Talk:Hamas/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Adding Moldova as state that designated Hamas as a terrorist org

Here is the source - terrorist orgs list of Moldova national antiterrorist committee 2019. https://antiteror.sis.md/sites/default/files/document/attachments/osis_14_2019.pdf Zaygle (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit.

 Question:

@Zaygle, could you provide additional information around this so that it can be better cited? Possibly around page 21–23 is what you’re referring to? I have attempted to translate it using machine translation, but I don’t want to rely on that alone.

@Jmabel, hello! I noticed you were listed as a previously active Romanian translator who has made contributions in the previous weeks—would you be able to assist in verifying this as a reliable and accurate source? Thanks!

– Pedantical (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pedantical: it's a government site, so presumably reliable, including that it cites for the position being official. Further, it mentions that this was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova (MONITORUL OFICIAL). The document conflates involvement in terrorist activities (activități teroriste) and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (proliferare a armelor de distrugere în masă), so one possible question is that it could be conceivably argued that somehow they fell under the latter rather than the former, but given the nature of Hamas that would be quite a stretch. The mention of Hamas doesn't so much single out a Moldovan position as cite and quote a list [of] people, groups, and entities provided in article I of the Common Position of the Council of the European Union, 27 December 2001 (LISTA persoanelor, grupurilor și a entităților prevăzute la articolul 1 din Poziția Comună a Consiliului Uniunii Europene din 27 decembrie 2001 (2001/931/PESC) ). Under that heading, the list of groups and entities (Grupuri și entități) on page 22 of the PDF includes „Hamas”, inclusiv „Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem” ("Hamas", including "Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem"). So it is clearly an official Moldovan government position, but it is simply an endorsement of an EU list, not something originating in Moldova. I presume that answers your question. Since Moldova is not yet an EU member, their official endorsement and quotation of the EU list should presumably count as a separate action, and that Moldova considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization.

Please ping me if anyone thinks there is any problem in my translation or reasoning: I don't maintain a watchlist on en-wiki. - Jmabel | Talk 18:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help here! Greatly appreciated. Take care,

– Pedantical (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

wording in lead

the lead section says "Hamas is widely considered to be the "dominant political force" within the Palestinian territories.". This is supported by three citations:

• a recent Foreign Policy article which in no way says this at any point ("Hamas’s ability to claim leadership based on the quality of ordinary Palestinians’ lives is limited." & "Abbas and other PA leaders have implicitly supported the isolation of Gaza, and its security forces have worked closely with Israel to crush Hamas in the West Bank"),
• a Guardian article from 2007 which states "Hamas is not currently a member of the PLO but as the dominant political force in the Palestinian territories, it is only a matter of time and negotiation before it takes its place. The PLO is dominated by Fatah and leftist groups who were powerful in the 1960s and 1970s but whose influence has waned." which might have been true at the time, but not 16 years later (or even since 2007).
• The third citation is a 2009 paper which make the claim in the context of the 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections, but that council has been defunct since the Fatah Hamas split in 2007.

The latest poll from Gaza (July 2023) indicated 11% support for Hamas and 32% for Fatah. (Not 100% sure about the quality of the poll, though Ian Bremmer seems to think its legit). Overall this doesnt seem like good enough and especially not recent enough sourcing to support such a bold claim in the lead section. jonas (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This is interesting. Washington Institute also polled Gazans in July 2023 and their findings are somewhat different Overall, 57% of Gazans express at least a somewhat positive opinion of Hamas... —though Gazans who express this opinion of Hamas are fewer than the number of Gazans who have a positive view of Fatah (64%). They also found that Fatah is more popular (which was surprising for me!) but still more than half support Hamas. The difference could be due to differences in the wording of questions and the interpretation of the responses.

We can probably include the poll results, but the popular support for a faction doesn't necessarily mean that it is the "dominant political force," especially in the absence of elections. Alaexis_¿question? 10:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's another survey, made by Arab Barometer right before the start of the war. They asked a slightly different question "Which party, if any, do you feel closest to?" and as far as I can understand it was a single answer question. Fatah and Hamas were chosen by 30% and 27% respectively. We'd have to summarise all these surveys somehow. Alaexis_¿question? 10:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Next Palestinian legislative election#Opinion polls Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know about that article, I think it belongs to Wikipedia:Wikipedia records :) Alaexis_¿question? 22:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

the public support section has some polling from 2014 but would need some updating with these polls. I don't see anyone arguing for keeping the wording in the lead, so I'm gonna remove that part for now until there's consensus to more accurately describe the current position of Hamas. jonas (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The latest poll I could find for Hamas' popularity is from 2021[1], and nothing from since then.VR _talk 00:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The polls in the above link go through mid 2023. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

2 states

https://www.the7eye.org.il/409427 According to the polls mentioned in the source (based on Palestinian research), the organization's supporters tended to support one Islamic state rather than two states solution.

