Talk:Hamas/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

Fatah, Hamas and Palestinian unity

In the context of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, the Irish senator David Norris said that "[...] Israel is afraid of Palestinian unity. That is what all of this is about. It has nothing to do with the appalling murder of those three Israeli kids. The Israeli police knew that Hamas had nothing to do with it before this war started. Israel created Hamas in order to split Fatah, so it is responsible for Hamas. I had this confirmed at the highest level in the foreign ministry in Jerusalem some years ago. [...]"

Source: speech at the Senate of Ireland on Thursday 31 July 2014. Text: [1], video: [2].

Dt Mos Ios (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

"Israel created Hamas"? That's totally nuts. This is a jarring reminder of what nonsense humans can be led to believe. "Hamas had nothing to do with it"? That's been proven false, Hamas admitted to killing the three Israeli youngsters. 174.24.212.2 (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Goldstone report and human shields

I am removing one statement from the human shields section. Firstly, it is sourced to ITIC (which is not WP:RS) and stated in WP's voice. Secondly, the Israeli accusation of human shields is already present in the section (first paragraph). Thirdly, the line was referring to Goldstone report, and ITIC's response to Goldstone report. If people want second-order criticism, they can go read the Goldstone report article. Fourthly, I cannot find anything in the source which says what the line says it does. It is a 349 page report and no page numbers are cited. Kingsindian (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed another ITIC sourced statement which was anyway talking about PFLP-GC. Moved the ITIC source to the first paragraph. Also added undue tag to Col Kemp. Why is the opinion of one guy important enough to be mentioned here? All these "responses to Goldstone report" belong in that article. One cannot expect to always "give the last word" to Israel to any allegation or statement made. A general statement that Israel criticized the Goldstone report as biased and did not cooperate with it, is sufficient here, if one wants to add it. Kingsindian (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hamas did not disavow suicide bombings, and still uses them

It's one hell of a stretch to claim Hamas disavowed suicide bombings because "Yihiyeh Musa, a Hamas member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said Hamas had moved into a 'new era' which did not require suicide attacks" in April 2006. A mere two months later Hamas had already pledged to renew suicide attacks, as they have done on numerous other occasions. Suicide bombers remain an integral part of Hamas strategy and were used during Operation Protective Edge (example). Moreover, senior Hamas member Shihab Natsheh was behind the 2008 Dimona suicide bombing, which was explicitly endorsed by Hamas leadership. Why does Wikipedia spread this misinformation?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Short answer is: because this is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, and much nonsense gets added. It is clear from the location of the sentence that someone mindlessly added it without much regard to logic or coherence. As to your other points, one can perhaps rewrite the sentence to say that "Hamas largely gave up suicide bombings on Israeli civilians", which is true enough, since the suicide bombing has all but disappeared compared to earlier times. Perhaps the wall in the West Bank can be added as a reason. Your last point about suicide bombing in OPE is much different. It was against soldiers on a battlefield, which is a different issue. Kingsindian (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Colonel Kemp

@Wlglunight93: I noticed you removed the undue tag. Firstly, one is supposed to discuss the issue before removing the tag. As to your edit summary that Kemp is an expert in the field, you base it on what? Kemp is not an international lawyer, he is a retired colonel - why is his opinion important? As I have said, this is a response to the Goldstone report, and belongs on the other page, where it is already present. The insertion of the content on this page is simply an attempt to get the "last word" in any discussion. Kingsindian (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

First, one is supposed to discuss the issue before adding a controversial tag. Second, he's a military expert who says Hamas used human shields and Israel took unprecedented measures to avoid causing civilian casualties among the enemy population.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
On the first point, perhaps you did not see the section just above, where I discuss the issue. As to the second point, you simply repeated your justification, which does not address my points. Kemp is just one retired colonel, who is not an international law expert, who was invited by one organization (UN Watch) to give his opinion. Why is his opinion important, and not hundreds of others? For instance, Desmond Travers, who was part of the Goldstone commission? As I said above, this is simply an example of a "response to the Goldstone report", which belongs on that page, not here. Kingsindian (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Because his view is quoted widely in WP:RS I will add a reference.--Shrike (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I did not challenge the fact that Kemp is quoted in WP:RS, that is not the issue. That reference simply supports my position. It is clearly talking about Kemp as a response to Goldstone report, and then Goldstone responds to that. There is also Desmond Travers who responded to Kemp elsewhere. In this area, everyone and their uncle have an opinion. This article is not about Goldstone report, this is about Hamas. If one wishes to add responses to Goldstone report, one has to summarize this section, not just arbitrarily pick one data point from it. All the responses to Goldstone report belong on that page, not here. Kingsindian (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Requesting edit to the sentence

"After the February 1994 massacre by Baruch Goldstein of 30 Muslim civilians in a Hebron mosque": The are multiple mosques in Hebron, the specific one that needs to be mentioned here is the mosque located in Cave of the Patriarchs; the Ibrahimi Mosque. The sentence should read: "After the February 1994 massacre by Baruch Goldstein of 30 Muslim civilians in Hebron's Ibrahimi Mosque", i know this seems trivial.. But accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.78.191.90 (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hamas removed from EU list of terrorist organizations?

According to this site, the European court said EU member states should remove Hamas from the European Union's terrorist list. It doesn't say the European Union actually did it. In fact, I'm not sure that the court has the necessary legal authority to remove any group from the list, although it can issue recommendations to EU members to take such action. Furthermore, EU member states can maintain their freeze on Hamas's assets for three months to give time for further review or to appeal the ruling. European officials reported that EU countries are already working on a dossier providing the court with the evidence that will satisfy it, so this decision by the European court is only temporary.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read how it was reported throughout the world. The page lists 4 sources. The JPost text is referred to Reuters, and Reuters wrote:

The European Union's second highest court annulled on Wednesday the bloc's decision to keep Hamas on a list of terrorist organizations, but temporarily maintained the measures for a period of three months or until an appeal was closed Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

are Nishidani's last edis - NPOV ?

"It would be funny if it were not so sad". :( User:Nishidani who has repeatedly told how he is good in a work with the RS, for some reason chose to the article only those ones that corresponds to one point of view only, i.e. - NPOV. I deliberately took the time to give him the opportunity to deal with the sources, but ...
Moreover, when the Baatarsaikan now trying to correct this not NPOV, Nishidani objects.

Nishidani's version:

Hamas was included in the black list of EU-designated terrorists groups from 2003 to 2014 but the decision was annulled in December 2014 by the General Court of the European Union which stated that the measures were taken from insinuations in the media, with most of the evidence employed to brand Hamas as a terrorist organizations culled from press publications, and not on the basis of Hamas's acts.[430][431] [432][433]

versus

What is really known from yesterday, but is not placed in the article yet:

Court says EU member states can maintain their freeze on Hamas's assets for three months to give time for further review or to appeal the ruling...
According to the “technical issue” argument, Hamas was removed from the list because the evidence used to place the organization on the list did not meet European standards. Two central EU countries have already been working on a dossier providing the court with the evidence that will satisfy it.
“The burden of proof is on the EU and we expect them to immediately return Hamas to the list where everyone realizes they should be,” Netanyahu said. “Hamas is a murderous terrorist organization whose charter says that its aim is to destroy Israel. We will continue to fight it with determination and strength so that it will never realize its aims. "
The EU's envoy to Israel, Lars Faaborg-Andersen, told an official at the Foreign Ministry that Europe is committed to return Hamas to the list, Israel Radio reported.

A top court of the European Union has annulled the bloc's decision to keep the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas on a list of terrorist groups.
The decision had been based not on an examination of Hamas' actions, but on "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet", judges found.
The court said the move was technical and was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group.
...
It said a funding freeze on the group would continue for the time being.
The court said it was therefore annulling Hamas' designation but would temporarily keep existing measures against the group "in order to ensure the effectiveness of any possible future freezing of funds".
This would be maintained for three months, or, if an appeal is brought before the European Court of Justice, until it was closed, it added.

"The court stresses that those annulments, on fundamental procedural grounds, do not imply any substantive assessment of the question of the classification of Hamas as a terrorist group within the meaning of the common position."

Hamas must be removed from the EU's terrorism blacklist, but its assets will stay frozen, a European court ruled on Wednesday.
The freeze on Hamas's funds will also temporarily remain in place for three months pending any appeal by the EU, the Luxembourg-based court said.
... it stressed that Wednesday's decision to remove Hamas was based on technical grounds and does "not imply any substantive assessment of the question of the classification of Hamas as a terrorist group."

The General Court of the European Union ruled on Wednesday that Hamas’s status had been determined by news and Internet reports rather than by “acts examined and confirmed in decisions of competent authorities.”
At the same time, though, the judicial body said that European restrictions on Hamas, such as asset freezes, should remain in force for at least three months to give the parties time to appeal.
Decisions by the court may be appealed on points of law to the bloc’s highest judicial body, the Court of Justice.

