Talk:Hamas/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

RfC:Should neutral countries and the UN Assembly figure in the lead?

In the Hamas article, the lead mentions 3 nations and one supranational block (the EU consisting of 27 nations) designating the organization as 'terrorist'. It mentions 4 nations holding the opposite view. It also notes the UN Assembly (193 nations) failed to pass a motion designating Hamas as 'terrorist'. Should this paragraph (a) allow mention of countries that are neutral, such as Norway, Switzerland and Brazil (a third position) (b) retain mention of the UN Assembly vote?Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support There are three strongly sourced positions regarding this aspect of Hamas. (a) a mainstream Western view (US/EU) plus Israel; (b) non-Western countries like China, Russia, Iran and Turkey which dissented from that view; (c) many nations, notably Norway, Switzerland and Brazil within the Western ambit who maintain a neutrality with regard to the question. This third position, of refraining from labeling Hamas as terroristic, is the majority view statistically of the UN General Assembly's 193 nations. Several editors have pressed for a Manichaean dualist selectivity in reporting this complexity: they appear to want the para. re the terrorist designation of Hamas to reflect a simplistic good guys/bad guys US/THEM divide between the (sensible) West and its imperial or commercial competitors (China/Russia/Iran/Turkey etc.) I support the inclusion of a line noting the neutral viewpoint, as embodied both in the UN vote, and the behavior of several Western nations who choose to stand outside the fray, on the grounds of (a)WP:NPOV (b)WP:RS. We should be writing according to what major sources say on the designation, and not be cherrypicking just two opinions out of three while repressing/censoring the fact that there is a neutral ground of opinion.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support, for if we are going to have this in the lead, we better do it properly. Nishidani's proposal seems to be perfectly fine and what I and another editor also came to suggest above. There is no reason to exclude neutral Western countries or why those considering the whole organisation 'terrorist' are mixed up with those considering only its military wing 'terrorist'. There are at least three positions or views on this; we should present all three. Davide King (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support - At first glance at the RFC I was somewhat on the fence with regard to mentioning Norway et al, but after reading Nishidiri's and Davide King's reasonings I see the importance of this. And it is especially crucial considering we are already saying that the EU considers it terrorist, which without also mentioning Switzerland and Norway would falsely imply that that means this is the position of all individual EU member states (if Switzerland is indeed in the EU - I can't recall lol). The point Davide King brought up about the differentiation between the whole organisation and only the military wing may be worth mentioning, too. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Being neutral is not notable on the lead level (with possible exceptions, although in this case I see none). Furthermore, IMHO not designating is also not notable (again, with possible exceptions). Debresser (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

* Support Per Nishidani and Davide King's reasoning. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Re-considered my vote on account of reasons presented by François Robere below. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per reasons sighted above. Idealigic (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support obviously. First, notability has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the content of an article. If you don't believe me then read WP:N. If we are to describe the views that other countries have taken of Hamas we must do so neutrally. Saying who has designated them as a terrorist organization and ignoring who has not is very much not neutral. nableezy - 14:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a "summary of [an article's] most important contents". It should be "concise", "[with] emphasis given to material... [which] roughly reflect[s] its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." The only entities that seem to assent with this definition are a handful that have an ongoing stake in this matter: the US, the EU, Russia, Arab nations and the Arab League, Turkey and Iran, and the UN insofar as it has a clear position.
  • Switzerland has been neutral for hundreds of years (de jure since 1648, de facto since 1515), and Norway has been neutral for most of the last 200 years (since 1814; independently between 1905-1940, and again between 1945-1949. Since then it has kept out of the EU, but is part of NATO). Stating that a rule that applies in 99.9% of cases also applies in some arbitrary case is of little encyclopaedic value and is not DUE in the lead.
    • Selfstudier quotes Haspeslagh's Listing terrorists (2013), but he does so out of context: the quote in question is part of a section on "influencing armed groups", where Haspeslagh examines the effect of maintaining or severing connections with such organizations. It is in this context that Haspeslagh states that "it is also important to note that certain countries... have chosen not to list the group"; she then explores an example of "engagement by the Swiss [that] offered an opportunity to 'expose Hamas to alternative viewpoints'". Haspeslagh's statement does not normalize Hamas, nor suggest that Switzerland and Norway's approach is notable in the grand scheme of things (which is what we're looking for under WP:LEAD), only that it's worth mentioning in the context of that particular discussion.
  • Neither the UN in general nor the UNGA specifically have a clear position on Hamas. Citing a failed vote - especially one that failed on a technicality (a majority of delegates voted in favor, but since a prior vote asked for a special majority, a regular majority wasn't enough) - is questionable. A failed vote is not a positivist piece of evidence - in other words, it does not state what is. The UNGA rejected about 1/3 of all proposals voted on in 2018 (54/163); are we to assume each and every one of them is actually declaratory, as inclusion in the lead would suggest? At best be can state that there was no consensus, in which case we have to explain the issue of the special majority, at which point we're in territory that's way too detailed for the lead. The OP himself objected to a much simpler inclusion earlier, stating that it was - and I'm paraphrasing - "definitional essentialism, describing a complex political [moment] with adjectives as though these caught the essence of this or that [vote]", and warning that it might "break NPOV". If it was true there, it's doubly true here. François Robere (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support: I think in general, articles' lead sections should introduce the subject of the article - not what others think about the subject. So I don't think the discussion on what other countries think of Hamas as should be in the lead at all. But since that idea was rejected, it's better to have a full discussion on what countries think about Hamas than one that is cut short. If it is so important to put the "they are terrorists" in the lead can't it be done in a more factual way? E.g write "Hamas is responsible for over X suicide bombings over Y years killing Z people" and let the reader "figure it out." Fwiw, here is Britannica's article about Hamas. ImTheIP (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This UN vote is WP:UNDUE especially in the lead it clearly fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS.I didn't found that it was analyzed in scholarly literature --Shrike (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support I was happy with the lead at the time I made my comments. As regards the UN, it has a terrorist list that includes Taliban and Al-Qaeda but does not include Hamas. If the EU, a supranational organization is in the lead, why would the UN not be? I wonder what the naysayers would be saying had the resolution passed? The probable reason for it being taken to the GA is because such a resolution would certainly have been vetoed in the SC by Russia and probably China as well. Looking for a scholarly analysis of this event, not even two years old, seems a trifle ambitious but a google search should clarify that this event will make it into scholarly sources in due course. More generally, I cannot really grasp why anyone should object to an inclusive statement of positions in the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support In all honesty, I'm in favor for all the reasons listed above. Maqdisi117 (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)User don't have 500 edits and cannot participate in this RFC --Shrike (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Wrong phrasing: the draft resolution was concerned with condemning specific activities by Hamas and "other militant actors", not with defining it or the others as "terrorist".[1] As such, the suggested phrasing is a blatant misrepresentation of the draft. François Robere (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems you have once again confused the sections, not sure where you intended it to go but since you already voted it shouldn't be here.Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to comment here in addition to voting. Now you're welcome to comment on-topic. François Robere (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you objected to the phrasing, why didn't you tweak it a week ago? Why didn't you offer an alternative version several days ago?. I actually asked editors to propose a RfD text, and you remained silent and it apparently took you week to figure out something to object to, after allowing this to run on for that period. I think this oddness in what should be a collaborative process is called filibustering. This objection is cooked up by your reading of a primary source. We are discussing the inclusion of secondary sources.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not here to correct your errors, Nishidani. You made a mistake, take responsibility for it and adjust. As for "primary vs. secondary" - neither source says anything about "designation" - rather, they use the term "condemnation". That is what the resolution, which you're misrepresenting here, is about, so please keep your WP:PAs to yourself. François Robere (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm here to help rewrite the article, not to engage in bickering, as with the above provocation. The RfC is very simple. Some editors (a) want a lead that says many Western nations think Hamas in whole or in part is 'terrorist'; several major world and regional powers contest this. Others stick to the sources that note (b) some Western countries remain neutral, and the majority of nations in the world remain neutral when attempts have been made to 'designate' or 'condemn' it as such. The erasing editors do not want several words noting the latter fact. So we have editors who want to simplify to the point of dualistic caricature, and editors who think several words clarifying the complexities are closer to NPOV, reflect RS, and manage to give the whole picture laconically, without burdening the lead. It's as simple as that.Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support like it or not: the fact is that the majority of the nations in the world does not designate Hamas as a terrorist organisation, hiding that from our readers is censorship, quite simply, Huldra (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Comment Another editor has edited just prior to this? In any case I am satisfied with the lead as it stands right now. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment And it has already been changed again :/. There are not really supposed to be changes made to the relevant parts of an article while an RFC is running.Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment Sorry Debresser but your comment and reasoning do not make sense. We have sources that do just that and highlight those who do not consider it a terrorist organisation. You could have had a point if it was considered as such by the vast majority of countries but that it is not the case; and if it is indeed true that "[i]n the matter of the UN, RS reports (and Nikki Haley) described the vote as being a decision on whether to designate Hamas as terrorist", as written by Selfstudier, your comment is just your personal view and not backed by reliable sources. In addition, we do have a table that includes all three positions, so mentioning only those who designate it as a terrorist organisation, ignoring the difference between those designating only its military branch as 'terrorist', would not be an accurate summary of the body. Davide King (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me that my comment doesn't make sense. Please review WP:NPA. You are welcome to disagree with my opinion though. The short reply to your argument is that not everything that is sourced is lead material. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