"According to the Palestinian researcher, "Since the Oslo Accords until today, explains Miari, the PLO and Fatah lead the pragmatic Palestinian camp, which recognizes Israel and is ready for a territorial compromise in the form of a two-state solution, while Hamas and Islamic Jihad lead the resistance camp that challenges the leadership of the PLO , does not recognize Israel and refuses any agreement that would include a territorial compromise with it."

Also, at 2017, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zohri said: "Unlike Fateh, Hamas does not accept Israel's right to exist on the rest of the territory. Hamas' consistent position is not to give up any of our historical rights and not to recognize the Israeli occupation." [[2]] 2.55.18.171 (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

VR, Homerethegreat and others.

Can you attach the information in the chapter dealing with the position of the organization in relation to two state solustion?

In relation to these positions on the issue of the 2 states and the Hodna, is there no reason to add his position then (by the way, untill to this day Hamas has not adopted them):

After the election at 2006, the Quartet on the Middle East (the United States, Russia, the European Union (EU), and the United Nations) stated that assistance to the Palestinian Authority would only continue if Hamas renounced violence, recognized Israel, and accepted previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements, which Hamas refused to do. שמי (2023) (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify which page of which book you want the quote of? VR _talk 21:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

References

شباب الزواري Hamas Youth

Unsurprisingly Hamas has a youth wing, if the cover of 'Hamas: From Resistance To Regime' by Paola Caridi is any indication. Provenance is Mahmud Hams/AFP. The headbands the two girls are wearing has elements distinct from the parent organization, but in going to the websites listed here the .ps site gets me "Try Again", even on Tor, whereas the putative Arabic site yields English with an Arabic option. First, is that website legitimate, or a honey pot? (I am not donating to Hamas either way!) Secondly, are there any secondary sources on the Hamas Youth, or Hamas Cubs? If so, this article needs a subsection on them. Thx. kencf0618 (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

HAMAS ON WEB

According to Dr. Harel Horev, a historian and researcher on Palestinian affairs at Tel Aviv University, "Hamas also educated the general public about the dehumanization of Israelis/Jews - in mosques, schools, summer camps, and especially - on social networks. Using sophisticated methods learned from Iran and Hezbollah, Hamas took over the most popular accounts on Palestinian networks in a covert manner that did not reveal its involvement This control gave him the ability to significantly influence the Palestinian online discourse through content that denied the humanity and right to life of Israelis. These included posters, songs and videos glorifying threats; computer games that encourage the murder of Jews; instructional videos for carrying out effective and indiscriminate stabbing and shooting attacks; as well as anti-Semitic cartoons as a central means of launching the dehumanization of the Israeli/Jew in the Palestinian online discourse. The figure of the ultra-Orthodox with the crooked nose and the evil look, which seems to have been taken from the Nazi newspaper Der Stirmer, is particularly beloved by Hamas illustrators. Last February, for example, following the stampede attack in the Ramot neighborhood in which two children and a student were murdered Yeshiva Shlomo Lederman, a Hamas man, Yassin Bahaa, published a cartoon in which a family is seen eating from a tray from a makluba with Lederman's head stuck in the center. The headline that accompanied the cartoon was "Great Friday, a great Palestinian makluba." [[3]] In this article [[4]], he explained how Hamas operated at least 150 websites and accounts, most of which did not bear the organization's symbols. These sites, led by the two largest sites in the Palestinian information arena - Shahab and Al-Quds Al-Akhbariya, each of which is followed by approximately one and a half million Palestinians living in the Territories - helped Hamas set the media agenda that translates into political power. He used it in order to encourage terrorist attacks. --שמי (2023) (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pedantical (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest referring to the chapter dealing with the history of the organization (the period of the second and third decade of the 21st century) the information dealing with the research done by the doctor and his conclusions. Possible wording:

According to Dr. Harel Horev, historian and researcher of Palestinian affairs at Tel Aviv University, "Hamas has also educated the general public to dehumanize Israelis/Jews - in mosques, schools and on social media. According to his research, Hamas took over the most popular accounts on Palestinian networks in a covert manner that did not reveal its involvement. This control gave him the ability to significantly influence the Palestinian discourse online through content that denies the humanity and right to life of Israelis. These included posters, songs and videos glorifying threats; computer games that encourage the murder of Jews; Training videos for carrying out effective and indiscriminate stabbing and shooting attacks; and anti-Semitic cartoons as a central means of dehumanizing the Israeli/Jew in the Palestinian online discourse.