We respect the General Court of the European Union's judgement delivered today annulling measures against Hamas, namely the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation and the freezing of Hamas' funds.
This legal ruling is clearly based on procedural grounds and it does not imply any assessment by the Court of the substantive reasons for the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation<. It is a legal ruling of a court, not a political decision taken by the EU governments. The EU continues to uphold the Quartet principles.
The EU institutions are studying carefully the ruling and will decide on the options open to them. They will, in due course, take appropriate remedial action, including any eventual appeal to the ruling. In case of an appeal the restrictive measures remain in place.

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani's sources:

The hearing in the European court was technical and procedural, and did not stem from a change in the EU's position regarding Hamas... The court made it clear that the ruling does not say anything substantial about the status of Hamas or the character of the organization's operations.

Likewise, the three-month postponement also means that Hamas assets within the EU will remain frozen as well as sanctions against its members. During this period EU institutions or member states will be able to appeal the ruling or make a new decision within the council of EU foreign ministers, which would define Hamas as a terror organization based on stronger evidence. + quote from the "Statement by the Spokesperson on the judgement of the General Court of the EU on Hamas" (see my list above)

"The court stresses that those annulments, on fundamental procedural grounds, do not imply any substantive assessment of the question of the classification of Hamas as a terrorist group," the court said in a statement... Although Hamas presented the decision as a victory, Israel and the EU say that the change will not have an effect on the group's position as a terror group in Europe as the court will be given a few months to rebuild the file against Hamas with evidence that will enable the Gaza-based group to remain on the list of terror organizations."

"it stressed that Wednesday's decision to remove Hamas was based on technical grounds and does not imply any substantive assessment of the question of the classification of Hamas as a terrorist group... The freeze on Hamas' funds will also temporarily remain in place for three months pending any appeal by the EU, the Luxembourg-based court said."

Yet RS:
  • EU court orders Hamas removal from terror list - english.alarabiya.net
  • EU court rules Hamas should be taken off terror list - ustoday
  • EU ‘may appeal’ against court order to remove Hamas from terror list - euronews.com
  • EU insists on Hamas terror status after blacklist removal - dailymail.co.uk
... --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So who really needs this above-mentioned advice (@Nishidani) : "Please read how it was reported throughout the world"  ? :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Igorp. I see by your numerous spelling mistakes that you are not quite at home in English. You cite the texts I used for my edit summary and talk page explanation. The texts you cite confirm the accuracy of my edit. Could you therefore be precise and say exactly where in that edit you believe there is a source distortion? The above challenge is, frankly, bizarre. As to Baatarsaikan, a red-linked newbie who entered here just to alter my edit, and thereby restore a falsehood, inspires no confidence. Over the past weeks numerous oncers, anonymous IPs, et al., have systematically reverted much of my daily maintenance work. They have absolutely no familiarity with Wikipedia or policy.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding to my mistakes - I would be grateful if you can send me the same my text, but without those mistakes. Thanks in advance.
About your edits:
  • you states as a fact that Court's decision annulled EU's decision. Nevertheless, only about 1/2 of RS states this as a fact, another 1/2 (as min) calls it as proposal. I'll add yet RS' titles later.
  • I do not have many time today, so I only will highlight in my quotes above what you haven't included in the article but what is important and has to be included for a NPOV presentation.
--Igorp_lj (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
You are wasting my time. That 'Court says EU member states can maintain their freeze on Hamas's assets for three months to give time for further review or to appeal the ruling,' has nothing to do with the fact that, given the court's ruling, the decision to brand Hamas a terrorist organization is nullified. We do not reproduce material, we paraphrase its essence. The court decision annulled a EU determination. Annul means cancel, when you annul a decision as based on false grounds, and show the procedures used to establish that decision were invalid, and therefore the decision was not legal, that means the determination has no legal standing. That the court allowed 3 months for the asset freeze to remain over, has nothing to do with the substance of the decision, which is simply to show that the original judgement was faulty. It will be appealed, and when appealed, this will be reported. If the court establishes it is a proper designation, that will be stated. Here is the original determination, and it shows that the court annulled the EU decision that Hamas was a terrorist organization, just as numerous sources report.

In today’s judgment, the General Court finds that the contested measures are based not on acts examined and confirmed in decisions of competent authorities but on factual imputations derived from the press and the internet. However, the Common Position and the case-law of the Court requires that an EU decision to freeze funds is based not on factual elements that the Council may have derived from the press or the internet, but on elements which have been concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities within the meaning of the Common Position. Therefore the Court annuls the contested measures while temporarily maintaining the effects of those measures in order to ensure the effectiveness of any possible future freezing of funds. The effects of the measures are maintained for a period of three months, or, if an appeal is brought before the Court of Justice, until this appeal is closed.

The European Union's lower court has annulled the bloc's decision to keep Hamas on a list of terrorist organisations, but maintained the measures against the group for a period of three months or until appeals against the decision were closed.

A European court annulled Hamas’ inclusion on a blacklist of terrorist groups, saying the 2001 decision was based on press and Internet reports and not legal reasoning.

The European Union's second highest court annulled on Wednesday the bloc's decision to keep Hamas on a list of terrorist organizations', but temporarily maintained the measures for a period of three months or until an appeal was close

  • Jack Moore, [Israeli and Palestinian reaction to EU court's 'removal' of Hamas from terror blacklist,'] IB Times 17 December 2017

the General Court of the European Union has annulled the EU's decision to keep Palestinian group Hamas on their blacklist of terror organisations.

You are wasting my time. Please desist. It is not courteous to demand explanations of the obvious. Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
(till discussion on your new source from the Court's site).
All what you have brought additionally, does not substantiate your reluctance to include in the article the following:
* 1. The difference in the interpretation of "annulled / calling to" among RS (different sources interpreted the court's decision in different ways)
* 2. EU's opinion that the Court's decision is procedural only, and "was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group",
* 3. The information about the Court's decision to extend for 3 months Hamas funds' blocking to review the results of a possible appeal, and
* 4. that EU continues to consider Hamas as terrorist organization and intends to file such an appeal.
The saddest thing is that all of this exists in your first three sources that are referenced by your version.
Unfortunately, this can not be treated differently than the selective choice of sources and the same selective quoting from your own RS.
And now to the following RS, what you have brought only today: 'The Court annuls, on procedural grounds, the Council measures maintaining Hamas on the European list of terrorist organisations'
Of course, it takes precedence over all the news reports, so #1 can be considered as solved. However, it does not negate other #2-4.
And ... unfortunately, here you use selective quoting again:

(missing in your quote) The Court stresses that those annulments, on fundamental procedural grounds, do not imply any substantive assessment of the question of the classification of Hamas as a terrorist group within the meaning of the Common Position.

Do you want me to construe that for you. The court said the decision is annulled, but as a judicial body, it does not engage in independent assessments of the question, which is for the EU collectively to determine. It deals simply with the legal status of EU decisions, and the prior decision was not taken according to the proper legal procedures required to make a determination of this kind. Got that?Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I can only add more from the Court's decision itself: Hamas vs European Council (Case T-400/10) Judgment 17/12/14, Thursday, 18 December 2014, 6:59 pm

3) The effects of decision 2014/483 and Implementing Regulation No 790/2014 were maintained for three months from the delivery of this judgment or, if an appeal is brought within the period referred to in Article 56, first paragraph of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, until the Court rules on it.

Summary: I do not want to waste my time too - for your resolute unwillingness to bring the issue to NPOV. So I'll have to think about other measures. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Did you read what the court Press Release said? No. To repeat, it used the word annulled. I.e.
Sure, I did. Moreover I've added the link to its full Decision. See my (23:51, 20 December 2014) reply above. --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: "Hamas vs European Council" European Court's decision. Should the following related information be included ?

Cited reasons to include really boil down to "it happened and it was cited". Opponents agree that the language and its extra detail is unnecessary and confusing. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose to include the following information to the article (see discussion & RS above):

  1. EU's opinion that the Court's decision is procedural only, and "was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group".
  2. Information about the Court's decision to extend for 3 months Hamas funds' blocking to review the results of a possible appeal.
  3. EU continues to consider Hamas as terrorist organization and intends to file such an appeal.

-- Igorp_lj (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Upd: Statement by High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini on the decision to appeal the Judgment regarding Hamas, 19/01/2015

The Council of the European Union has decided to appeal today the Judgment of the General Court (in Case T-400/10 - Hamas v. Council) of 17 December 2014.
The Judgment of the General Court of the European Union annulled measures taken by the Council of the European Union against Hamas, namely the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation and the freezing of Hamas' funds. This ruling was clearly based on procedural grounds and did not imply any assessment by the Court of the merits of designating the Hamas as a terrorist organization.
The Council has now decided to challenge some of the findings of the Court regarding the procedural grounds to list terrorist organizations under EU autonomous measures to combat terrorism, as set out in Common Position 2001/931. As a result of the appeal, the effects of the Judgment are suspended until a final judgment is rendered by the Court of Justice.
The EU institutions are also studying carefully other appropriate remedial actions that may be taken to avoid possible annulments in the future within the ongoing review process of EU autonomous measures to combat terrorism. The fight against terrorism remains a priority for the European Union. In this sense, the EU is determined to stem the financing of terrorism, for which EU autonomous measures are an essential tool.

So ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Support

Support. The vast majority of reliable sources mention these 3 points. Marokwitz (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Support. According to this site, the European court said EU member states should remove Hamas from the European Union's terrorist list. It doesn't say the European Union actually did it. In fact, I'm not sure that the court has the necessary legal authority to remove any group from the list, although it can issue recommendations to EU members to take such action. Furthermore, EU member states can maintain their freeze on Hamas's assets for three months to give time for further review or to appeal the ruling. European officials reported that EU countries are already working on a dossier providing the court with the evidence that will satisfy it, so this decision by the European court is only temporary.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Support. Looks very reasonable to include. Legacypac (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. A European court annulled a decision made a decade ago to classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. All sources state that the judgement removed the name of Hamas from the terrorist blacklist. The text of the article said:the EU regards Hamas as 'terrorist' and cited several articles from 2003 reflecting the original decision, which, in 2014, was overturned. The court gave individual governments 3 months to provide evidence that might lead to a revocation of the judgement, which is in the interim valid. It maintained the freezing of Hamas funds for that period, as cautionary. The substance lies in the annulment, not in the interim maintenance of the freezing of funds. Commenting editors should read the evidence above before weighing in. The sentence in the lead, as it stands, is valid. The body of the text under the flagicon EU entry can obviously add that the move is regarded as 'procedural', whatever that means.Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. As (talk) stated, the EU court overturned the blacklist entry. The EU is well known to abide by the EU court rulings, as rule by scofflaw via dismissing the court does not exist with the EU. Overruled lists, laws or resolutions cease to be in effect when a court of law overturns them. If laws were the final word and courts cannot overturn an unlawful law or anti-constitutional law, there would be no need for courts at all.Wzrd1 (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Unnecessarily confusing content that does not provide an accurate perspective. DOCUMENT★ERROR 20:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
What "accurate perspective" are you meaning? IMHO, just my additions do make such a perspective. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Called by a bot at random to comment. The court removed Hamas from the terrorist list. The finding of the court is valid until it is overturned, if it ever is. We should not seek to downplay the findings of the court. AlbinoFerret 00:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This article's part isn't about the "HAMAS" Court Decision, but about if EU regards Hamas as 'terrorist organisation'. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Has the EU stated, on the record, that it intends to appeal? I didn't see that in any of the citations. If and when it does, that should be mentioned.
  • I don't think the continued freeze of Hamas funds should be included in the table.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
As min: EU insists on Hamas terror status after blacklist removal

The EU insisted that it still viewed Hamas as a terrorist group, saying that the ruling by the General Court of the European Union was based on a technicality and that it might appeal the decision.
"This is a legal ruling, not a political decision," European Commission spokeswoman Maja Kocijancic said.
She said the EU would "take appropriate remedial action" and pointed out that under the ruling the designation of Hamas as a terror group and the freeze of its funds remains in place for three months or pending the outcome of an appeal.

--Igorp_lj (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
+ see Upd 1 February 2015 above. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Where is Hamas on the left-right scale?

Fatah, Hamas's main rival within the palestinian movement, is listed as centre-left. Would it be accurate to list Hamas as center-right, or right-wing, or come up with some more substantiated evidence to make such a determination?Skberry889 (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Such a label would be unhelpful. One could make an argument to say that Hamas is to the right of Fatah, but such a labelling would only work if left-right is understood as linked to secular-religious. The solution is rather to remove the 'centre-left' label from the Fatah page, Fatah is never characterized as centre-left in Palestinian politics. Only the leftwing groups (PFLP, DFLP, PPP) identify themselves on left-right axis in Palestinian politics. --Soman (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Nations that have proscribed Hamas in lede

The sentence in lede states; "Hamas or its military wing is designated as a terrorist organization by"....and then lists Australia and the UK (The UK Home Office states; Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Proscribed March 2001. Hamas aims to end Israeli occupation in Palestine and establish an Islamic state. Pretty clear, it's Hamas or its military wing...which the UK Home Office has stated it proscribes. Nishidani (who obviously has a dog in this fight) has added in the next sentence..."The United Kingdom and Australia have proscribed Hamas's military wing, but do not list Hamas as a whole as a terrorist organization"...as clear an attempt to legitimise Hamas as you will see. Its not only deceitful, to then use Sputnik as a source is laughable (even more so reading his comment above "we need strong sources"). Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that's a fairly clear reference to just its military wing. The sentence should clarify which claim the entire organization as a terrorist organization and which claim its military wing. Regarding an attempt to legitimise Hamas, that really is neither here nor there, just as it is not relevant that the obfuscation you insist on is a clear attempt to denounce the organization. nableezy - 14:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Obfuscation it is. (The only dog I have in this (which is not a 'fight) is to be dogged about being precise, and being neutral.) I object to the Hamas or its military wing formulation because it conflates two organizations. We have two articles, one on Hamas (this) and one on its military arm, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. The US, Canada and Israel don't distinguish them, : almost everyone else does, for the simple reason that political bodies, democratically elected, that run social services, schools, hospitals, and a whole society under an elected mandate do not fit the standard concept of a terrorist organization. Hamas runs a microstate. Saying my attempt to make the distinction most states make is 'an attempt to legitimize Hamas' is silly. Israel and the US attempt to delegitimize it, as did the earlier version. We don't enter into the merits of that: we simply are obliged to get the facts straight. By the way, a large number of the newspaper sources reporting that Japan put Hamas on its terror list seem to be citing this article, and not independently verifiable sources. Bad sourcing means Wikipedia becomes an authority for the very sources it draws on, i.e., meme circulation.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The flagicon section needs fixing, with a lot more countries introduced, and nonsense re Egypt's court decision = government decision, elided.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Er no, i clearly stated "Hamas or its military wing" (which was the wording in the article), hence the one reference to the UK was correct. If it wasn't correct then the previous wording would have stood. Nishidani, when did Sputnik become a strong source?.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Er no, that wording is deliberately vague, almost as though one were trying to intentionally wave away any differentiation between the views of the various governments. I've taken care of that so that the article no longer conflates the views of those who hold Hamas as a whole to be a terrorist organization and those who hold its military wing to be such. nableezy - 19:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and correcting an intentionally vague wording is not deceitful. One might say purposely conflating those disparate views is deceitful, but then one would likely be violating WP:CIVIL. nableezy - 19:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Argh, (sung to 'the times they are a changen') since when wuz you ever 'civil', raghead?:)Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I dont know, I'm thinking between the ages of 7 and 14. nableezy - 19:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Egypt/Japan/Australia Hamas

Egypt was listed as branding Hamas a terrorist organization. The source ("Egypt courts list Hamas as terrorist group, give Brotherhood leader life". Reuters. Retrieved 2015-02-28.) says an Egyptian court stated it was a terrorist organization but that

A spokesman for the Egyptian government declined to say what actions the government would take to enforce the ruling."When a final judgment is issued, we will discuss this," Hossam al-Qawish said.
I.e. the court verdict is not final, and the Egyptian government has not acted on it.Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • AustraliaThe whole list needs checking. Hamas or the military wing is simply not adequate since many nations here have a clear distinction between the two, whereas or tends to conflate the two. The earlier link to the Australian source said no such thing. I've replaced it with a proper link which however (see the accompanying note) appears to make quite explicitly an acknowledgement that Hamas, as opposed to its military wing, is a 'is a multifaceted, well organised and relatively moderate organization.' If that is the Australia government position, then we should not be running Hamas and its militant wing's status together as this sentence did.Nishidani (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Japan. The sister article in Japanese writes:

イスラエルに対してテロリズムを含めた武装闘争路線を維持するハマースに対する評価は、国や団体により様々である。イスラエル、EU、アメリカ合衆国はハマースをテロ組織に指定している。ヨルダンは1990年から国内における活動を禁止している。ノルウェー、ロシア、トルコ、カタール、エジプトなどの政府は、ハマースの指導者と対話を行っている。

Countries and (international)bodies differ in their assessments of Hamas's support for armed struggle, including terrorism, against Israel. Israel, the EU, and the United States have designated it as a terrorist organization, Since 1990 Jordan has prohibited it from operating on its soil. The governments of Norway, Russia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt maintain a dialogue with Hamas leaders.