One should understand the technical implications in abstaining from a yes/no vote. They are all diplomatic signals. Not designating is itself a choice deliberately made, especially in these political contexts where sides are vying for a majority ('certain countries, such as Norway,Russia, Turkey and Switzerland have chosen not to list the group.".') When the US under Obama abstained from casting a vote against United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 it was heatedly criticized by Israel for its 'shameful ambush'. The US there was expected by Netanyahu to vote nay and block the resolution. Had it voted for it, it would have endorsed violating international law, and also suffered electoral damage. Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not think my comment was an ad-hominem attack (which is the closest thing I see from NPA) because I meant "not making sense" more in a descriptive way since I believe we have sources that have highlighted those who have not designated as 'terrorist'; in other words, it was a criticism to your comment's logic in good faith and I did not mean to attack the user personally. But I apologise and in hindsight I wish I had worded it differently to just say I disagree with the logic of your comment because that is what I meant, certainly not to personal attack you. Either way, my view is that this is not whether it is lead worthy (I can see why it may not be lead worthy) but whether we should report all those three views; previously, we mentioned together those who listed only its military wing with those who list the whole organisation and there was no mention of neutral Western countries, even though those same countries have not been neutral for other organisations which are indeed listed as 'terrorist'. My view is simply that if we are going to mention it at all in the lead, we should mention all three positions as we do for the table, which means all three are notable if we list them there. Davide King (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Essentially the problem is, do we go for stark binary images (basically newspapers and agitprop) or do we respect the scholarship which brings out far more nuanced realities. Most books and scholarly articles opt for the latter: any article can boil down to a list of horror (contemporary newspaper reportage of dozens of 'incidents'). Scholarship, and encyclopedias, try to show the structure of events, and what drives them in historic context. This general point is touched on by Mishal in writing:-

In the wake of the 11 September attack on the World Trade Center in New York and President Bush’s “war on terrorism,” it is important to try to understand the cultural, political, and social dimensions of such radical Islamic groups as the Palestinian Hamas. Within political and academic circles in the Western world, it is common to portray Islamic movements in categorical terms that utilize binary classifications that mark real or imaginary social attributes rather than relational patterns. Much of this perception derives from the violence accompanying Islamic religious fervor and the fanaticism marking some of its groups and regimes,raising fears of “a clash of civilizations” and “a threat” to Western liberal democratic values and social order Hamas, an abbreviation of Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya (Islamic Resistance Movement), did not escape the binary perception, and has been described solely as a movement identified with Islamic fundamentalism and suicide bombings.'Shaul Mishal, 'The Pragmatic Dimension of the Palestinian Hamas: A Network Perspective,' Armed Forces & Society July 2003 29(4):569-589 p.569.

It has been my experience here that attempts to put articles on a strong footing grounded in scholarly analysis of such groups' structures, decision-making (even in recourse to extreme violence) and ideological veerings under the stress of pragmatic adaptations to changing events, is read as a ruse to downplay evil, or the menace of some threat to 'us'. But endless tabloid repetitions that reduce groups like Hamas/Hezbollah to a caricature or single meme ('Hamas is 'terrorist') get one nowhere in trying to grasp the why and wherefore of their history. Encyclopedias should embody scholarship, which does precisely the latter, rather than mirror the ephemera of incidental reportage which is all over articles like this.Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment I believe it would be helpful if those who are for oppose clarify what they oppose exactly. Do they oppose mention of the U.N. resolution? Or do they oppose listing in the lead the three position, separating those who designate only its military branch as 'terrorist' from those who designate the whole organisation as 'terrorist', in addition to list countries such as Brazil, Norway and Switzerland? Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but Switzerland has actually designated Al-Qaeda as 'terrorist', at least according to the "Report on counter-terrorism submitted by Switzerland to the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001)", which we use as source. So that the country does not designate Hamas as 'terrorist' can not be dismissed as merely following its neutral tradition since al-Qaeda is designated as 'terrorist' by both Brazil and Switzerland, whereas Hamas is not. My point is that if we are going to have a sentence about it, we should list all three positions as we do in the body's table. Similarly, Switzerland classifies Hezbollah as 'terrorist' according to this source. So that Switzerland does not classify Hamas as 'terrorist' can not be dismissed due to or reduced to Swiss neutrality. Davide King (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Shrike :'This UN vote is WP:UNDUE' because UN votes are not news. Well, that made my day for bellylaughs. Really, try and think, before you vote. What you wrote is ridiculous. Objections of all sorts can be made, but they mustn't been self-opinionate nonsense with no policy basis.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I went to to the talk page of Stefka Bulgaria to enquire on what basis she had reversed herself but found the answer there already. Unable to come up with a serious argument of his own, I found that Shrike had instead asked editor Stefka Bulgaria to consider revising her initial support based on what Francois Robere and himself had written.Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That is almost certainly an abuse of proper wiki practice, trying to coordinate a vote. Nishidani (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: I believe I made my objections clear in my vote, which preceded your comment. Regarding the Swiss, your comment suggests we ascribe notability to some facet of Swiss policy in the absence of sources doing so, which is WP:OR. François Robere (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Despite the mini wall of text, Robere's unsourced opinions amount to saying that Switzerland, Norway and the UN have no position on the matter when in fact, the sources show that all three have terrorist lists on which Hamas does not appear. End of.Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Please don't discourage readers by using derogatory terms like "wall of text" (something you never do when the writer is someone you support, like Nishidani) only because I've also pointed out your misrepresentation of a source.

You have given your personal opinion about what you think the source means whereas I merely quoted from it. Any misrepresentation is therefore yours and not mine.Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Not really? You "cherry picked" a quote without giving its context, and I gave the context. Please be honest enough in the future to not do so. François Robere (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

You gave your opinion of what you think the context is, I made no comment about the context, the reader may judge what the author intended for themselves without your interpretation.Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It's basic literacy, Selfstudier. The quote is given in that section, with so and so surrounding text. If you had brought it in good faith, you would've quoted more than just that fragment. François Robere (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I brought what I was asked to bring, a source saying x. You really must be desperate if you are reduced to an accusation of bad faith with zero evidence to support it.Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

You may want to acquaint yourself with WP:CHERRYPICKING, then: "In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking... means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says" (emphasis mine). Cheers. François Robere (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Now you are just repeating yourself. Not only is there nothing in the source to contradict the quote I gave, nothing you have said contradicts it either.Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

"There's nothing to contradict the quote" is a "straw man". Since we're dealing with WP:CHERRYPICKING, it's not the source that needs to be refuted, it's the source's presentation here. I showed that, in context, the quote means something completely different from what you implied; if you were interested in refuting my claim, it would make sense for you to expand from the source, to show that your reading is correct. You've done no such thing, instead merely insisting that "the quote is accurate", which is as good an admission that it was taken verbatim out of context as any. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Nothing here worth replying to, either. Just repetition to no effect.Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

As for your argument - it's an argument from ignorance. You have not a single source that establishes the claim that the omission of Hamas from those lists has any meaning, yet you're asking me to prove that it doesn't. I don't need to. François Robere (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not asked you to prove anything. The sources speak for themselves. If you find any that support your unsourced opinions we will of course take those into account.Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Which sources state that the lack of approval for a resolution draft (that does not have anything to do with designating Hamas one way or the other) is as WP:NOTABLE as actual designation? François Robere (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It was voted on. Not only that there was a competing resolution. I think you are confusing notability guidelines, WP:N, with content guidelines, the issue here is neutrality not notability, which you have partly recognized in your Should_neutral_countries_and_the_UN_Assembly_figure_in_the_lead_in_Hamas? submission at the NPOV noticeboard.Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. You claim that the fact that the resolution did not pass makes it as meaningful as resolution that have, and I ask you - where are the sources to support that? François Robere (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

a) I haven't claimed that and b) It's a NPOV question nothing to do with notability.Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The lead has everything to do with notability - we don't just shove things in there, we put the article's "most important content" (WP:LEAD). If this vote isn't as significant as passed resolutions, then what's the justification of putting it in the lead along with accepted declarations from the EU, US and others? François Robere (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If you are suggesting removing all the material about the way the world views Hamas, rather than just the ones you don't like, I would probably go along with that. That would be NPOV. All in or all out, anything else is not NPOV.Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION, which are part of WP:NPOV, clearly contradict your "all in or all out" approach. Now, you seem to agree that the failed UN vote isn't as significant as passed resolutions, so can you explain in policy terms what makes it notable enough to be included in the lead? François Robere (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Already answered this and since I am not given to repeating myself, bfn.Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Some comments have focused on the use of the word "designation" as in this state designates and this one doesn't, this is something of a red herring. What this is all about is how the world at large views Hamas, some states say terrorist, others not, some list an armed wing, some don't differentiate at all and some say, yes, but. The situation is complicated and not readily reducible to a pat description. It is self evident that this is all bound up with the Israel Palestine conflict and the situation with Iran and this is all easily sourceable. NPOV requires that all POVs be represented, that's why we have loads of articles that include phrasing along the lines of "Most of the world considers.....Israel disputes this." The idea of preferring the views of only some and downplaying or ignoring the views of others is simply not NPOV.Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hamas Government

I have been trying to figure out how best to explain Hamas's rule in Gaza in relation to the PA.