These are 2 articles he published, within the university and in the newspaper [[5]] [[6]] שמי (2023) (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably the best place to add it would be the Media section, in which we could create a new Social Media subsection. Btw, do you know if he or someone else published similar findings in peer-reviewed journals? Alaexis_¿question? 20:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

rape and other war crimes

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

I think the rape testimonials that have been published should be included. All quotes below are from the CNN article in the references below.

1. According to Israeli police superintendent, "officers have collected more than 1,000 statements and more than 60,000 video clips related to the attacks that include accounts from people who reported seeing women raped", and that witnesses to the aftermath say that "women and girls caught in the rampage were brutalized sexually, as well as physically tortured and killed."

2. A paramedic said that the body of a teenage girl was found "on the floor [and] was on her stomach [...] her pants are pulled down toward her knees and there’s a bullet wound on the back side of her neck near her head [...] There’s a puddle of blood around her head and there’s remains of semen on the lower part of her back.” He added that a second teenage girl on the bed "had bruises all over her body and a bullet wound to the chest".

3. "Others reported similar horrors at the Nova music festival where hundreds of young people were killed". "An organizer of the festival said he saw female victims with no clothes as he made his escape." He said that “their legs were spread out and some of them were butchered".

4. A survivor told about the rape she witnessed, "she was alive, she stood on her feet and she was bleeding from her back. I saw that he was pulling her hair. She had long brown hair. I saw him chop off her breast and then he was throwing it toward the road, tossed it to someone else and they started playing with it." The witness added: "I remember seeing another person raping her, and while he was still inside her he shot her in the head."

5. It should also be included that babies and children were kidnapped (it is mentioned only in the more general sentence that Hamas "took civilian and soldier hostages back to Gaza").

• Why it should be changed:

In my understanding these details are extremely relevant to the topic at hand. Not including any of them amounts to hiding information dearly relevant to the understanding of Hamas and its tactics. The detailed testimonials are necessary as well because they are unusual in their cruelty, once more proving relevance to the understanding of many aspects of the organization named Hamas and its war tactics. The age of the kidnapped (the fact there are dozens of children and even babies among them) is also relevant to understanding the methods of Hamas.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Jake Tapper and Kirsten Appleton, CNN: Israel investigates sexual violence committed by Hamas as part of October 7 horror Quickly-now (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Hamas 1988 Charter

LEAD seems to completely ignore 1988 charter and its anti-Semitic text and rhetoric, as pointed out by numerous scholars. A widely discussed subject, it deserves attention in Lead. Furthermore, Overdue Weight on 2017 charter that seemed to show moderation in Hamas. Despite contrary actions as demonstrated in Hamas leadership speeches and actions (example - 2023 Hamas attack on Israel).

In its 1988 charter, Hamas advocated for the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state encompassing the combined territories of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[7] It called for the military destruction of Israel, utilized antisemitic tropes, and endorsed Jihad against Jews until Judgement Day. In an attempt to moderate its image, in 2017 a revised charter was issued, replacing anti-Semitic calls with a focus on anti-Zionism.

Slightly improved wording upon a @Dovidroth version I encountered earlier. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Bruce Hoffman is a biased Zionist and this article is an opinion piece. That so many use this as the “golden source” about Hamas is very telling.

Focus should remain on the 2017 Revised Hamas Charter and the elimination of antisemitic rhetoric. This doc was written 30 after the original 1988 Covenant. Circumstances in Palestine in 1988 were much different than they were, and currently are, in 2017. To continue focusing on the antisemitism in the 1988 covenant is lazy. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Added a source from The Economist below :). Homerethegreat (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It's important to note that Hamas' acceptance of the 1967 borders did not just happen in 2017. Hamas signed documents that implicitly or explicitly recognized this borders in 2005, 2007, 2011 and 2012 (see this scholarly source I quoted). Hamas leaders have also made dozens of statements during those years calling for a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. The 2023 attack has nothing to do with the 1967 borders discussion.

WP:RSEDITORIAL says "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics". Why on earth would we remove the 5-10 scholarly sources we have in the lead over the 1967 borders and replace with a couple of newspaper op-eds? VR _talk 04:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Hoffman, I'll add a different source then. I think The Economist piece will serve us better. Here it is [8] Homerethegreat (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Next to scholarly sources, a newspaper is a poor source. An editorial piece even more so. nableezy - 16:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright so adding scholary sources.