I.e. there is no mention, as one would expect from the article, of Japan officially designating Hamas as a terrorist organization. Perhaps it does, but we need strong sources for the claim.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Japan designated Hamas as terrorist organisation. [3]--Tritomex (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Anyone can google what they want and find some confirmation. This is meme replication in otherwise reliable newspapers. On this logic, you can cite the NYTs for the fact that the Golan Heights is in Israel, which is untrue, but has been repeated in that newspaper.
I've checked and this is what the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has on its website:

日本は、ハマスを、国連安保理決議1373に基づいて、外国為替及び外国貿易法（外為法）に基づく資産凍結措置の対象としています。問10．ハマスとは何ですか。Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.

Which means

On the basis of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, Japan applies to Hamas the assets freeze measures in accordance with its Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law (Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Control Law).

So far, and this is open to correction, there does not appear to be any official move to designate Hamas itself as a terrorist organization. What happened was that the Japanese government initially lauded the democratic nature of the 2006 elections which Hamas won. News of this disconcerted the Bush Administration, which applied intense pressure on Japan, which after several months changed its position. (Michael Penn, Japan and the War on Terror: Military Force and Political Pressure in the US-Japanese Alliance, I.B. Taurus 2014 pp.205-206).
With the U.S., Israel, Canada, we have a verifiable list of designated terrorist organizations in their relevant government sites. I have failed to find any such designation of Hamas on the Japanese Government website, and the above FAC makes no mention of it. Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Nish, with all do respect, unless you can find a better source saying that Japan doesn't list them I think the article has to accept that it does based on the BBC source. If you could find a list of proscribed terrorist organizations from the government of Japan and Hamas wasnt on it that be one thing, but absent that I dont think, based on the rules of this place, that we can disregard the BBC source. As foolish as it seems the article doesnt have to be true, it just needs to reflect the sources, and here theres a secondary source that we all, I think, accept as generally reliable that specifically says Japan lists them as such. nableezy - 20:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Quite right that truth has nothing to do with it, in that regard Wikipedia is like politics. If you go through a 100 or so sources you find the same statement in the same order, and that for me indicates copying. Japan is very finicky about not overcommitting itself on things like this. It satisfied the yanks by freezing Hamas's assets, but it does not, unlike the 3 other governments named, posted this on its government website. That website is very very reliable, and technically precise. I haven't, nota bene, removed the sources added. I have simply placed a notification asking people to look around in the meantime.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added another related Foreign Ministery source to the other one, which is about foreign exchange controls and freezing assets of terrorist organizations, naming the Taliban and Al Qaeda, however, but it is this to which the other source alluded. I'm personally not satisfied with the evidence so far, but your point is valid, and I dislike blotting pages with tags.Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

EU & Hamas

Yet forgotten correction:

Closed by Drmies (25.02) That's the pity, but my reply at his Talk hasn't been answered:

IMHO, your "Opponents agree that the language and its extra detail is unnecessary and confusing" Result is not correct, as opinions were divided equally (4:4). Moreover, those who were "against", did not respond to my questions and clarifications.

Such info as "Statement by High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini on the decision to appeal the Judgment regarding Hamas, 19/01/2015" hasn't been taken into account as well. :(

So sad (mainly, for Wiki's credibility) but not surprised: even such news are not included i the article till today:

The European Union kept Hamas on its terrorism blacklist Friday despite a controversial court decision ordering Brussels to remove the Palestinian Islamist group from the register.

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(This type of editing is getting predictable from you. If I need company, all I need do is make an edit, anywhere, and up you pop.
Your edit goes, as you admit, against the closure verdict given by Drmies. Therefore you shouldn't have made it. Mogherini's statement did not state what you think it did.

Statement by High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini on the decision to appeal the Judgment regarding Hamas


19/01/2015

Print

The Council of the European Union has decided to appeal today the Judgment of the General Court (in Case T-400/10 - Hamas v. Council) of 17 December 2014.

The Judgment of the General Court of the European Union annulled measures taken by the Council of the European Union against Hamas, namely the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation and the freezing of Hamas' funds. This ruling was clearly based on procedural grounds and did not imply any assessment by the Court of the merits of designating the Hamas as a terrorist organization. The Council has now decided to challenge some of the findings of the Court regarding the procedural grounds to list terrorist organizations under EU autonomous measures to combat terrorism, as set out in Common Position 2001/931. As a result of the appeal, the effects of the Judgment are suspended until a final judgment is rendered by the Court of Justice.

In layman's language the EU's court of law annulled a decision by the EU. The EU said it would appeal the decision, and pending that appeal the effects of the judgement are suspended (i.e., the practical application of measures like freezing funds will remain). Butr I'm not going to reargue this. You've edited in when there was no consensus to make that edit.Nishidani (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "This type of editing is getting predictable from you..." @ Nishidani  :)
And your version isn't correct as usual. It's me who wrote the following above the same quote:

I propose to include the following information to the article (see discussion & RS above):
EU's opinion that the Court's decision is procedural only, and "was not a reassessment of Hamas' classification as a terrorist group".
Information about the Court's decision to extend for 3 months Hamas funds' blocking to review the results of a possible appeal.
EU continues to consider Hamas as terrorist organization and intends to file such an appeal.
-- Igorp_lj (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Upd: Statement by High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini on the decision to appeal the Judgment regarding Hamas, 19/01/2015
...

And it's you too who oppossed it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Comparisons Hamas and Likud charters

Hey, sorry if this isn't okay, i'm new to this, but yea, i read this in this section: "Like Hamas, Likud has evidenced moves away from its original hardline position. In his speech at Bar Ilan University in June 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of Likud, declared that he would support the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state." - Mr Netanyahu recently said things that contradict this, so which statement do we go by? Squeer (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


@Igorp Ij: - OK, you are correct. I was lazy in copying only one citation from Hamas Covenant. I will add three or four more. You appear to be asking also "Why in"? The reason is that Wiki insists on balance where non-NPOV elements are concerned. I provided the balance by showing that the right-wing Israeli factions have the same fundamental charters/positions as Hamas, just in reverse. I fully realise that that balancing editing might not be welcome by those who prefer the traditional slanted playing field. But Wiki is absolutely NOT about one-sided slanted playing fields. Erictheenquirer (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"absolutely NOT about one-sided slanted playing fields" - "Parole parole" :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


How can you say that right-wing Israeli factions have the same fundamental positions as Hamas? Hamas has fired rockets into Israel's civilian population even before it came to power in 2006. Before that it had suicide bombers coming from West Bank to kill civilian Israelis. On the other hands, Israeli right wing aren't genocidal and if they are found to be racist, they are banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed this whole ridiculous section. There was one source there that made the comparison - an opinion piece by Peter Beinart. So UNDUE it's not even funny. The rest was SYNTH. I can't believe experienced editors let this stuff sit in the article for two weeks two and a half months(!), as the, what, 3rd section in the article? Seriously? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani introduces - whitewashing Hamas Charter - 2 state solution

Let's start with bringing in Israelis parties. While mostly true, it is completely off topic. It might be appropriate to mention it as side note at the end but defiantly not take the start of the section or put it in the name.

The quotes of Khaked Meshaal are sand in the eyes of the reader. One of the sources even mentions the facft Hamas will accept the result of a referendum after the Palestinian state will be created but Hamas won't sign it itself. In addition, Hamas offered Hudna, not peace. Then again comes some more blah blah about Israel.