In Fatah–Hamas conflict, we say "... the Palestinian Authority has been split into two polities, each seeing itself as the true representative of the Palestinian people", but this is unsourced.

A good source on the topic seems to be:

• Berti, Benedetta. “Non-State Actors as Providers of Governance: The Hamas Government in Gaza between Effective Sovereignty, Centralized Authority, and Resistance.” Middle East Journal, vol. 69, no. 1, 2015, pp. 9–31: "Hamas's first step toward asserting its legislative powers was to partially revive the PLC as a Hamas body comprising the elected Hamas members of parliament (MPs) for Gaza, as well as 26 new Hamas members and an independent legislator. MPs aimed to compensate for the fact that the Fatah boycott, the impossibility for Hamas legislators based in the West Bank to attend parliamentary sections in Gaza and the large number of MPs who had been arrested by Israel, all had undermined the representativeness and legitimacy of the parliament. This reshuffled PLC began to pass new laws, while holding consultations with Hamas's elected representatives in the West Bank (who could vote by phone). The approved laws then began to be published in Hamas's own version of the official gazette al-Waqa'i ' al-Filastiniyya ("Palestinian Events"), and subsequently implemented in the Strip. Hamas also focused on its executive apparatus and reshuffled the cabinet: while the five Hamas ministers that had been part of the unity government kept their job, the six West Bank-based Hamas ministers were replaced by members of Hamas based in Gaza. The remaining portfolios that had belonged to non-Hamas ministers in the unity government were distributed among ministers of the new Hamas cabinet. After restoring the cabinet, Hamas then took steps to secure effective control of all the ministries as well as other political institutions in Gaza."

I am still unclear though as to whether Hamas considers itself "the true representative of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza" or similar, or whether it is in effect ignoring that Oslo institution completely. It should be clear from a copy of the official gazette. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hamas Islamist organization

I suggest to make the definition of the Hamas more accurate. All Islamist organization are Islamic but not vice versa. Hamas is an Islamist organization that seek and do implement Islamic rule. so we should change the sentence from:

Hamas (Arabic: حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah [Islamic Resistance Movement]) is a Palestinian Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist[c] but pragmatic,[d] militant,[16] and nationalist organization.[e]"

to:

Hamas (Arabic: حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah [Islamic Resistance Movement]) is a Palestinian Sunni-Islamist fundamentalist[c] but pragmatic,[d] militant,[16] and nationalist organization.[e]"

Source that Hamas is an Islamist organization: https://www.inss.org.il/he/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/systemfiles/(FILE)1311767367.pdf - "of more established Islamist groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. "

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npc2n?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=hamas%20islamist&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dhamas%2Bislamist&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_SYC-5187_SYC-5188%2Ftest&refreqid=fastly-default%3A5dd450ea3675a1d4ce57a05143bde2d5 "Hamas, both an acronym forHarakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya(Islamic Resistance Movement) and an Arabic word meaning “zeal,” is a Palestinian Islamist group" "How does Hamas, a militant Islamist group "

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4330419?seq=1 "It shows that Hamas' Islamist ideology "

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

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-challenge-of-hamas-to-fatah "and Hamas (the leading Islamist opposition)"

ArmorredKnight (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Islamist redirects to Islamism from which you may see that context matters. The article body discusses the ideology of Hamas. If you think that the article body should reflect some aspect of ideologies not discussed there, please feel free to add it.Selfstudier (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Infactual claims on Israel

The statement "Israel holds the families of suicide bombers accountable and bulldozes their homes

is infactual and unsubstantiated, and as such sould ne removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:5B11:6E00:FD8B:FFB1:8F92:BA4B (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This appears to have been true in the past, perhaps it needs rewording and updating, see Israeli demolition of Palestinian property. I will have a look at the sources when I get a little time (or maybe someone else knows?) Selfstudier (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

In the first paragraph, change "and rest of world." to "and the rest of the world." for correct grammar. Miwiki Takara (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I just rolled back the edit which added that, as clearly that is not a view of "the rest of the world." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

Typo below "Media", it should be "citizens" not "citizen" 2003:D4:AF3F:8100:3840:1425:159B:EF91 (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I just removed that whole line as the prose did not match the source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

Is there a way for someone to include the event to this article (Hamas)?

TheKuygeriancontribs
userpage 21:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you want to put? What sources will you use? Or do you just want to make a wikilink from this article to the other?Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Link to a Hamas leader page

In the section Statements on the Holocaust there is a link to Younis al-Astal, could it be possible that it refers to Yunis Al Astal? Just asking to fix the link :) EOZyo (мѕğ) 10:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Tone/Bias/Wording in section 13.6 Legitimate defense against American Imperialism

User:Osterluzei has made a few edits on articles related to the current conflict between Israel/Palestine, including the Hamas article ( See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Legitimate_defense_against_American_Imperialism ). There may be important things this user can add, but their contributions seem to have a biased tone? SeekGrowth (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, that section clearly does not have a neutral POV. It's unclear why it's in the Criticism section, or what it might meaningfully contribute to the article. Someone with the ability should remove it ASAP. --Paracelsus888 (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This section is factually incorrect and incredibly biased. I feel like I am reading terrorist propaganda. Please correct as soon as possible. [In the very least, the Al-Aqsa mosque "attack" must have additional sources which show Palestinians piling rocks and other weapons in the mosque and attacking Israeli police first. Second, the last line about Israel "taking advantage of the pandemic in Gaza" is malicious. A more factual assessment would be: "In response to rockets from Hamas, Israel has been defending its citizens, using hundreds of air strikes to eliminate various Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad targets in the Gaza Strip. Before each pinpoint strike, the Israeli Air Force goes to unparalleled lengths to warn civilians of Gaza--including hundreds of leaflets, telephone calls, and text messages--of impending attacks, which has resulted in a low casualty count relative to the number of airstrikes. Hamas has invested heavily in rocket and missile production, purposefully storing them in civilian homes, using schools and hospitals as launchpads." We can't let emotion and politics get in the way of honest reporting.]

Suggesting that Israel's actions are purely defensive reactions to Palestinian aggression would not be "factual". Pretending that Israel is not using brutal force against the Palestianians, or that Hamas' actions do not take place in a context which many groups have identified as apartheid, or at least something similar, would not be "honest reporting". The passage needs to be removed because it is currently pro-Hamas propaganda; it should not be replaced with pro-Israel propaganda. --Paracelsus888 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

^^ Agreed. I'm new to Wikipedia but this section just felt very opinionated and under-sourced.

Still a two-state solution?

The latest mention in the body of the article cites comments by former Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal from nearly a decade ago. A more recent source is needed to confirm the consistency of or change to this policy. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

edit request

In the article description. Hamas is recognised by the USA, EU and other countries as a terror organisation, and I think it should be noted in the description. M.6774 (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The use of labels like "terrorist" without attribution is generally avoided. Including attribution would made the short description too long. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Note in lede

The 2304 edit on 26 October 2020 adds the following note when discussing Hamas offering to accept a truce: "This has been interpreted by one Israeli analyst as a means of gaining time to consolidate its grip on power." Certainly analysis of truce offers is meaningful in general, but not sure if it is necessary to include in the lede. Especially since only one analyst is linked, which may be in conflict with WP:DUE. - Drlight11 (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This "truce offer" shouldn't be mentioned in lede to begin with. That's the true undue weight. Since it's already mentioned, at least some healthy skepticism is needed per balance.--SoaringLL (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

Add that Hamas is a terror organization, as it's acknowledged around the world and in the UN. 87.70.114.100 (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Read the first paragraph. FDW777 (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Link

The link to Dawah, the social wing of Hamas leads to the definition of Dawah, the word, and not to the (non-existent) Wikipedia entry of the social wing of Hamas. The link to Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades does correctly point to the military wing of Hamas.

I suggest either a new entry is created for Dawah the organisation, or the link should be removed, or changed to indicate it's a to a literal definition and not the organisation.

