rant about article history; rant about "POV pushing"; implying that we shouldn't copyedit before we address the sourcing (?); source that reflects what we already state; general rant. Your second comment was comprised of a rant about Eurocentrism; rant about general Wikipedia practice; a historical rant (unsourced); and again a rant about the existing text. You then suggested, again, that we shouldn't copyedit a text if it's incorrect (ie keep it incorrect and ugly). If there was "collaboration" there, I missed it.

I don't think we should mention Switzerland and Norway in the lead - and we don't ATM - because mentioning that a rule that applies to 99% of cases also applies to a specific case is uninteresting. Saying that a country that's been neutral in every armed conflict since 1515 is also neutral in this one just doesn't say a lot about this conflict (though it does say a lot about that country, but that's not what this article is about). François Robere (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

You turned up to an article you never edited, to edit a line that obsessed a permabanned user who happens to be someone you always defend, despite his notorious behavior on or off line. The text he wanted, and what you want are very similar. So, if you have any respect for this place and its rules, you should cease and desist now from your proposal. It cannot avoid being read as a piece of meatpuppetry, whatever the truth. there are many other ways this issue can be handled, and by editors with a known competence and interest in this topic, whatever their POV.Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani: You're free to file on it if that's what you think, but until you do I have to ask that you stay on-topic. You wanted my comments on your suggestion, and I gave them in two places; now you either reply, or we move ahead with the CE and discuss the rest of it later, per the consensus. François Robere (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

'*I too support François Robere version especially that Nishidani version is clear violation POV and also factually incorrect.--Shrike (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Shrike. Where is the violation of POV, what is factually incorrect?One liners of ungrounded opinion count for nothing. Consensus is not based on roping in numbers: it is based on cogency of argument. You are being asked to approve of an edit that is almost the same as that made by a permabanned editor, and purveyed by someone who has never ever appeared here. I.e. has shown no interest or knowledge of the topic. The only reason this Icewhiz take is being recycled at this moment must be that if it is approved by EdJohnston, as the page is locked, it assumes notable administrative authority and can't be tampered with. That coincidence itself should indicate that the proposal should be ignored. By the way, this page needs a vast amount of work on it given the high importance. Why is it that several editors have suddenly shown up who rarely if ever edit it, all focused on this snippet?, while ignoring the mass of detailed understatements, suppression of context, omission of important historical details? Serious editors are supposed to do some background homework.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

My sentiments entirely. That this is the usual anti Palestinian effort cannot be denied and is hardly a surprise. The lead IS seriously deficient and the proposed edit would make the deficit worse, not better. I look forward to a robust editing process once the block is lifted. Certainly there will not be any pre-approval of edits.Selfstudier (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, It was already explained to you [6] Shrike (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

(a) It is immaterial that Russia and China might not (you assert this, where is the evidence?) 'support' Hamas's recourse to arms. Just as many Western countries over the past 30 years have regularly deplored Israel's recourse to massive bombing and indiscriminate killing, i.e. they don't 'support' Israel's violence, but they maintain otherwise solid relations with that country since it is a regular state. Militancy is no less POV than 'armed struggle'. The source I brought here specifically mentioned China, Russia etc.'s position regarding Hamas's armed struggle. All of this forming I am constrained to join in emerges simply from the fact that opposing editors refuse to accept the evidence of the sources, specialist texts, the language they use. Grasped that?

Shrik I always have extreme difficulty in understanding your elliptic judgments, which are just off the cuff standpoints and rarely if ever documented or argued cogently. What so many editors dedicated to spinning Israel's justness (in their self-perceived mission to balance the ostensible 'POV pushing' by 'pro-Palestinian' editors) cannot get into their heads, is that you get a zillion hits from newspapers that will satisfy a seething hatred of this adversary, but much less so if you actually read books by analysts who try to understand how Hamas is structured, the context and decisions behind its various periods of the use of violence. To explain is not to pardon or justify. But you can get hype anywhere on the net: Wikipedia is a place where you can be enabled to grasp the facts and the why and the rationale of any organization. Having said this reasonable statement, I know what some editors will think privately:'Yeah, sure, but this is not about outlining a history objectively, it's about making sure Israel's dignity is intact, and all of its enemies come out looking bad. So stuff your scholarship.' I'm neutral, despite the usual prejudice about why I edit here. I have a whole section on Hamas's persecution of the Christian community, for example, after its takeover, and how it gradually dropped the Islamicist repression. I can't put it in under this kind of editing hostility, because no doubt, I'll then get editors flocking to add contemporary newspaper hysteria on the topic. So another swatch of source garnering and writing will lay dorment in the files, and the article will remain the hackwork it is. Stiff cheddar| Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani,