1)Rensmann, L. (2020). The Contemporary Globalization of Political Antisemitism: Three Political Spaces and the Global Mainstreaming of the “Jewish Question” in the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, 3(1), p. 90.‏

"Hamas focuses on violence against Jews in Israel by means of rockets and terror acts. The Hamas Charter remains aggressively antisemitic and contains references to the notorious, century-old Russian anti-Jewish conspiracy myth forgery of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”; later to be used as Nazi propaganda. The charter accuses Jews “of relying on secret societies to foment global economic and political disasters” and calls on Hamas followers to “prepare for ‘the next round with the Jews, the merchants of war".

2)Spoerl, J. S. (2020). Parallels between Nazi and Islamist Anti-Semitism. Jewish Political Studies Review, 31(1/2), p. 216 "First, anti-Semitism is central to Hamas propaganda, as documented

copiously below, and Hamas has not renounced or ceased producing such

propaganda. For example, in April 2017, just as Hamas was about to release its

May 2017 “Document,” Hamas member of the Palestinian legislature Marwan

Abu Ras gave a Friday sermon at a mosque in the Gaza Strip in which he said,

“History attests that in every era, the Jews were the most abhorred of people.

Throughout history, the most hated race was the Jewish race…. Why did

[Hitler] hate the Jews? Because they are a people of treachery and betrayal….

Therefore, we can never accept the Jews…"

3)Fastenbauer, R. (2020). Islamic antisemitism: Jews in the Qur’an, Reflections of European antisemitism, Political anti-Zionism: Common codes and differences. Confronting Antisemitism from the Perspectives of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, diedit oleh Armin Lange, Kerstin Mayerhofer, Dina Porat, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 284 "Direct calls for use of violence in the text of

"the Hamas charter also reveal its antisemitic character" Homerethegreat (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Each of these sources are still referencing the 1988 Charter.

The 1988 Charter was written predominantly by one person -- Abdel Fattah al-Dukhan -- and the Charter became a source of much internal debate and controversy and embarrassment within the organization for decades afterwards. This is cited by both Paola Caridi and Azzam Tamimi in their books on the organization, based on interviews with their leadership.

Internally, there was a logistical difficulty overwriting the charter due to the verbiage in Article 11 describing Palestine as a "waqf" and the unavailability of members needed for democratic discussion towards changing it due to their imprisonment, but as cited directly by Caridi in "Hamas: Resistance to Government" regarding internal attitudes towards the charter: "But the embarrassment is obvious. In this as in other cases, the movement sacrifices its pragmatic side on the altar of its unity, because it considers essential for its solidity that its unique democratic centralism not be undermined. Abandoning the Charter would not be possible even for those who opposed it from the very beginning unless an extensive discussion took place including all Hamas’ different groupings ... Among the leadership who have been heard over recent years, the only one to have publicly admitted his opposition to the Mithaq is Sayyed Abu Musameh, who in October 2008 revealed that both he and Moussa Abu Marzouq – one of the Islamist movement’s most important figures – had come out against the document ... In truth, the first public statements which attempted to put the value of the Charter into its proper perspective appeared already during an earlier period, between 2003 and 2005."

There is vast evidence of Hamas's actual ideology and political orientation contradicting the charter's stated views:

1) The speech by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin at [9]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2eXDd6liG0

2) The 2007 Wikileak stating: "... However, some Hamas leaders have said that while they will not recognize Israel, they are prepared to accept a temporary solution based on establishing an independent Palestinian state on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, with east Jerusalem as its capital and without settlements."

3) The verbiage in their '05 Political Manifesto prior to the '06 election

4) The letter Haniyeh wrote to the UN in 2009 expressing interest in a two-party state along the 1967 borders

5) The 2012 interview with Marzouk in the Jewish newspaper Forward where he states explicitly:

“We don’t have originally something against the Jew as a religion or against the Jew as a human being,” he said. “The problem is that the Israelis kicked out my family. They have occupied my land and injured thousands of Palestinians…. I have to differentiate between the Jew who did this problem to my people and [American] Jews like you, who never did anything bad to my people."

and

“We have many, many policies that are not going with the charter,” he said. “But when you talk about ‘change the charter,’ there are many Hamas people talking about changing the charter. That’s a debate inside Hamas, because there are many, many policies against what’s written in the charter.”