There probably should be a dedicated entry to Dawah the organisation in my opinion.

Nutme Nayme (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2021

change political position "far-right" in "catch-all" or "big tent" or ultimately remove the political position. Islamic nationalism doesn't make a party right-leaning. Hamas' aims transcend the traditional Occidental political spectrum. Edox 96 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone have objections to this? I don't see any sourcing labeling them as right wing or far-right. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Run n Fly (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2021

I would love to know who wrote this incredible comprehensive paper please ? 2001:8004:1420:8E2:D147:A5EC:B067:DD21 (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Note: This link will show you who has worked on the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

A detailed analysis of contributions over 15 years broken down by number of edits, volume of content, last date for each contributer's work, etc., is here. Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2021 (2)

Remove the space between the word "followers" and the citation in the following sentence in the second paragraph of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#In_the_Gaza_Strip section. "In 1989, during the First Intifada, a small number of Hamas followers [346]..." Hyuhanon (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2021 (3)

Change 'nationalist organization' to 'nationalist political party'. Andrew Dillon (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2021 (4)

Change 'de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip' to 'de facto Gaza government'. Andrew Dillon (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

Change 'Hamas's military wing has launched' to 'Hamas's military wing - the de facto Palestine Army - has launched'. Andrew Dillon (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

I request that the words “but pragmatic” be deleted from the first line of the article. Hamas is a terrorist group involved in the extremely complex Israel-Palestine conflict, and those words detract from their violence and brutality. 76.167.218.30 (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that calling Hamas pragmatic in the lead sentence (or in the introduction) is a problem and inconsistent with NPOV. Just because there's a note in which one writer argues that the organization is "pragmatic" does not make it so. The claim that Hamas is "pragmatic" should be moved further down into one of the sections discussing opinions about Hamas. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

A.T.S. in Texas, there are two sources in there which say the same thing. For us to claim that such a statement is inconsistent with NPOV requires proof, and an assessment of other mainstream scholarly sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with A.T.S. in Texas that we should change it. We should still write that it is considered pragmatic, just not the way it is now or at the start of the lede. L.T.G (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Why doens't it considers as a Terror Organization?

Al-Qaeda is being described as a terror organization. The US government added Hamas to the terror organization list long ago. Why shouldn't it be considered as one here? Itamarisr (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

AQ is on the UN list, Hamas isn't and the US is just one country so there are lists of who has and who has not designated the organization as terrorist.Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Basically some people on Wikipedia don't want to take side between terrorism and free country. There you go  :-). --Rectangular dome (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. There are no reliable, verified sources indicating that the UN has designated it a terrorist organization, therefore it is not a terrorist organization according to Wikipedia. Simple as that. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Mrytzkalmyr, got a link to the discussion that established that consensus? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I admit I didn't say that with a specific consensus and I didn't find one specifically about that. But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Designated_terrorist_organizations outlines the Wikipedia policy. We can determine based on that. I'm open to discussion on this. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the encyclopedia wing of the U.S. government. It uses academic writing as reliable sources rather than the U.S. State Department. Reliable sources usually reserve the term terrorist organization for groups whose main or sole activity is terrorism. If support for terrorism was the criterion, we'd have to add the U.S. government. TFD (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

We have the section on the page terrorist designation and I think it spells everything out there, the US did attempt to have the UN add Hamas to the list but were unsuccessful in doing so.Selfstudier (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Warhead size

In the Military Wing section it says

"By 2005, the Qassam 3 had been engineered with a 12 km (7.5 mi)–14 km (8.7 mi) range and a 15 kl (530 cu ft) warhead."

I was about to amend the reference to kilolitres to refer to cubic metres when I realised that 15 m³ sounds like a ridiculously large warhead. Also, the references to other warheads were by mass, not volume, so I assume it's wrong. Blaise (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Most Hamas rockets are fizzlers, a large number even fall in their own minute territory. Note also they do not deploy their most destructive missiles, or even to any great extend their considerable minor rocketry, against the numerous kibbutzes on their border- places like (Kerem Shalom, Nirim,Nahal Oz, Erez, Kfar Aza, Be'eri,Holit,Kissufim, Ein HaShlosha, Mefalsim, Nir Am, Nir Oz, Nir Yitzhak,Sufa) etc., which get occasional mortar fire, and fire balloons to burn their crops during these flare-ups. If you grasp the reasoning behind this choice (all those kibbutzes are sitting ducks mostly within a few hundred yards to a few kilometres from the Strip), much of the strategy driving Hamas rocket displays and attempts to hit major cities becomes clear. We can't say that, of course. Nearly all sources showcase the number of rockets launched, and most commentators don't appear to have any personal familiarity with either the terrain there or the overall quality of their rocketry, which is still quite primitive. Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Cited source does not support claim of monetary grants for victims

Under "Social services wing", there is a claim that "Israel holds the families of suicide bombers accountable and bulldozes their homes, whereas the families of Hamas activists who have been killed or wounded during militant operations are given an initial, one-time grant varying between $500–$5,000, together with a $100 monthly allowance", which cites page 122 of Levitt's 2006 book "Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad". Page 122 of the cited book mentions that the money is awarded to the families of suicide bombers in particular, rather than killed/wounded "activists" in general. This is consistent with claims made by the Israeli government, which are documented in page 59 of the same book.

The claim in this article is not substantiated by the cited source.

The sentence in the article should be rephrased to something along these lines: "The families of Hamas suicide bombers are given an initial, one-time grant varying between $500–$5,000, together with a $100 monthly allowance". It may also be appropriate to move this statement to a different section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.168.42 (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Brazil

"Hamas is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Brazil.[493][494]" this is not proportionately written. The fact that Brazil did not list it doesn't mean that it's activities in Brazil are not considered terrorist. Secondly Brazil is part of the Organization of American States that has recognized it as terrorist. And finally, I don't know of any terrorist list of Brazil in the first place!

The entry of brazil is misleading and should be deleted (it can even be understood has if is State-sponsored terrorism on the part of Brazil). It should at least be rewritten to "Brazil did not recognize Hamas as terrorist", and this should be verified, because the Brazilian Federal Police doesn't look too friendly with them.--Rectangular dome (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

bias and potential inaccuracy

Two things that might need to be changed in this article.

Firstly and most self-evidently: Under section 6.7 Reconciliation attempts, it says "In May 2017, Hamas unveiled its new charter, in an attempt to moderate its image." I think that last clause, "in an attempt to moderate its image," should be removed because it baselessly implies the changes in Hamas were just insincere PR. It's worth noting there's no source this this implication either. I think this is indisputable.

Secondly, and I admit this is more debatable: Given the changes to their charter, is it still accurate to label Hamas as anti-Semitic (under Ideology in the article's infobox)? They aren't officially anti-Semitic. They are anti-Zionist but that's not the same as being anti-Semitic.

(comment from User:WhyBeNormal but I forgot my password and didn't log in) --162.155.136.170 (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

They are both.--Rectangular dome (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Israel helped to create Hamas

Add the below after the following sentence: Hamas was founded in 1987,[h] soon after the First Intifada broke out, as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood[23] which in its Gaza branch had previously been nonconfrontational toward Israel and hostile to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).[24]

Israel helped to create Hamas to serve as a counterweight to secularists and leftists of the PLO and Fatah party.

Sources: 1) Intercept Article entitled "BLOWBACK: HOW ISRAEL WENT FROM HELPING CREATE HAMAS TO BOMBING IT" -- https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict 2) Washington Post article entitled "How Israel helped create Hamas" -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/07/30/how-israel-helped-create-hamas

The line "Israel helped to create Hamas to serve as a counterweight to secularists and leftists of the PLO and Fatah party" has NOT been added to the article. It needs to be added. What is present is the first source above under the "Other" section. Contrary to what TFD indicated, the "Israel helped to create Hamas to serve as a counterweight to secularists and leftists of the PLO and Fatah party" line has not been added. Please add it as specified above.

67.8.147.13 (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Note: YouTube is not a reliable source. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 19:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 19:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It's already in the article. TFD (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Already done per The Four Deuces ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Clearly there is currently no consensus for the inclusion of your prose at this time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Confusing use of word "pragmatic" and link to article on Pragmatism

This article states "...[Hamas] is a Palestinian Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist[c] but pragmatic,[d] militant,[16] and nationalist organization.[e]"

Why does it say "pragmatic" and link to the article on Pragmatism? The citation mentions "pragmatic" in the sense of using pragmatism to manipulate normative rules. "...Hamas uses have enabled its leaders to manipulate normative rules in a pragmatic fashion." This does not indicate that Hamas is generally associated with the philosophical tradition of Pragmatism.

In any case, it seems controversial or at least very opinion-based to claim that Hamas is pragmatic.