I already presented your the links[7] [8] that they oppose violence so they cannot support "armed struggle". Change that they see Hamas it as valid political actor and "armed struggle" to "militancy" and I will support your version Shrike (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I associate "armed struggle" with resistance, which is entirely legitimate but you want to subsume this aspect in "militancy" implying that it is not legitimate. Militancy is only NPOV in generic usage. We need to differentiate between resistance and illegitimate acts such as attacks on civilians. Usual is to first edit the article body and then summarize that in the lead, not amend the lead to fit some preconception (that there are only three approaches, for example). Omitting the fact that the UN refused to condemn Hamas as terrorist is simply to further slant to the view that only US/Israel/EU count, which is demonstrably incorrect. Even Israel treats with Hamas so denying it is a "political actor" is kind of pointless.Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

ToI 2017

Shein rejected a comparison of the groups to the Islamic State jihadist group and said Hamas rocket fire on Israeli cities during the 2014 Gaza war, was not terror “at all,” despite also affecting Russians.

“You equate ISIS [with Hamas and Hizbullah], but we think this is wrong,” he said. He said he condemned the rocket fire — “of course” — and was then asked, “That’s all you can say? There are bad terrorists and good terrorists?”

Now boys and girls, we all know that the MIT expert of missiles defined Hamas 'rockets' as fireworks or frizzle sticks with a kilo of explosive loaded onto a steel pipe (yes they had grads capable of striking far north and hitting cities but very rarely use them). 99% of the strikes are in the surrounding Israeli desert, and over the past several years many have been launched by Islamic jihad, not Hamas in particular. Israeli spin puts them on a par with the latest lasar-guided hi-tech 1 ton warheaded missiles they have in vast abundance. Parity. True, firing rockets into another country, esp, near or at civilian areas is terrorism. Legally and factually. Israel does it effectively, Hamas ineffectively. This is known, stated and analysed at length with the statistics in the technical literature and is almost never clarified in newspaper reports, which editors love.Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

“No,” replied Shein, “we do not consider them to be terrorists at all.” Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Even though there is a link out to International positions on the nature of Hamas it is placed under a subsection entitled "International designations as a terrorist organization", again obscuring the fact that it isn't so designated by various countries (nor by the UN). The editing slant in the article is abundantly clear and the proposed edit request is just more of the same.Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This 2014 WAPO article doesn't mention Russia in its list but says "a lot of countries haven't exactly made their position clear, preferring a degree of ambiguity that makes even vague categorization difficult." This supports "various and diverse" although I would not insist on that precise formulation."Who are Hamas's friends these days? It's more complicated than you might think". WAPO. August 1, 2014. Retrieved October 8, 2020.

I agree with the changes as more concise. Also, in my experience, a huge number of footnotes usually indicates an attempt to overcome a lack of quality with quantity. The Diplomat source for example says that China has long supported the PLO, which is Hamas' main rival. They are now working with Hamas not because they view it in a positive light, but because they support the legitimacy of the Palestinian authority. No doubt all the countries mentioned would prefer a PLO government. TFD (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No one doubts the concision. All countries support the PLO. Few of these countries view the PLO in 'a positive light' either. It is just that they run to the Western money trough at every offer of porkbarrelling and therefore are amenable to the endless politics of gesturing at peace without actually expecting it from Israel, which is Israel's historic position. The problem has been that in the last legitimate elections the majority of the Palestinian people supported Hamas, which became the legitimate representative. (From memories of conversations with Palestinians there at the time, even many technocrats with a liberal background found the thorough clan corruption of the PLO intolerable, and thought Hamas, despite its fanatic Islamic worldview, wasn't on the take) This was unacceptable to both Israel and the US, who both organized a coup attempt to overthrow Hamas, which failed, and, when it failed, a major boycott attempted to starve Hamas, while propping up the PLO. So, yes, political realists prefer the PLO, which means corruption, but they are 'our guys'. China isn't part of this, but, like Norway and Switzerland, maintains contacts with both the PLO and Hamas. China indeed privately objected to the PLO's attempt to seek UN recognition. They did so out of self-interest, not wishing to create a precedent for their Uyghur minority and for Taiwan.