This stuff simply doesn't belong here. 95.86.114.125 (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the sources. The objection was (a) WP:SYNTH (b) Beinart's opinion in an op ed. The linkage of the uncompromising irredentism in Hamas's charter to Likud's own platform is not peculiar to Beinart but is found in many sources predating his statement of it, which however got more news coverage. These sources, except perhaps Tessler, closely connect the two matters, therefore (a) it is not synth and (b) it is not a personal opinion. I'm not whitewashing anything. I am documenting the full record, rather than, as editors and the media often do, deleting it.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
This article is about Hamas and the prime section is about Hamas's Charter. Most of the information you entered doesn't touch on either and doesn't belong. It is appropriate on Two-state solution article but not here.95.86.117.174 (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It was removed on two grounds. I resolved those objections, rewriting and resourcing it. You have an opinion, or a dislike not an argument.Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Putting aside the misleading stuff (like Hamas/Mashaal's acceptance of a two state solution, for which I will bring newer contradicting sources later), this is obvious UNDUE. The charter itself gets a paragraph and this fringy comparison gets 5x the amount of text? That's ridiculous. Its placement in the article is also problematic.
A few more problems:
  • Could you show where Ayala H. Emmett makes an explicit comparison between Hamas and Likud or other "right wing parties"? Otherwise that bit is OR.
  • Same for Tessler.
  • Beinart op-ed link doesn't load, seems to be truncated.
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
(a)Emmet makes the explicit comparison on the pages cited. But I have tightened the passage.
(b) I have removed Tessler's ref to Begin, and used him solely for the quote on Hamas's position, which is legitimate.
(c)I've fixed the truncated link to Beinart. Thanks for noting my ineptitude
(d)There is, as far as I can see, nothing misleading here.
  • I responded to your earlier edit summary's complaint. The record shows Haniyeh's position- I have added Kamel, who in the same piece mentions the Likud Charter and Hamas's rejectionism. No doubt sources throwing doubt on this can be added.
  • Insisting it is a flimsy comparison when several book sources use it doesn't seem appropriate. There are many more James Zogby comes to mind, who have used the same comparison in the same context. I've limited the evidence.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
You have an opinion, or a dislike not an argument??? Likud and Bennett are WP:OFFTOPIC especially when some of it is before talking about Hamas take on the issue. Yet another WP:POVPUSH by you. 95.86.117.174 (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
There is still a major UNDUE problem here. Most sources that discuss the Hamas charter do not make the comparison that is now the bulk of the Charter section. A quick google books search for "Hamas charter" (which is obviously not the full extent of the books that discuss the charter) returns 3590 results. Add "Likud" to that (which doesn't necessarily mean the book is making the comparison) and you get 273 results. So at best, 7%. You get pretty much the same ratio in general google searches. And this is the best case scenario. In truth it's probably much less. So, the size of the text here is both UNDUE in relation to the section it's in, and UNDUE in relation to the whole article. Not to mention the fact those who actually make the comparison do so in opinion pieces. I suggest cutting it down considerably, to something along the lines of "Peter Beinart and Noam Chomsky note that similarly to the way the Hamas charter negates the existence of Israel by claiming all the territory, former Likud charters also claimed the whole territory thus negating a Palestinian state and making a two state solution impossible" or something along those lines. The charter has its own article, so something more detailed could possible go there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
(a) I don't think the WP:Undue argument applies at all, and certainly not the google percentage.
(b) Two of the sources note that the media are highly repetitive in citing Hamas's charter's remarks about expunging Israel, (you get millions of refs to that) while ignoring the fact that several times Hamas has made private or public overtures to the US Administration and Israel for a 67 border compromise, temporal but long term. That means we have a strong WP:Systemic bias probability in our sources that overrides WP:Undue, the implication there is that the view is fringe, unrepresentative.
(c)It can neither be fringe nor undue if the quality of the sources is very high. Peter Beinart is a major liberal voice in American Zionism. Chomsky - well, people like to deride him, but his views were requested by a mainstream American Jewish voice on this issue. No one doubts he knows the subject from top to bottom. Emmett is a professor of anthropology at Rochester;Elliot N. Dorff is a conservative rabbi and professorial scholar interviewing Chomsky; Lorenzo Kamel is a Hebrew University of Jerusalem graduate, with a doctorate from Bologna University where he teaches, with four I/P books to his credit etc. Those are very strong sources, from a mix of scholarly backgrounds. And they all note the same thing.
(d)Most books deal with Hamas from 1987. The views documented here date from ca.2006 onwards. Since they are recent, they will not have the same google yield as do general searches for Hamas+charter. So there's a statistical bias in your search method, in my view.
(e)The views are not limited to Beinart and Chomsky. Several sources mean personal attribution is not necessary. Perhaps we could get a request for external input on this?Nishidani (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
So your argument is that if a source says there's bias, it may no longer be considered UNDUE? That's interesting.
Your assertion about "quality" sources (whatever that means) never being UNDUE doesn't ring a bell. Could you kindly refer me to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that's from?
Yes, by all means let's get some input. This place is deserted. I'm really feeling the decline of Wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Quality sources refers implicitly to WP:RS, best practice is to use academic sources with university or established mainstream publishing imprints by authorities in their fields. These all fit those criteria. A fringe viewpoint is to be excluded because it is an established fact, connected by those sources, that the Likud policy affirms total sovereignty, while Hamas's charter is irredentist, claiming a right to total sovereignty (in the future). No one disputes this fact, in either case, because the primary sources for both on the public record state these positions explicitly, both have never been revised. Several academic sources connect the dots. There is, surely, nothing to object to therefore. But third party opinions are always invaluable. I'm not an expert on how to do it, so by all means, put up a RfC notification.Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I said it should be cut down to size and attributed, not removed. Beinart is not an academic source he is a commentator with a POV. Chomsky here is not an academic source, he's a commentator with a POV. Your reading of RS and NPOV here is plain wrong.
Anyway, I'll go to 3O if nobody shows up here in a couple of days (something that would have been unheard of on an article like this 2 years ago). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The New York Times is not an academic source and is quoted for facts everywhere here. Beinart is a scholar: he is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York. The fact that a scholar contributes to newspapers, does not mean that he is by that fact no longer a scholar, but a commentator. Every scholar has a POV (except Zero's world of mathematicians perhaps). Chomsky is an academic source. Dislike of his POV means nothing. It's like saying you can't use Michael Oren because, apart from being a scholar, he is a spokesman for Israel.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Beinart is a pundit, as his article correctly notes. When he writes an opinion piece that represents his opinion. Chomsky's academic credentials are in linguistics. When he's being interviewed on politics he's giving his personal opinion. Both are often quoted which is why I don't question the notability of their opinions, but they're still their opinions. If Oren was saying something in an op-ed outside his area of expertise I would not object to him being attributed either. See WP:NEWSORG and the section about op-eds. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
A pundit refers also to scholars who speak to the media. Beinart is cited primarily for the facts he adduces, which anyone can independently confirm. Chomsky is a linguistics professor who also writes historical and analytical works regarding Israel. Edward Luttwak is a trained economist, who works for military instiutions, like Oren, and yet wrote a fine eminently quotable book on Byzantine Grand Strategy. All three write for newspapers. Only Chomsky is challenged on Wikipedia on these grounds, which are, frankly, ridiculous. In any case, WP:NEWSORG reads

When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[6] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces

Further, there are numerous authors cited essentially for the same information, not just these two, and they all hold academic posts. In these cases, we are dealing with a convergence of sources, not solitary opinions.
Both Beinart and Chomsky, as well as a few of the others, are presented with attribution. Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Kidnapped vs captured