Addison314159 (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, that portion should be re-worded or removed as it seems to be more of an apologist's opinion than encyclopedic content. If editors belief Hamas has evolved away from their roots and that it is no longer fair to describe or define them as a Militant Islamic Fundamentalist organization that would be different but the use of "pragmatic" in the current context is inappropriate I feel. OgamD218 (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Addison314159 I concur with the objection and also find this label to be out of place given the context. I can reword it once we reach a consensus. L.T.G (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as nobody has stepped forward to object and it's been 2 weeks. I think L.T.G (talk) you're good to go ahead and re-word it. OgamD218 (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Did Al-Qaeda followed pragmatism?[jihadism is pragmatic] What organisation follow pragmatism?[It is at least a point of view] Why using philosophical/Promotional vocabulary?[it is not a group engaged in that, and we should not give them a rating for their strategy]

Pragmatism is confusing, as it is not well defined and I never heard of a group following pragmatism, and claiming Hamas adopted an "utilitarian understanding of life" is completely out of touch with their radical Islamic belief.--Rectangular dome (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

In case it is helpful, I would like to point out that there is earlier discussion on this wording, too, above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamas#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_11_May_2021 Addison314159 (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2021 (2)

In the last sentence of the second paragraph of Criticism/Human shields:

• add “A” to the beginning of the sentence (currently there’s no article).
• change “relied” to “replied”.
• remove “he”—it is awkward and removing it would make the two verbs match: “A Hamas spokesperson replied that x and denied that y.”

Thank you! Johnsoneill (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done   melecie   t 09:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2021 (3)

In the first sentence of the third paragraph of Criticism/Political freedoms, change “belong” to “belonging”. Johnsoneill (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done as well   melecie   t 09:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Iran support

This article needs to be updated on Iran’s role in support of Hamas. Although the relations became strained in 2011 due to Hamas’ support for the Syrian opposition, the support neither ceased and it resumed since few years now. All the rockets, drones and technology used by Hamas in the latest conflict are Iranian made, provided or know-how. Hamas’ leadership publicly thanked Iran few weeks ago. They even wrote letter to Khamene’i. This article needs an update on that. Iran is a major supporter of Hamas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:e003:868:e201:8d39:7b2b:2008:fadf (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

'All the rockets, drones and technology used by Hamas in the latest conflict are Iranian made, provided or know-how.' The IDF unfortunately for your thesis, states otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s not my “thesis”. You provided no proof for the IDF statement, despite the Prime Minister Netanyahu and countless military officials stating that Iran provides Hamas’ with rockets and technology [2][3][4].

The IDF in Haaretz articles expressed surprise at the quality of the technological advances made by Hamas's own engineers in their underground factories. Iran gave them a kickstart, but the Iran meme cannot be fished up everytime Hamas rockets are mentioned. See how far you get trying to smuggle a grad rocket through the Rafah checkpoint or at the Eretz Crossing. The stuff they have is overwhelmingly produced locally, esp. sionce 2013.Nishidani (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

How can Iran give weapons to Hamas. Israel put Gaza under blockade for many years and controls it’s borders and gives permission who can or can’t enter or leave Gaza. Also Israel watches Gaza from borders, air and sea. It’s clear Hamas makes their own rockets. SaraAdam123 (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Why does it matter if MEMRI served in the IDF?

"According to MEMRI (three of whose seven founding staff had formerly served in the IDF)" Why does it matter if they served in the IDF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.71.219 (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

At the bottom of the United States section, please add:

Speaking to the UN Security Council in October 2019, United States Ambassador to the United Nations Kelly Craft called Hamas "a terrorist organization that oppresses the Palestinian people in Gaza through intimidation and outright violence, while inciting violence against Israel." She condemned as "despicable" Hamas's violence against its own people, its use of Palestinian children as pawns, and its indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilian areas, and called it one of the greatest obstacles to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A45A:209F:A050:704A (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems fairly basic. The UN Ambassador to the UN, speaking to the UN Security Council, making a statement directly about Hamas. Scottish - are you suggesting that for some reason every change to this page requires an RFC? And what basis do you have for that, where the addition is patently relevant and properly sourced? Perhaps we need an admin to opine on your comment. User:Debresser, you seem more experienced and edit this article, can you suggest an admin? Thanks. 2603:7000:2143:8500:98A6:314:E179:7800 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Not an RFC, but anything that may be contentious should have some discussion involved as the article is under discretionary sanctions. If anyone watching the talk page, with appropriate permissions, wants to make the edit, they're more than welcome to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

Change "By 2005, the Qassam 3 had been engineered with a 12 km (7.5 mi)–14 km (8.7 mi) range and a 15 kl (530 cu ft) warhead. By 2006, 942 such rockets were launched into southern Israel.[73]" to ---> "By 2005, the Qassam 3 had been engineered with a 12 km (7.5 mi)–14 km (8.7 mi) range and a 8 kg (17.6 lb) warhead. [SOURCE-1] By 2006, 942 such rockets were launched into southern Israel.[73]"

[SOURCE-1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20090414193851/http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/prr/qassams.php

---

It is well known that kl (kilo-litre) and (cu fu) are a volume and an area and warheads are not calculated in these units.

Imucurey (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 09:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Right-wing?

Hamas appears in the List of right-wing political parties#Active, but the description "right-wing" doesn't appear in the article. Should the organisation be described as "right-wing" in this article? JezGrove (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hamas don't explicitly advocate for the free market. There's no reason to call them 'right-wing'. They are merely culturally conservative. It is irrelevant (and incorrect if you ask me. I don't know why they specifically decided to put them in that list). —Polynilium (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Egypt position

The article claims Egypt doesn't consider Hamas a terrorist group. That apparently isn't true: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31674458

That ruling was overturned.(https://www.haaretz.com/egyptian-court-cancels-ruling-to-put-hamas-on-terrorist-list-1.5369847) - Daveout(talk) 00:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2021

I request to edit Hamas’s U.K. terrorist designation, U.K. to designate the entirety of Hamas as a terrorist organisation Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-to-designate-entire-hamas-a-terror-group-outlaw-support-report/ Benladm4ster (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

U.K. to designate entirety of Hamas as a terrorist group was announced on the 19th November 2021. Benladm4ster (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Lets wait until this is official before updating anything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-to-ban-hamas-from-uk

This says approval will be next week. We should wait until then. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

I would like to be granted the ability to edit this article of Hamas. There are things which are missing from this page like the designation of Hamas as a terrorist group by the United Kingdom. Which as of now, it is written that the UK only recognizes its military wing, which is wrong. OrangeVlad (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

far right politics cat

Is entirely unsupported in the text. Or as best I can tell the sources. Hamas isnt even terribly religious fundamentalist, even if one thing followed the other. It's social welfare wing would also be hard to square in to a "far-right" grouping. nableezy - 01:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

In general Islamist groups do not fit neatly into a left-right classification. One thing to note is that the groups in the West most vehemently opposed to Hamas are the right-wing groups. Even though it is probably possible to find sources that describe Hamas as far-right, it can't be more than an opinion and shouldn't be cemented into a cat. Zero^talk 02:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It's most likely grouping would be as an ethnic/nationalist party, which can attract people across the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I think 'fundamentalist' is closer, - though again the term carries over associations with Christian/Evangelical fundamentalism (right-wing) which are inappropriate - in the sense discussed by Ernest Gellner in his Post Modernism, Reason and Religion (1992) where High Islam, under the stress of Western encroachments, got the better of customary popular Islam in an increasingly metropolitanized world, whose reformism, which we take as 'reactionary', is egalitarian and perfectly compatible with the technologies of modernity, as opposed to, say, the Taliban. Swept up as movements like this and Hezbollah (notably tech-canny) are in geopolitical clichés, they should not be flogged with the nine-tails of modern Western political ideologies, i.e. 'catted'. It is hard enough to grasp their dynamics as it is, without these assimilationist stereotypes from our own backyard being dumped on the topic. A lot of middle class people there (not so much in Gaza these days) simply opted for Hamas because they were fed-up with the chicanery of corruption in the PLO, of wheeler-dealing, and Hamas had a certain reputation for welfare. Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2022

2A00:A040:1A0:641B:7DEB:6BA:738B:7676 (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hamas is a Teror organazation

 Already done The article already states this Terasail^[✉️] 10:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2022

The page for Hamas listed the "Official website (in Arabic)" under External Links. Hamas' Official website (English) should also be included: https://hamas.ps/en/ 37.39.208.27 (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Lists of countries in the lead

Perhaps there is a way we can better summarize the second paragaph of the lead - it seems a bit undue to have a whole paragraph dedicated to the governments that designate the group one way or another. Perhaps we could transform this into a simpler count or approximate it in terms of half a dozen countries..., etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hamas description

I recall once asking why Lehi is classified on Wikipedia as a terrorist group, while Hamas isn't. I was replied that Lehi "admitted to being one" and therefore Wikipedia also defines them as terrorists. Hamas' status as a terrorist group is very clear through its actions, but they also admit so themselves: in their song Shock Israel's Security, which describes their agenda, they literally say "Attack, do terror attacks" right at the start of the song.