This length because concision everywhere should not blot out features of a very complex picture, by resorting to caricature. It is not 'Us' (the West generally) vs. 'Them' (4 rogue or autocratic nations competitive with the 'West'. The only way round this is to draft an emendment that avoids this simplification. Another several words fixes the caricature. One of Hamas's major financial sources comes from Qatar, which plays a far more important role than Russia, China and Turkey. It has intervened because, in the geopolitics of the area, Hamas, a Sunni group, was thrown by the boycott to rely on Shiite Iran. And the Gulf states' fear of Iran has lead Sunni Qatar to attempt to replace Iran, diminish its influence. If anything, Qatar, a country admired in Western geopolitical circles, should be there, to avoid the tendentiousness IcewhizRobere is endeavouring to work into the text at this point. Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Concise at the expense of correct won't do. After all, the description given of the Chinese position fits "various and diverse" better than the so-called concise version. As for footnotes, the Balfour Declaration article has a huge number of them and is an FA so that argument is not going to work either.Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Presumably the reason for the plethora of sources that these countries see Hamas in a positive light is that none of them actually say that but if you put everything each article says together, you might come to that conclusion. The reality is that Russia has long supported Palestinian self-determination and historically supported the PLO. And it's really unlikely that the leaders of Russia, China and Iran are going to abandon their ideologies for Sunni Muslim fundamentalism. Maybe China's put in an order for 2 billion Korans and prayer mats, but I doubt it. But China and Russia claim to be fighting Muslim fundamentalists within their borders. TFD (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The motivations for foreign policy (apart from the US, which is at least consistent) change over time. Once Erdogan was considered a reliable NATO ally, and that accounts for Turkey's traditional view. China's view was formed before Islamic fundamentalism assumed an important part of its internal agenda (there's a book on this); Russian played a leading role in backing partition, Israeli independence and UN recognition. Its support for the PLO is in part dictated by its traditional backing for secular nationalists, and checking the US. Its concern with Muslim fundamentalism goes back to the 70s (a French scholar in the early 70sa predicted that the Soviet Union's greatest challenge would arise from its soft Muslim underbelly. Brezinsky, acting on this kind of futurist analysis, advised Carter (in June 1979 was it?) was to play the Muslim fundamentalist card in Afghanistan to that purpose, i.e. destroyed the secular Russian proxy). We're living with those consequences ever since. It's not a matter of seeing Hamas 'in a positive light' as our text suggests. It is in part geostrategic calculations among our global hegemonic powers, and, if you put it on an ideological plane (which also counts) a better understanding (yes, it's Marxist) that if a people is occupied, it is normal for them to fight to throw off their shackles. Terrorism is politically inane, they argue, but fighting for autonomy against an occupying power (as long as Russia, China, Turkey and Iran's own minorities are ignored) is 'understandable', a position the major actors, the US and Israel, refuse to recognize. A strong academic literature exists arguing that both Hezbollah and Hamas, however one may dislike the religious ideology and their occasional recourse to acts of terrorism, are rational actors as the jargon goes. Branding them as terrorists and using every trick in the diplomatic books to isolate them hasn't worked. To the contrary. Switzerland, and Norway in particular grasp that. Their 'neutrality' and maintenance of dialogic relations are, ultimately, one of the few rational long-term policies that can work. The article, whatever my POV or that of the overwhelming number of hostile editors holds, must throw off the simplistic dualistic/Manichaean us or them/good or bad, and simply focus on the basic structural story, historical context. The rush to prejudice is universal, lucidity under stress a rare thing. My apologies for this Sunday preaching, but since I contest the POV of others, it is proper that I set forth the reasons behind my own opposition to an edit which annuls the earlier tradition of this article, which simple started that three positions exist. The US/EU/Israel etc. That of Russia, China, Turkey Iran, and that of nations, like Norway, Switzerland and Qatar, who espouse neither of the other diametrically opposed positions, but advise a rational dialogic process towards a resolution between the parties in conflict. Icewhiz's whilom success is erasing this third element should not not be authorized by another round of Manichaean caricature.Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The choices at present are the Robere or Nishidani edit suggestions although in either event I would prefer to begin within the article rather than directly in the lead before reaching any final conclusions. I would also characterize it as a choice between simplistic and nuanced, the first from a driveby editor and the second from someone who actually knows something about the subject matter.Selfstudier (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What exactly does it mean to say that these countries "view Hamas in a positive light." Isn't it just weasel-wording to say that these countries view terrorism in a positive light without having the courage to make the accusation outright? TFD (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I am not hung up on the precise form of words, I take it to mean a willingness to treat with rather than treat dismissively but there's the contradiction, even countries that disapprove of Hamas also are willing to treat with them and even if it's only via the back door.Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Done