The two countries are at war. One has sovereign territory, the other has territory that is occupied. Every week roughly 100 Palestinians are, in media reports, 'detained', 'arrested'. Palestinian media report these 'arrests' by foreign troops on their soil, even in Area A as 'kidnapping'. 'Kidnapping' is a POV, be it Israel speaking of Shalit, or Palestine speaking of any of the 6,000 people held in 'detention'. It is therefore unacceptable per NPOV. I always translate 'kidnapped' in Palestinian sources into 'arrested', 'detained'. And I think descriptions of the Shalit case should likewise avoid 'kidnapping' in a context of an armed conflict. The 3 teenagers were kidnapped: they were unarmed civilians, not involved in hostilities, as numerous Palestinians seized in night raids by Israel are civilians, unarmed, and not involved in hostilities.Nishidani (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between legal forces of a recognized nation detaining somebody (even a foreign citizen) to face trial in a legal system, with a non-State organization that illegally abducts a soldier in his sovereign country. It's not the same like a war between Egypt and Israel, where there are POWs. Besides, we can't deny reality, whether we consider it neutral or not. 'Kidnapped' and 'abducted' are common terms supported by given sources:
1) Here is a look at the life of Gilad Shalit, a former Israeli soldier abducted and imprisoned by the military wing of Hamas from 2006 to 2011.
2) We kidnapped Gilad Shalit and handed him over to Hamas.
3) In the past, Hamas had undertaken joint military operations with Jaish al-Islam, like the 2006 kidnapping of Gilad Shalit.
See also [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]--Averysoda (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Putting aside the fact that one of your sources is an Israeli newspaper and that the other is an obviously partisan editorial(the rest are, of course, deliberately selected to prove a point), it is clear that, generally speaking, the words 'capture', 'abduct' and 'kidnap' are all used by reliable sources. The point is to determine the word which is best suited to describe the situation, and which word is ideal for a strictly npov source such as Wikipedia. This is where the judgement of the editors comes in. Are the words 'abduct' or 'kidnap' seriously accurate? No, they are not. That is ludicrous. This is a war(or a 'conflict', however one wishes to characterize the Israeli-Palestinian dispute), and in war, soldiers get captured. It is not a kidnapping. It is not an abduction. The distinction between "a war between Egypt and Israel, where there are POWs" and a warring "non-State organization" capturing a soldier "in his sovereign country" is more conceptual than actual. JDiala (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Although I understand your point, kidnapping is defined as the "unlawful taking away or transportation of a person against that person's will, usually to hold the person unlawfully." This is exactly what Hamas did. However, since many reliable sources use indistinctly "kidnap/abduct/capture", I accept your edit.--Averysoda (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is the dictionary definition of the word. You also have to consider the connotation and the context in which it is being used. JDiala (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
By the dictionary definition, thereforem, AS, I would be entitled to use 'kidnapped' of every instance (100 a week) of Palestinians in the territories being seized against their will, against international law, to be held in administrative detention or otherwise. They are indeed in Palestinian reports mentioned as being kidnapped. I've read that for years. I've always resisted the idea that such Palestinians have been 'kidnapped' for the same reason I find mention of Shalit's capture, not a civilian, but a soldier on duty in a conflict, as a 'kidnapping'. It's an egregious POV to misrepresent as a form of banditry or thuggery what is evidently a stratagem (used by both sides, whatever their excuses).Nishidani (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Not only is it not against international law, it's an obligation of the occupier to police the territory they occupy. They are allowed to detain and arrest people for various reasons. On the other hand, Shalit was kidnapped for ransom. But none of this matters. The question is always what most sources use. Assuming we can figure that out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted that, at least in the past, Israel actually legalized hostage taking and torture in violation of international law. Additionally, as Nishidani noted, there is an extensive record of Palestinians being extrajudicially kidnapped(in this case, the word would be fitting, since many of them actually are kids and many are likely innocent) most of whom are treated extremely more harshly than Shalit was (Shalit was never tortured by the so-called terrorist Hamas. There were some inconveniences, such as not being able to contact his family, but that's about it). They are also evidently used as bargaining chips, a fact admitted by former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami. Lastly, @No More Mr Nice Guy: I see you have not read my previous comment; I address the issue of the sources. JDiala (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
That's certainly possible. Usually when I see a large amount of soapboxing I don't bother reading the whole comment. OK, I had a look. Do you mean the comment where you say terms used by RS are "ludicrous"? That doesn't seem very helpful. Also, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the convention against the taking of hostages [9]. These guys planned an operation for the sole purpose of taking a hostage. That's not "capturing a POW" which happens in the battlefield or when they surrenders. Anyway, we should see what the sources say and even if they say something you find "ludicrous", if that's what most sources use that's what we should use here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Well if you read what I said I stated the distinction between capturing a POW and what happened to Shalit is "more conceptual than actual". Legalistic renderings of UN documents is precisely what that means. I did not say he should be referred to as a prisoner of war. In fact, I don't even argue that it wasn't a hostage taking (again, however, given the reality of Shalit's status as a soldier and the general nature of armed conflict, care needs to be taken to account for the connotative meanings of words like 'hostage', 'abduction' and 'kidnap'. Dictionary definitions and legal musings are insufficient to settle this matter). All I argue for is he be referred to as a 'captive' and his capture called precisely that - a "capture" (not a kidnapping) as that is the only neutral word. Do you disagree with this? Why is "capture" not neutral? It is used by a myriad of sources, as shown in my original comment, and it is fair. Moreover, as you may know, the problem with quoting individual words ("ludicrous") from a particular statement is that they're generally devoid of any context. It's clear that you haven't responded to my substantive argument, in particular regarding the sources, an argument which the original person who reverted my edit in fact conceded. JDiala (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I have responded but let me do so again - we need to determine what term most RS use, and then use that. Even if some editors don't like it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
No, you have not. Tell me, are you lazy or just an idiot? It's frustrating for me to actually have to repeat myself when all you need to do is scroll upwards and read. I said that "...it is clear that, generally speaking, the words 'capture', 'abduct' and 'kidnap' are all used by reliable sources. The point is to determine the word which is best suited to describe the situation, and which word is ideal for a strictly npov source such as Wikipedia. I also said in my more recent comment that "care needs to be taken to account for the connotative meanings of words like 'hostage', 'abduction' and 'kidnap'". For it's not quite as simple as tallying the number of times RS use certain (unequivocally pov) words, particularly since the Zionist lobby has so efficaciously infiltrated the media. Remember, WP:RS does not say anywhere that we need to say what RS say word-for-word (again, though, I must stress that the word capture--what I am proposing--is used by news sources consistently). JDiala (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You mad, bro? All because I suggested we use the terminology most RS use? You should really find another hobby if this sort of thing upsets you so much. Anyway, tell us more about the infiltration of the media by the Zionist lobby. Sounds fascinating. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed I am mad "bro", though the reason you're giving is incorrect (all the more amusing when I gave you the reason). Regarding the Zionist infiltration of the media, I refer you to chapter six of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by Mearsheimer and Walt. It appears as this discussion is taking us nowhere; your likely congenital ineptitude at reading comprehension impedes your ability to contribute meaningfully to this project. Thus, I would suggest you ought to "find another hobby", idiot. JDiala (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
If you're mad maybe you should take a break, bro. All this name calling reflects badly on you and to me it's like water off a duck's back. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I will (at least from this discussion) -- the reason, however, being that I've won. JDiala (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course "kidnapped" is not a neutral way to describe Shalit's capture even if some sources call it that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
'Not only is it not against international law, it's an obligation of the occupier to police the territory they occupy.'
Indeed, an obligation that it consistently refuses to fulfill (https://books.google.it/books?id=6aLsz14aKJsC&pg=PA29 here) and https://books.google.it/books?id=ri-MB9EImPkC&pg=PA248 here where it is under an obligation to protect the occupied people from violence from third parties, and abstain from using third parties to promote their own interests (read settlers). One could go on, but, who reads these things?Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
In any case, 'kidnapping' is unacceptable. 'Abduction' is perhaps the best term for wikipedia. As to Averysoda's
'There's a difference between legal forces of a recognized nation detaining somebody (even a foreign citizen) to face trial in a legal system, with a non-State organization that illegally abducts a soldier in his sovereign country.'
It misses the point that Israel is a power engaged in 'belligerent occupation' of territory beyond its borders. Look up 'belligerent'. The laws that apply are those governing armed conflict (abduction/capture), not those of sovereign states within their own territory (kidnapping). The latter certainly applies to Israeli civilians however.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
What they did is called "hostage taking" in international law. See my comment above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
What Israel does, and is called by its name, is 'hostage taking', as in this instance here. People are arrested, and released when interrogation has broken them into giving information that has no legal value in a case against them. They are compromised and released, subject to blackmail to collaborate from then onwards. All the observing world knows this.Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I hope you read that and see how it describes exactly what Hamas did with Shalit. That's the topic of this article. Hamas. Kindly try to stick to the topic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
If 'that' refers to my link, yes I read it. It concerns 'hostage taking' something Hamas has done, as has Israel, which 'detained' 1,266 Palestinian children below the age of 15 in 2014'. This is called 'kidnapping' by Palestinians. We shoul use a neutral voice, either 'abducted,' 'detained' or even 'hostage taking' since conditions, payment of fines, etc are imposed if you want your kid released expeditiously. You have to bargain at the police station all night usually). Shalit was taken prisoner, taken hostage. He was not 'kidnapped'.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the SOAPBOXING might be interfering with my understanding of what you're saying. Are you suggesting we should not use the term most reliable sources use because you personally don't like it? I haven't looked yet, but I'm getting a suspicious feeling "kidnapped" is in fact the most used term, otherwise you'd be telling us "we cleave to the sources" as you do elsewhere. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Call empirical data you dislike looking at SOAPBOXING if you like, but it's not cogent to allow oneself to be distracted by jibing away with branding slang. 'Most sources' are the Israeli and Western press that adopts that term, which is nonsensical, but commonplace. It was a military action conducted by a government hostile to an external power, Israel, taking a combatant hostage to make a trade for its own 'hostages'. This is obvious. 'Kidnapping' is a nice way to spin it, but it is not acceptable because it promotes one's side's narrative spin. See WP:NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Talking about a political issue with no bearing on the article is textbook WP:SOAPBOXING. As that page suggests, perhaps you should consider starting a blog or visiting a forum if you want to discuss your personal opinions.
Regardless of what you think about what happened with Shalit, we use what the sources say. Don't make me post diffs of the dozens of times you said exactly that when it suited you. What the sources use is what goes in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Nope. We have a metasource, discussing the use of 'kidnapping' for Shalit, but other words 'seizure' 'arrest' when Palestinian territory is entered to take Palestinians prisoners. See Donaldo Pereira Macedo, Media Literacy: A Reader, Peter Lang, 2007 p.97
Since this source raises doubts about the use of 'kidnapping' for Israeli soldiers taken prisoner, when sources do not use that of Palestinian civilians or soldiers taken prisoner, there is a POV problem. Deal with it.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a great source for the fact that most media used "kidnapping". The fact he doesn't like the terminology should perhaps be discussed on the Shalit page, but it certainly doesn't disqualify the use of the term. There is no "POV problem" when using what most sources use per NPOV and DUE, quite the contrary. Deal with it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a source, neither your nor my opinion. We goes by sources, not by personal Wikipedia editors' opinions.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. And this source confirms that "kidnapping" is the most used term. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh dearie me. Okay. For the board this is what the source says:

‘The excuse for the reinvasion was the Palestinian capture of an Israeli soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, on June 25th. ..(The US mainstream media) . even followed Israeli usage in calling this a "kidnapping," although the victim was a uniformed soldier and member of an armed force that regularly attacks the Gaza population. Furthermore, on the previous day,(June 24th) israel had crossed into Gaza and seized two Palestinian civilians whom they declared to be members of Hamas. Now arguably this was a genuine “kidnapping” and also a clear “provocation” that on provocation logic would justify the Palestinian capture (or responsive “kidnapping”) of Shalit. But the media played this strictly according to the applicable double-standard rules.