Here are more examples from the lyrics: "Shake the security of Israel, light its inside like nuclear reactors, destroy it down to its foundations, destroy the roach nest like pests, kick out all Zionists", where it calls to ethnically cleanse and massacre Zionists (Jews). "Rain missiles on them already, make their world a nightmare", call to literally terrorize the Jews using violence and incite fear in them for political reasons, basically the definition of terrorism.

Source for the lyrics: https://lyricstranslate.com/en/tkof-taase-piguim-attack-do-terror.html Additional sources regarding this song: https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-hebrew-music-video-aims-to-shake-israels-security/ https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2014/07/12/Hamas-taunts-Israel-with-battle-song-in-Hebrew

Reposted instead of edited because another section was added during this time. 2A00:A040:197:1220:BD8D:DE89:ECEA:5D57 (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Unclear what you want to do here, you wish to include a reference to this song in the article? Please post a proper WP:EDITREQ (like the examples up the page). Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:LABEL prevents articles from labelling groups as terrorist, although the manual of style allows for "occasional exceptions." I imagine that if there is consensus in reliable sources and they self-describe would be one.

Reliable sources use the term terrorist to describe organizations whose sole purpose is to carry out terrorist attacks. Hence they do not describe Hamas as a terrorist group since its main purpose is to be a political party.

Bear in mind that the only reason to use the term terrorist is to be descriptive. Articles do not exist in order to pronounce moral judgment. TFD (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

What I want to do here, is add the label "terrorist organization" to the article Hamas, since they admit it themselves (as indicated in their propaganda song calling for terror).

If WP:LABEL bans calling an organization terrorist, then that should include Lehi. I'm not sure where the criteria of "sole purpose being terror" comes from, and even if so, then Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing, should be defined as a terrorist organization as that's literally its sole purpose. 2A00:A040:197:1220:BD8D:DE89:ECEA:5D57 (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Not happening. If you have issues at some other page, then raise them at those pages. Selfstudier (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Also per WP:OR

Thanks nonetheless for the lyrics. I missed them while following the event which engendered the inept Hebrew of the song, the 2014 Gaza war at a time when Israel managed to kill 2,200+ Gazans while it lost 6 civilians from Hamas rocketry. I was struck by the words:

, destroy the roach nest like pests

Sounds eerily like an allusion to an image made 10 years early by a Israeli general who likened the Palestinians to

‘drugged cockroaches scurrying in a bottle" (General Rafael Eitan)

This was translated openly into Israeli policy a year later, when Dov Weisglass created the 'formaldehyde' solution for bottling up Palestinian 'cockroaches' in Gaza forever.Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Your comment should be quoted in the Wikipedia article for Whataboutism and Ad Hominem. The Gaza war and Raful have nothing to do with the subject we're talking about, being a prime example of a red herring fallacy. It's funny that your profile describes you as a serious writer with impressive contributions while you write in a way so biased you fall into textbook fallacies. Also, the song wasn't even written in 2014, but rather in 2012, as said in Shock Israel's Security.

Also, "Not happening" is not a response that fits adults and Wikipedia. You're right, the place for asking to declare Lehi a terrorist organization on Wikipedia or not is up to discussion there, and I only brought it here as an example for the bias of Wikipedia, and to declare what I think should be done in theory, as I'll continue exploring ahead.

Back to the topic about declaring Hamas terroristic or not. So far these following arguments were brought:

• Wikipedia cannot take sides and declare an organization as terroristic.
• However, Wikipedia can call an organization terroristic if a source says so (as an example brought, in the article about Lehi).
• A terrorist organization is an organization whose sole purpose is terror (although, that definition is not backed up by reason or source).

And so my argument is:

• Hamas is declared a terrorist group by multiple entities ("Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization. New Zealand and Paraguay have designated only its military wing as a terrorist organization.").
• Hamas admit themselves to be a terrorist organization, by releasing a propaganda song where they literally call for terror (using the exact word and definition for "terror attack", "פיגוע" in Hebrew). There's no other way to interpret it, and if you find one, let me know.
• Wikipedia already designates some organizations, such as Lehi, as terrorist groups, so a precedent exists.

As a result, Wikipedia should add the description "terrorist" to this article, or at least to Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing, whose sole purpose is terror (as shown by the list of their attacks, which are almost exclusively targeted to civilians). Alternatively, Wikipedia can decide it can't declare groups as terroristic at all, and remove that title from Lehi (or change it to "declared terroristic by x, y, z...").

A Wikipedia where Lehi is called a terrorist group while Hamas isn't and vice versa, is a biased Wikipedia and an unreliable source of information, as it clearly shows its editors write in a biased POV. Either Wikipedia declares both as plain out terrorist, or none. I'm asking you to put aside your biases and your double standards and see reality as it is. Thank you.

2A06:C701:43EB:C400:2534:82E5:109D:15F2 (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

One could make the same argument about the U.S., based on their national anthem (!):

Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.

No refuge could save the hireling and slave

The terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:

They "call to literally terrorize the British and blacks using violence and incite fear in them for political reasons."

TFD (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank God you're on Wikipedia already. You can simply click the link and read about Strawman.

2A06:C701:43EB:C400:2534:82E5:109D:15F2 (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

No-one is on board with your suggestion so once again, not happening. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Song lyrics are not a reliable source, are not any kind of formal statement, and they never will be either of these. The news stories originally quoted note the propagandistic nature of the songs. Songs are songs. If we took lyrics literally, And did those feet in ancient time would be a song calling for the building of a literal new Jerusalem in England. But we don't do that, because this is a poem by Blake, and because songs are not literal things; they are heart tugs. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between "just a song" and an official song issued by Hamas' military corps which actively declares their intentions, of which they pursue. But forget the song, my other points still stand and you haven't addressed them at all.

2A06:C701:43EB:C400:2534:82E5:109D:15F2 (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

They have been addressed. In fact they have been given more than enough attention, WP is not a forum for personal opinions. If you want something specific addressed please file an edit request in the proper format as was requested earlier. Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Idem. You've been heard out. The rules have been explained. Your proposed edit violates several. This is not a forum.Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I notice that when you presented a disingenous argument and I showed the same could be applied to the U.S., you called it strawman. (I don't know why you chose to call it that, have you actually read the the article you linked to?) Well the fact is that we call our friends and allies freedom fighters and our enemies and adversaries terrorists. And when, as often happens, we switch sides in a conflict, we switch the terms. That's why WP:LABEL advises us not to use them. It's also why policy prevents editors from drawing their own conclusions and adding them to articles.

There is however an actual subject of terrorism that is covered in reliable sources, such as textbooks and journal articles, which is the subject of this article. We are required to use them as sources. TFD (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, the American national anthem is not "just a song," it is an "official song." It's actually sanctioned in 36 U.S.C. § 301(a). TFD (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel like all this is missing the point. The reason that this article does not say Hamas is a terrorist organization is that reliable sources arent so overwhelmingly saying that as a factual description that we cannot say it as a factual description either. That isnt the case for Lehi. The balance of sources support calling that a terrorist group, here sources refer to Hamas as a number of things, but not overwhelmingly as "terrorist". For example, the Council on Foreign Relations calls it a militant group and specifies who has designated it a terrorist group. Same for BBC. Same for NYTimes. There isnt that equivocation for Lehi. And yes, Lehi literally self-identified as a terrorist group. Your song lyrics dont do that, sorry. nableezy - 22:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Citation

For the Hadera bus station suicide bombing citation that's missing - can't add due to extended protection:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1994/04/07/8-killed-40-injured-in-car-bomb-blast-at-israeli-bus-stop/6feb4aef-1e8f-4d32-bfe5-79bf5d468760/ SSR07 (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Bad wording

In the violence and terrorism section, it refers to the holiday of Passover as a "festival". This is highly odd wording, and I've never heard it referred to as a festival. Could we change it to holiday? EytanMelech (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

LGBT rights persecution

We should add a specific section of LGBT persecution by Hamas Nlivataye (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• InfoboxHez.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2023

I want to edit the fact it says Syria is an ally to Hamas. Hamas used to be an ally to the Syrian Arab Republic, but during the civil war they took the side of the rebels because the rebels were Sunni-Muslims while Bashar's forces were Alawites and Shias. Hamas being an ally to the Syrian Arab Republic is outdated, and I just want to add "former" to Syria in the allies section. IbnAbuOmar (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Overcomplicated language in Etymology Edit Request

Most people don't know what conduced to abetting acrimonious relations means. I suggest it be replaced with helped result in bitter relations or something similar. Thank you. Watch Atlas791 (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Trimmed it. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

statement by Hamas

This entire section is a massive violation of OR, cherrypicking statements that a user considers important is not how we determine what is DUE. Imagine The Jewish Home containing statements by leaders including Ayelet Shaked saying the mothers of all Palestinians should be killed. This entire section is OR and should be removed. nableezy - 16:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The statements section is very well sourced. Editors may not like what it says, but it is properly sourced and significant content. If there are opposing views from independent reliable sources on these statements, then they should be discussed to see if they merit weight for inclusion.  // Timothy :: talk  16:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

MEMRI is not a reliable source, and it is OR to use random statements as though they are representative. This is not a wordpress blog. nableezy - 16:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The obvious difference is that the great majority of Israeli politicians do not call for the killing of all Palestinians. Are you saying that the statements in this section are non-representative and in fact Hamas clerics call for peace and co-existence when addressing domestic audience? If that's the case it should be easy to find such examples and then balance the section per WP:DUE.