• Per consensus I went ahead and implemented my proposal.[9] The edit did not remove anything substantial, only WP:EDITORIALIZING that was added without sourcing in December 2019 (in line with WP:EDITXY).[10]
• Nishidani's suggestion that my proposal had something to do with removing China is ridiculous, since it didn't remove China.
• Similarly, Nishidani's suggestion that my proposal had something to do with removing Switzerland and Norway is absurd, since these were already removed 3.5 year ago.[11]
• The suggestion that this simple edit was timed or coordinated is beyond ridiculous. Those who made it should probably reconsider whether their attitude is appropriate for a cooperative encyclopedia. François Robere (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of image

@Nishidani: What's the rationale for this reversal? You didn't provide an edit summary. François Robere (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

oh come on. The POV mobbing of this page is bad enough without pretending that a complete blow-in sock with 25 edits doesn't fall under Arbpia3.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, if you can't refrain from making attacks on editors, whether specific or general, then please don't post. You are hereby warned, that further disruption will be met by removal of your comments (by admins). Debresser (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Adopting the prophetic mantle, as you syntax suggests, is best avoided. People who do so often end up looking like fools. And, a reminder, you are not an administrator.Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: I'm not allowed to edit in ARBPIA topics, apparently. Could you please restore the image? It's in free domain.--Watchlonly (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We already have two bombing-aftermath photos. We don't have a photo of Ahmed Yassin which I think is a major oversight. ImTheIP (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hamas, like its Israeli counterpart, the IDF, is a core social organization with a military and political/social function. In handling both NPOV would require a bare-bones description of (a) structure (b) functions (c) history etc. There is no hint on the IDF page - a promo page that looks like a recruitment advertisement- that it has regularly engaged in terror: (Safsaf massacre; Qibya massacre); no pics showing the marvelous effectiveness it has displayed in razing to the ground whole suburbs and towns,(Beirut in the unprovoked 1982 Lebanese invasion, Gaza on several occasions), all these aspects are neatly suppressed in favour of a narrative based on structure, history and function, like most army articles - the consistent genocidal+nakba functions of the USA army against Indians gets a glancing note of how they 'fixed' the Seminoles. Now basically, I agree with this approach: readers need, at least on Wikipedia, an article that describes, what you don't get in the press, a cool analysis of structure, functions, core events in the history in context, neutrally described. But we have here, as usual, our WP:Systemic bias - the overwhelming bulk and brawn of visiting editors is thrown at the gore and anti-Semitism, the rest of the narrative is left to a few drudges who are interested in history and what scholarly analysis writes of the institution. The latest bid to plug in another pic of damage wrought in a terrorist attack fits this pattern. Content here is determined by numbers, nothing else, and the article is doomed to remain a piece of hasbara. In the meantime the IDF article is a paean to armaments, with not a whisper of what those armaments do to a captive population, which, as numerous sources remark, function as entities in an experimental laboratory to test military products before using the results to sell these weapons on the global market, most recently to Muslims to bomb Christian Armenians.Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)