1 They didn’t even mention the Israeli action, leaving the seizure of Shalit as the only relevant fact.

2.They allowed Shalit to have been “kidnapped” rather than taken prisoner in a military conflict

3.When, on the rare occasion, they mentioned the Israeli action of the previous day, they failed to elevate it to “provocation” and even rationalized it as a legitimate “arrest” (Washington Post”); the Israelis, engaged in an illegal occupation, violating scores of UN rulings and the Fourth Geneva Convention and committing war crimes in a daily basis, have a right to “arrest” any Palestinian, but Palestinians have no right to reply in kind.',Donaldo Pereira Macedo Media Literacy: A Reader, Peter Lang, 2007 p.97

Please note that the title of the work is 'media Literacy'. I.e. it is a guide to be 'literate' about how the media construct and spin events. Please note that the instance illustrating the bias in media reportage deals with 'kidnapping' as an 'Israeli term' repeated in mainstream media. Please note that in the author's analysis, the word is used with an ethnic discriminatory bias. Please note that WP:NPOV commends us to write in such a way that no side's POV is passed off as if it were neutral, as you are evidently doing in the face of the evidence.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, NPOV commends us to "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". That you have one source that says one term is POV doesn't mean we should ignore proportionality when even your source itself says the majority of other sources use a certain term. What you're trying to do is push the POV of that one source (and your own, of course, as evidenced by the massive SOAPBOXING above). By the way, when you put "Shalit kidnapping" in google books and fished out that one source, did you notice the hundreds of other sources that use the term unqualified? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm puzzled by the first sentence. It contains an assertion. Is Palestine, as asserted, a country today? I hadn't thought that was an RS-supported fact. (I do understand that there is a move afoot in that direction, and as with the Islamic State there may be those in it who have made statements consistent with viewing themselves as a state, but did not believe it to be one at this point in time). Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The Pope's not infallible, but he agrees with 136 other nations, that Palestine is a state. Israel, going beyond its borders, occupies that state's territory. This is generally know in the world.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ideology

This article states that part of their Ideology is "Anti-Semitism" and does not even mention "Anti-Zionism". Hamas are not fighting Zionists because they are Jews, they are fighting Zionists because they now own Palestine. This is common knowledge. There is a similar issue on the page for Hezbollah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.198.102 (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Hamas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2015

To call Hamas "far right" from an academic point of view is incorrect . When you say this you suggest that they are fascistic . Fascism as oxford dictionary puts it is "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization". Hamas is Pan Islamic and therefore isnt nationalist in the western sense of the word , economically they believe in social justice and social welfare and they are not fascists in the sense of government either as they believe in an Islamic Democracy . It would be best just to leave out a "political position" section as Hamas like most Islamic movements (like the Muslim Brotherhood) are hard to identify within the right-left political scale . If one insists that there be a "political position" my suggestion is that it be split into Social Issues and Economics Issues (Right wing for social issues and Center-Left to Left wing for Economic issues). Many thanks we must always try to not be biased and make Wikipedia an open platform of truth not deception no matter what side we are on. 86.168.137.181 (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. This is a little too involved for a simple edit request. In addition, since this article is under arbitration, I would recommend more discussion before retailoring the page. Please open a discussion item on this below. Thanks. Inomyabcs (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Political Position

Why is Hamas described as right-wing? I see no reason why it should be described as anything other than far-right. Aclany (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Far-right is right-wing. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2015

Please mention in the first few lines of the first paragraph that Hamas is recognized by several states as a terrorist organisation.

Specifically: "is a Palestinian Islamic organization, with an associated military wing" should be changed to "is a Palestinian Islamic organization, designated by several states as a terror organization, with an associated military wing"

Not mentioning this in the very first few lines of the text is misleading, as most readers will not read the entire article[1], as regardless of the motivation, the organization openly calls for attacks on innocent Israeli civilians[2], which is a war-crime [3].

The motives of the states not recognizing Hamas as a terror organization should also be mentioned, as it is evident Hamas is a terror organization. If the motives are not openly known, this fact should be mentioned in the article.

Since Google quotes from Wikipedia and displays the first paragraph, it is important that this vital, relevant information be clearly shown to anyone searching the internet for information about this movement.


sources: [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/06/how_people_read_online_why_you_won_t_finish_this_article.html [2] official Hamas statements made during the 2014 Gaza Conflict: http://www.memri.org/clip_transcript/en/4350.htm "Fawzi Barhoum: We say to [Israeli Arabs], living in Haifa, Jaffa, Acre, Lod, Ramla, and the Negev: The rockets fired by the Al-Qassam Brigades will not hit you. We know those parts. We are familiar with the geography and with the history. Not a single Arab Palestinian child will be hit by one of our missiles. Our rockets are aimed at the Hebrews, the murderers, the Israelis, the criminals. Don't be afraid. Go on with your everyday life, and celebrate our victory, just like we will celebrate it here, in Gaza." [3] http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/summary-of-crimes-international-criminal-court/ 37.142.166.197 (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This would be a highly contested edit and so outside of the scope of a simple edit request. Feel free to continue to use this talk page to try and gain support for these changes, though I would suggest you take a look through the talk page archives first. Cannolis (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Over categorisation

The category Category:Palestinian terrorism is already included within the category Category:Hamas therefore it's superfluous to have this category within this article as well.

There's also the duplicate category of Category:Organizations designated as terrorist when the sub category Category:Organizations designated as terrorist in Asia already exists therefore the former is not needed. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a convincing argument. Several other categories also overlap, yet you focus on only these two. Overlapping categories are exceedingly common at WP, so if some overlap is the only problem, better to focus on something else. If you feel there are otherreasons to remove these two in particular then please explain. Jeppiz (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I can never understand categories. They don't even require citations so they are a perennial target for POV-pushing or perceived POV-pushing. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Problematic picture

File:Israeli phosphorus-shelling school 2009.jpeg
An Israeli white phosphorus round explodes over a Gaza residential area

Above: The problematic picture

,

The picutre should be removed or the template "dubious" should be annotated. For several reasons:

--Point by point (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) --Point by point (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC) (edited)

Not sure what you are talking about. Have you seen this news report where the picture appears? The photograph is by Agence France-Presse, as the caption states. I don't know who uploaded the picture on to commons. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
By the way, Stuart Franklin, the photographer who took "Tank Man", selected Mohammed Abed's photograph for AFP as his choice for The Telegraph's 2009 "Pictures of the Year: The Photographers' Choice" (see here). Perhaps that is the image that should be loaded to Wikipedia and used per WP:NFCC. The full photograph is shown here. The full image is also shown on page 22 of the HRW report. The HRW report contains details of the incident on pages 45-48. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Sean.hoyland, I fully support your proposal for the uploading of The Telegraph's 2009 "Pictures of the Year: The Photographers' Choice" (see here). --Point by point (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record: These comments by Point to pont on commons proves that he knows very well the working rules of wikipedia (too much for a new account). Pluto2012 (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
God, he knows too much --... Point by point ... (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Without getting into editor conduct, the picture seems indeed to be a copyvio and has been deleted from commons. An alternate picture from the Telegraph was also deleted at commons for the same reason. Unless one can find an alternate free picture, there is nothing to be done, unfortunately. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Something can be done. An alternate free picture isn't necessary (and it seems likely that there is no free equivalent of this iconic image and the event it captures). Point by Point can upload the copyrighted (Telegraph) picture to Wikipedia (not commons) and fill out a non-free use rationale template as proposed above. They have already expressed support for that approach and they will be able to find plenty of examples of fair use rationales in Category:Fair use in... images. They can reduce the resolution of the Telegraph image to a value appropriate to its use in the Wikipedia article(s). If Point by Point is unable to do it, perhaps someone else could do it or a request could be posted at IPCOLL. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Sean.hoyland: I am willing to do it, but I am not familiar with the details of fair use. What should I read to familiarise myself with the process? Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:NONFREE, WP:NFCC and WP:FUR cover everything I think. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:COAT in section dealing with charter and Likud