As for the statement translated by MEMRI (which is just one of the sources used in this section), the reliability depends on the context. In this case we're not relying on their interpretation but rather on translation. Are you saying that it's incorrect? Alaexis_¿question? 18:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Really? A sitting Israeli minister called for a pogrom. You want to pretend that Israeli politicians call for peace and co-existence? Get off it. Shocker, enemies vilify each other. Only one side here seeks to promote the idea that this is a partisan activity and not one that all sides engage in. nableezy - 18:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is the article about Hamas, so if you believe that the statements are cherry-picked, the burden is on you to prove that, for example by providing enough examples of the opposite nature, or some kind of academic study of the topic. Alaexis_¿question? 19:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

They are cherry picked because they are not used in sources as examples of wider issues. We are citing MEMRI, a propaganda outfit, for their propaganda. Do you know what cherry picking means? nableezy - 19:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

To quote the wiki article, "cherry picking is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position."

So I'm asking again, can you find any proof of the existence of the "significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position"? In other words, Hamas members' statements which are of the opposite nature to the ones listed in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 19:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, the current charter accepts 1967 borders and goes to pains to disclaim any confrontation with Jews, only with Zionism. They have also disclaimed members calling for violence against Jews: Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, said Hammad’s remarks conflicted with its amended charter that restricted Hamas’s conflict to the Israeli occupation, “not the Jews or their religion,”. So yes, cherry-picking. nableezy - 20:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, the new charter is already described in the article. We can probably add the incident too along with the reaction by Hamas.

This doesn't prove the cherry-picking though - having one example doesn't prove that the rest are not representative. Alaexis_¿question? 21:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Picking particular cherries that the cherry picker feels demonstrates their point is definitionally cherry picking. nableezy - 21:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hamas has been around for a while, so there will be plenty of books from academic publishers and peer-reviewed papers out on their ideology for those interested in improving this article rather than just cramming it full of sensationalist opinion piece crap. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Something that appears to be being lost in the mire here is that this article is already grossly overlength, so it really needs far less grossly opinionated crap that's not contributing to an encyclopedic summary, not more. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism is well-ingrained in Hamas as an organization, from its very chart to its main leaders and representatives, and their statements on Jews are not "cherry-picked" nor isolated outbursts taken out of context. In any case, they try to give a different image to non-Arab (specially Western) audiences with their usual trope "I don't hate Jews, just Zionists", and that attitude is reflected in the article as well. Also supported by multiple mainstream sources, which means your claim of WP:OR is total nonsense. Another case of "I don't like it" that doesn't hold water. I agree that the "incitement to genocide" part is debatable, but their Jew-hatred is not. Dovidroth (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If one embraces a world view that any differences with a state that proclaims itself 'Jewish' - one that is programmatically dedicated to creating a unified state over all of former Palestine, with some mechanism for closeting half of the non-Jewish population in precarious townships, of roughly 12% of the land -is antisemitic, then everything to do with Palestinian, Hamas and the rest's violent resistance or rejection of what they perceive to be a usurpation of their national rights, is antisemitic. There is no evidence other than MEMRI's for a handful of individual quotes, for a programme of genocide. There is a mass of evidence to the contrary. If hatred of Jews were so intense, why are the 5 tombs of Jewish soldiers keep clean and unscarred in Gaza, complete with the Star of David marking them, retained there even when Moshe Dayan wanted them removed, because the Gazan authorities appealed to the British Government which has a kind of jurisdiction over war gravesites? As to Jew hatred, the majority in Israel can't stand Palestinians, and both clerics and military officials have repeatedly used language calling for their elimination. One of the present members of the government several years ago called for concentration camps/their elimination. This article is no place for moralizing, but for registering facts, which here are that the Hamas charter included an antisemitic statement, which was dropped in 2017. To spin history as a genocide to be averted, perceived in every nook and cranny by the actions and rare exclamations of the usual morons among one's political adversaries, is puerile, brainwashing hysterical garbage. Nishidani (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

No sources mentioned there, just your opinion along with a statement that there are "multiple mainstream sources" supporting it. Which ones? Afaics, the anti-Semitism charges relate (correctly) to the original charter and this is why the hasbara focuses on that. But that is history now, there is a new charter and Hamas has a different approach.

The "truth" now is "The movement’s repeated invocations of its willingness to accept the 1967 borders for a future Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital, were consistently ignored by Israel." That's what everybody wants, Israel excepted, so in that sense Hamas is mainstream and it is Israel that is extremist.

See Hamas Contained: The Rise and Pacification of Palestinian Resistance, 2018, Stanford University Press.

Hamas and Palestine: The Contested Road to Statehood, 2018, Routledge. Selfstudier (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the pathetic excuses for antisemitism and terrorism, here are just a few of the mainstream sources on Hamas antisemitic statements: In Gaza, Hamas’s Insults to Jews Complicate Peace, Hamas leader prays for annihilation of Jews, Americans. I can look for more, but that should be enough. Dovidroth (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Those are both bad examples for demonstrating the point. The first begins by referencing an Egyptian preacher, and the only "insults" mentioned in the piece are those directed at Mahmoud Abbas, while the second source is just parroting what it has picked up from MEMRI TV, which has already been called out here for its blatant unreliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

A 2008 newspaper article? And recycled MEMRI from 2012 in the ToI? I refer you to my up-to-date 2018 scholarly material above. Leaving aside the pathetic excuses for antisemitism and terrorism Which pathetic excuses? And why can't that equally be written "the pathetic excuses for Israeli war crimes, human rights abuses and state sponsored terrorism"? Takes two to tango. Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGEMATTERS and again Memri is a shit source with a history of fabricating material. And why exactly is any random statement from a spokesman relevant here? nableezy - 15:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

What did they fabricate? Alaexis_¿question? 18:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

example, and see the beginning of this peer-reviewed journal article or Le Monde Diplomatique on further examples. nableezy - 18:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The peer reviewed journal concludes by saying that attempts to challenge the accuracy of MEMRI translations "miss the point", that an organization that formed specifically to challenge MEMRI translations closed because they "clearly did not find enough such instances to justify continued engagement", and that the criticism of MEMRI should be selection bias, rather than translation accuracy. Drsmoo (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it misses the point that it is entirely a propaganda outlet, and that the mistranslations are a minor part of that. But there are also repeated fabrications. From Le Monde Diplomatique:

Memri is frequently criticised for the quality, and sometimes even the integrity, of its translations. After the 7 July 2005 London bombings, an Islamist living in Britain, Hani al-Sebai, was invited to take part in an Al-Jazeera programme, More Than One Viewpoint. Sebai said of the victims “there is no term in Islamic jurisprudence called civilians. Dr Karmi is here sitting with us, and he's very familiar with the jurisprudence. There are fighters and non-fighters. Islam is against the killing of innocents. The innocent man cannot be killed according to Islam.” The Memri translation read: “The term civilians does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I’m familiar with religious law. There is no such term as civilians in the modern western sense. People are either of dar al-harb or not” (9). Note the introduction of the contested term dar al-harb, which is Arabic for house of war (denoting the part of the world populated by unbelievers), a term not used by the speaker. In a country at war on terror, the use of that term implies that anything goes. Memri also omitted the condemnation of the killing of innocents.

Halim Barakat, a professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC, also suffered from this approach. He claimed that an article he wrote for the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat, “The wild beast that Zionism created: Self-destruction”, was reproduced by Memri under the hate-inducing headline, “Jews have lost their humanity”. Barakat denies having used that phrase. “Every time I wrote Zionism, Memri replaced the word by Jew or Judaism. They want to give the impression that I’m not criticising Israeli policy and that what I’m saying is anti-semitic.” As soon as the translation was posted on the Memri website he received threats. He was told that he had no right to teach at a university (he has taught for more than 30 years) and that he should leave the US. Another Georgetown professor attacked him in an article based only on Memri translations, without checking the Arabic texts.