The section dealing with Hamas' charter and Likud is a Coatrack and non encyclopedic. The section itself is inappropriate, as comparisons between two subjects have no place in a standard article, and the content is even worse. The subject of the article is Hamas, not comparisons between Hamas and others.Drsmoo (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you've used the standard terms, coatrack, etc. Give your reasoned opinion as to why a comparison made in sources regarding Hamas and Likud is not appropriate to the Hamas article. Your assumption is, no article on a party may include referenced information from RS that makes comparisons? If so, where is this in policy?Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, ive used the standard term used to describe a section like that, which is WP:COAT. Much of the section is unrelated to the subject, dealing not in comparisons between Hamas and Likud, but in direct assessments of Likud alone. These are then synthesized into a larger section created by an editor to form a personal argument about comparisons between Hamas and Likud which are not made in the sources themselves. It is simultaneously SYNTH, COATRACK, SOAPBOX, and Original Research and it will be removed. Drsmoo (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015

change: 

Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the European Union,[12][13] Canada,[14] Israel,[15] Egypt,[16] Japan,[17][18][19][20][21] and the United States.[22] Australia and the United Kingdom have designated the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization.[23][24] The organization is banned in Jordan.[25] It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran,[26] Russia,[27] Norway,[28] Switzerland,[29] Brazil,[30] Turkey,[31] China,[32][33][34][35] and Qatar.[36]

to: Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the European Union,[12][13] Canada,[14] Israel,[15] Egypt,[16] Japan,[17][18][19][20][21] and the United States.[22] Australia and the United Kingdom have designated the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization.[23][24] The organization is banned in Jordan.[25] Although it publicly supports acts of terror against innocent civilians, it is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran,[26] Russia,[27] Norway,[28] Switzerland,[29] Brazil,[30] Turkey,[31] China,[32][33][34][35] and Qatar.[36]

source (1 of many): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Abu_Zuhri (Hamas spokesman) When the suspected perpetrators of the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers, Marwan Qawasmahi and Amer Abu Aisha, were killed by Israel after resisting arrest, he said "Hamas praises the role the martyrs played in chasing down Israeli settlers and we stress that their assassination will not weaken the resistance".[4] 82.80.180.142 (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I've bolded the point you want to add. It overlooks the fact that terrorism is a word whose significance is contested, in the sense that many of Israel's actions are seen, not only by Hamas, as forms of state terrorism like the consistent impunity of soldiers shooting civilians dead (Beitunia killings,Iman Darweesh Al Hams to name two of several hundred cases). They are wrong to praise those acts of course, which were acts of terrorism, but in their conceptual framework, they were acts of resistance -they don't regard settlers as 'innocent' but rather complicit in a violation of the norms of law, and more legitimate that Israel's practice of extrajudicial executions, even if we would rightly challenge this view.Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

FAR-RIGHT???

You gone mad or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.105.58.185 (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Sunni Islam

Under "Religion" it should say "Sunni Islam" to be more descriptive 128.194.228.11 (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Far Right?

I have edited this as it is not true in the slightest. Hamas is neither right-wing nor left-wing, it is a centrist, catch all/big tent party. They fight against Fatah, but not due to their place on the political spectrum, but because they are secular and significantly more peaceful. (Or, in Hamas' defense, they are a sort of complacent friend of the enemy)

I cannot find any sources for or against this statement, but if you look at what they have done in the Gaza Strip, they are neither left nor right wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaptinkeiff (talk • contribs) 19:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Why was antisemitism removed from their ideology? It's in their charter and their spoksepeople don't seem to be shy about it either? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The Hamas Charter is anti-Semitic. It is also known however that the foundational document, though never formally revoked, as it should be, languishes in desuetude, except for the huge amount of attention it gets in polemics against Hamas, as Peter Beinart has noted. Both its anti-Semitic character, and later policy statements from Hamas which appear to clash with that should be closely documented in the relevant section. In practice, a substantial number of Jews have be allowed to visit the Gaza Strip over the decades, not all of them slavish Hamas defenders. We never fuss over Saudi Arabia, an ally, which is intensely anti-Semitic in practice and in public, except when brokering geopolitical deals in private. Whatever, we just follow sources, but should do so with an eye to what Beinart stressed: that there is an intense focus on the Charter's anti-Semitic scrawl to the detriment of understanding Hamas's later history, which is profoundly anti-Zionist (rather than anti-Semitic).Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Even disregarding the charter, the comments from current members of Hamas and actions should certainly warrant a mention in the sidebar. It is a core action of their ideology. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, let's use OR to decide the ideology of parties based on their member's comments, I'll go add apartheid to Likud. Sepsis II (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Is Likud throwing rockets and committing suicide bombings and teaching children that the goal in life is to kill Muslims and that 72 virgins will meet them if they kill as many Muslims as possible? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Haha. Is that your definition of apartheid?
(edit conflict)This stuff is so well documented, it's hard to believe anyone can deny it. Here are just a few scholarly sources it took me exactly two minutes to find:
Sir Joseph: Don't take that kind of bait and don't reply with the same kind of SOAPBOXing. Just make a mental note of where you saw it for future reference. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Review and revision notes.

At 260,000kb, this was way over the acceptable outer limits for an article of this kind. Al-Qaeda, whose global impact has been far greater, for example, stands at 206,000kb. On the other side, the major Palestinian actor in the area, the Palestine Liberation Organization gets only 61,000kb. That has a far longer and more intricate history and yet is dealt with, in terms of depth of coverage, in a very superficial fashion.

  • The article grew out as editors followed events, ballooning into what it now is, unreadable. If WP:TLDR applies to more than a paragraph long statement, one can imagine the attention problem created by this elephantine product. These are the principles guiding my revision.
  • A huge amount of detail vexes the page. One does not need several quotes that say the same thing. Statements need to be focused on essential points, cutting the expansive flab.
  • Most of the sourcing is from contemporary newspapers, themselves caught up in the power play of how to describe events. Hamas is the object of a major scholarly focus, and several dozen books now exist under authoritative or academic imprint which have the advantage of a certain distance from the immediate events, and a depth of retrospective synthesis which renders newspaper reportage, except when unattested in the scholarship, dated. I have chosen everywhere to replace the newspaper sources with peer-reviewed academic or research institute literature wherever the same content is covered.
  • I have split off excessively detailed themes, creating a new page, for example at International Positions on the Nature of Hamas which faithfully reproduces the expansion on the issue of how Hamas is designated, that ran to over 30,000 kb, which is an article in its own right in terms of detail and length.
  • There is a huge amount of reduplication, and I hope to compress and eliminate this throughout the text.
  • The general aim is to boil the article down to somewhere in the range of 150,000-170,000 without loss of key details or thematic elements.
  • Any suggestions of course would be appreciated.Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2016

Paragraph 6, Sentence 5, "The European Union defined the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades as terrorist in 2001, and put Hamas in its list of terrorist organizations in 2003, a designation successfully challenged by Hamas in the courts. An Egyptina court ruled it was a terr4orist organization in 2015" Mistake in the "An Egyptina court ruled it was a terr4orist (terrorist) organization in 2015" 2602:306:8B56:1110:21ED:34EE:9B0D:D59B (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hamas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

ISIS and Hamas

I recently add a new section whci describes the cooperation between Hamas and ISIS. I cited two sources, one is a state published by the Haartez newspaper[1], and the other one was published by the The Middle East Media Research Institute[2]. The paragraph has been deleted by the user Soman by claiming it was "nonsense" which is not an acceptable answer. I would truly wish to know whats the problem with the paragraph I have provided. (you can review the edit in the "View history"). Would gladly accept any advices, or suggestions in order to improve the new paragraph.--ScottyNolan (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

MEMRI has a highly dubious reputation as a reliable source, as you can see [[10]]. In this case, however, we don't have to evaluate MEMRI's quality, just the quality of a dubiously sourced social media posting: "On February 24, 2016, a letter from an Islamic State (ISIS) fighter to ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi was posted on social media." Leaving aside verification issues (which are substantial), this kind of source is forbidden from being a reliable source per WP:SPS. So even if MEMRI translated accurately, and Abu 'Abdallah Al-Muhajir is really an ISIS fighter, we can't use the translation.
In fact, MEMRI only says Abu 'Abdallah Al-Muhajir "presents himself as a Gazan who joined ISIS in Syria." That is, they don't confirm either his identity or his veracity. So a flat no on using this source.--Carwil (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you that was clear and very helpful.--ScottyNolan (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hamas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hamas. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Needs clarification

The last line of the lead:

It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil.

Does that mean that those countries specifically regard it as not a terrorist organisation or simply that those countries could have, but didn't, designate it as such? It should be explained why precisely these countries are mentioned. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hamas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Name irony

Hamas is pronounced in a very similar way to the hebrew word Chamac, meaning "violence". LeapUK (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.664199. Retrieved 9 March 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |ref= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ "Exclusive: Letter By ISIS Fighter To Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi Reveals ISIS-Sinai's Ties To Hamas". MEMRI. The Middle East Media Research Institute. Retrieved 9 March 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |ref= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamas/Archive_16&oldid=1079504027"