But yes, that is not the major criticism of the propaganda outlet, the major criticism is that it is a propaganda outlet. nableezy - 02:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

So you claimed that Memri”s translations are inaccurate, and tried to back that up by posting a peer reviewed article that explicitly says that an organization opposed to Memri literally closed up because they couldn’t find enough translation issues. Then you post a single example from almost 20 years ago, talk about “cherry picking”. The other funny thing is that you say a clearly reliable source like The Atlantic shouldn’t be used because of Jeffrey Goldberg, but then use as a reference someone who is well known and controversial for her anti Israel actions (and who still contradicts your claim). Drsmoo (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Um no, I provided a journal article that gives an example of them fabricating a translation. Yes, that is not the primary concern with MEMRI as a propaganda outlet, but it is for for the question did MEMRI fabricate anything. She does not contradict my claim. What she writes is:

This is not to say that examples of blatant mistranslations do not exist, or that they are not contested, nor that the organisations involved in demonising various groups and regions as terrorist are not occasionally tempted to throw caution to the wind to hit the headlines with highly effective sound bites, such as ‘wipe Israel off the map’. Indeed, the translation of this particular sound bite from Persian has been widely contested (see, e.g. Steele 2006, Norouzi 2007) – though the phrase continues to have considerable currency and to be flagged every time the subject of Iran and terrorism comes up. Similarly, a video clip from The Pioneers of Tomorrow, a children’s programme aired on Hamas TV in April 2007, is children to its terrorist agenda. The clip, subtitled and widely circulated by MEMRI, showed a young girl, Sanabel, in conversation with another young girl, Saraa, and a Mickey Mouse character called Farfour.2 Various mistranslations, as indicated in the following stretch, were discussed at the time by Whitaker (2007), among others.3 I have added a close gloss in square brackets where relevant to highlight the gap between what Sanabel can be heard to say in Arabic and MEMRI’s subtitles in English.

Host Saraa, a young girl: ‘Sanabel, what will you do for the sake of the Al-Aqsa Mosque?

How will you sacrifice your soul for the sake of Al-Aqsa? What will you do?’

Sanabel, young girl on phone: ‘I will shoot.’ [I’m going to draw a picture.]

Farfour, a Mickey Mouse character in a tuxedo: ‘Sanabel, what should we do if we want to liberate . . .’

Sanabel: ‘We want to fight.’ [We want to resist.]

Farfour: ‘We got that. What else?’

Saraa: ‘We want to . . .’

Sanabel: ‘We will annihilate the Jews.’ [The Jews are shooting us.]

Saraa: ‘We are defending Al-Aqsa with our souls and our blood, aren’t we, Sanabel?’

Sanabel: ‘I will commit martyrdom.’ [I will become a martyr.4]

You can pretend that is not in fact supporting that MEMRI has fabricated material, but it does. That Baker finds their mistranslations to not even be the primary concern with the group doesnt mean what you think it means. Jeffrey Goldberg has zero academic qualifications. Baker does. And hello, I posted several examples of MEMRI fabricating material. You can pretend it is a single example, but that just means you cant count. nableezy - 03:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

And for an impeccable source of MEMRI distorting material through creative editing, see here. nableezy - 03:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems the problem is you didn’t actually read much of the article you linked to. The article you linked to thoroughly shuts down your claim regarding Memri’s accuracy

The entire thesis of the article is that Memri’s translations are in fact accurate but selective, or with editorialized titles, based on postmodern concepts like “narrativity”. Selectivity or headlines having no bearing whatsoever on the quality of the translations themselves, which the author repeatedly states are accurate. “As noted at the beginning of this article, MEMRI is very careful about the accuracy of its translations, because its credibility can easily be undermined if its opponents were to identify and publicise a list of errors in these translations, whether the errors in question are presented as deliberate or not.”

”First, while keeping the actual translation very close to the original, MEMRI and other groups such as PMW and MESI often add their own titles to translations to frame the narrative as extremist or threatening.”

”A group called MEMRI Watch,22 for instance, operated for a short while in 2007 and described itself as ‘a central resource for critiques of MEMRI’ and as ‘a small collective of translators and analysts who are bothered by the output of MEMRI for various reasons’. This group worked hard to ‘highlight instances of mistranslation and doctoring in MEMRI’s translations’, but clearly did not find enough such instances to justify continued engagement.” And the point regarding scholarly or not is irrelevant. Drsmoo (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Lol, the question was what have they fabricated? Answer, they fabricated this bit from Farfur per this journal article. Drsmoo, well the journal article found that their mistranslations were not so numerous that it outweighed the fact that they actively engage in propaganda through selective editing. Me. And you think that makes it better? But you appear to misunderstand when it says Instances of such blatant mistranslations aside, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that organisations such as MEMRI are generally very careful about the ‘accuracy’ of their translations and invest heavily in elaborating an image of themselves as non-partisan, trustworthy and highly qualified to comment on and explain issues relating to terrorism and security. that it is confirming there are mistranslations, but that it is not the major critique. But that does not change that there are indeed mistranslations, and fabrications. Seem to be ignoring the other sources too. Huh. nableezy - 03:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope, the article explicitly states that Memri’s translations are accurate. In fact, the high accuracy of Memri’s translations is her entire point regarding the theoretical concept of narrativity. Ie., even though the translations are highly accurate they push a narrative through headlines and selection bias. That is literally the whole point of the article. You are cherry picking single examples over 20 years while the author whose whole career is based on analyzing translations says that their translations are accurate. Drsmoo (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope, it explicitly says there are instances of mistranslations, and gives an example in which the directory is confronted by CNN and demonstrates an amusing display of ignorance on Arabic grammar. Again, quoting from Baker:

This translation by MEMRI was contested even by the CNN Arabic desk, who advised talk show host and commentator, Glenn Beck, not to air it. Rather than listen to his own staff translators, Beck decided to invite the Director of MEMRI, Yigal Carmon, to his programme to respond to their charges of mistranslation. Carmon’s response to their criticism of one instance of mistranslation is worth quoting, as it provides an insight into how far an organisation might go to protect its credibility when that credibility rests on the question of accuracy in translation. In the following extract, the Octavia Carmon refers to is Octavia Nasr, a member of staff in the CNN Arabic Department5:

She said the sentence where it says . . . ‘We are going to . . . we will annihilate the Jews’, she said: ‘Well, our translators hear something else. They hear “The Jews are shooting at us”.’ I said to her: ‘You know, Octavia, the order of the words as you put it is upside down. You can’t even get the order of the words right. Even someone who doesn’t know Arabic would listen to the tape and would hear the word “Jews” is at the end, and also it means it is something to be done to the Jews, not by the Jews.’ And she insisted, no the word is in the beginning. I said: ‘Octavia, you just don’t get it. It is at the end’ . . . She didn’t know one from two, I mean.

As Whitaker (2007) rightly points out, Carmon does not just challenge the expertise of the CNN Arabic department here but also ignores what all Arabic grammars have to say on the structure of Arabic and the mobility of the object in Arabic syntax.

You can keep pretending like Baker does not document this propaganda outfit performing mistranslations, you can keep pretending like the start of the sentence Instances of such blatant mistranslations aside, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that organisations such as MEMRI are generally very careful about the ‘accuracy’ of their translations and invest heavily in elaborating an image of themselves as non-partisan, trustworthy and highly qualified to comment on and explain issues relating to terrorism and security does not say there are instances of such blatant mistranslations, but the question asked here was what have they fabricated. Do you dispute I have provided sources showing they have fabricated content? nableezy - 04:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Note the difference in meaning between “instances” and “generally”. Also note the author’s conclusion regarding the low quantity of these instances. Drsmoo (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

That conclusion being “clearly did not find enough such instances to justify continued engagement.” I feel the same way about this discussion. Drsmoo (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Except she said their translations include blatant mistranslations. And other sources report other fabrications as well. Youre arguing well they only lie a small amount of the time. Cool I guess, that makes them part time liars and full time propagandists. nableezy - 14:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Defending MEMRI is a bit like defending Fox News. Uphill struggle. Selfstudier (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh and the difference between my cherry picking and yours is Im not stuffing the MEMRI article with every time they engaged in propaganda or fabrication. Im showing how they cannot be trusted because they have a history of fabrication. On a talk page, and not in their article. nableezy - 03:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Except that an analysis by a professor of translation studies says that their translations are accurate. Drsmoo (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Except that isnt what she says lol. nableezy - 04:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Thanks for sharing the links re MEMRI. I think that this was indeed misleading. Therefore we should be careful about using their interpretations. The two other articles (Le Monde Diplomatique and Critical Studies on Terrorism) accuse them of selective, rather than inaccurate translations. In view of this I see no problem with using their translations. Alaexis_¿question? 20:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

They also only translate what they want to translate, excluding context where it doesn't fit their propagandized narrative. Even without mistranslation, their careful cherrypicking and selection bias amounts to a concerted effort to misinform. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Integral nationalism

Add Integral nationalism to the Infobox. 2A02:3030:803:AB5F:1:0:DAE6:C284 (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Integral nationalism - source? Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)