6) Their public denunciation in 2019 of Fathi Ahmad's anti-semitic statements Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, none of those references have anything to do with the 1967 borders and the antisemitism the first source references is from the 1988 charter, not the 2017 one. How about we add this: "Hamas's 1988 charter was widely considered antisemitic, but its 2017 charter removed this antisemitism and clarified its struggle was with Zionists not Jews." VR _talk 15:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

We're talking about the 1988 charter, still relevant, basis of Hamas, most of the organizational history is during that time. Hamas has remained anti-Semitic according to scholars and other actors, remaining adherent to sections to the original charter, per stated above. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with mentioning the 1988 charter, as long as we clarify it refers to the previous charter, and that the 2017 is the latest one, along with differences between the two.VR _talk 21:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• If it has been pointed out by "numerous scholars", you ought to be able to find academic sources to cite it to as opposed to op-eds. But the key point of what you want is already there, just in a more neutral tone and cited to better sources. While historically seeking an Islamic Palestinian state over the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip...; the rest is mostly opinions by the op-eds you posted and can't really be stated in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat you cannot use antisemitic as translation for antijews or anti all other religions than sunni Islam which is the case of hamas. Semitic includes Arabs and Jews. 142.59.162.50 (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism is the term used to describe hatred or rejection of people due to their Jewish origin. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

*:Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zohri said following the treaty change that "unlike Fatah, Hamas does not accept Israel's right to exist on the rest of the territory. Hamas's consistent position is not to give up any of our historical rights and not to recognize the Israeli occupation." [10]

• My comment, according to Dr. Arnon Degani (part of the institute: Molad: The Center for the Renewal of Israeli Democracy ), [[11]], his perception ( which he defines as existing in the academy) in relation to the issue has changed following the conduct of Hamas on October 7. That is, it is possible that relying on old studies may be wrong because the known information about the organization has changed and the study will change accordingly. If the information is added after the October 7th, it must be removed. If before , perhaps a disclaimer should be added. שמי (2023) (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  In an interview (2012), in which the Forward reporter confronted Abu Musa Marzuk with the anti-Semitic passages appearing in the Hamas Charter (1988). Quoting to him a hadith (tradition), which appears in the treaty, calling for the killing of the Jews, Abu Marzouk claimed that it is not all the Jews but "only those in Palestine" (that is, the Jews who live in the State of Israel are eligible for death)." [[12]] That is, about 6 million Jews.

  He also said, "Hamas will change any agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel." He opposed negotiations at the time. The relations he described were "the relations (between Palestine and Israel) will be like the relations between Israel and Lebanon and Syria." Syria and Lebanon see Israel as an enemy. Syria is an ally of Iran and helps organizations in a violent struggle with Israel (https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3995389,00.html). They are in conflict with her, without ending the mutual claims. ([[13]] )

  On top of that, he talked about moving all the Palestinian refugees to Israel (that is, there won't be 2 states, Jewish and Palestinian, but a Palestinian state and a Palestinian state with a Jewish minority because of the numbers).

  I will comment that the thought that an interview with an American newspaper will necessarily reflect the organization's approach is problematic if the positions that the organization declares in its own language and to its people are not refined. שמי (2023) (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Homerethegreat and others שמי (2023) (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Not EC.VR _talk 23:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

References

“Wikipedia is not interested in what scholars believe”

[ Discussion about a tag, posted 10 November 2023, in section ‘Hamas#Two-state solution’, first paragraph, last sentence: ]

Corriebertus added[14]

This is much too vague. Wikipedia is not interested in what scholars “believe”: belief is religion and is therefore a private affair. But if the Wiki contributor who added this sentence means to say or suggest, those six referenced authors state in their books that they have read in that Hamas charter the Hamas willingness to accept the two-state solution of Israel next to a P. state on West Bank, Gaza Strip plus East Jerusalem, then please, say so clearly, give a citation from at least one of those authors, and tell where in the charter they’ve read that vow; because the charter is public, we all can read it ourselves, and points 18 and 19 in it: “...establishment of "Israel" is ..illegal ..contravenes the ..rights of the Palestinian people .. There shall be no recognition of ..the Zionist entity”, etc., don’t in the least sound as such an acceptance of aforementioned two-state solution. If however none of those six authors (who all have no Wikipedia page testifying their good reputation) even tells in their referenced book where they have read such (contradictory!) vow to such two-state solution in that Hamas charter, Wikipedia should not be the place to misleadingly publish (in a section called Hamas#Two-state solution) those apparently unbased (wishful?) fantasies of them as if they were relevant deductions or reliable facts on this topic.

So wikipedia does actually care how scholars interpret primary sources, please see WP:SECONDARY. In fact, wikipedia users interpreting primary sources would be considered WP:OR. I have given the page numbers for each of the books of the authors. Have you gone and verified the sources yourself? Just for your peace of mind, let me give a couple of quotes.

Brenner says

The new document still referred to Palestine as territory 'from the river to the sea'. However, it also added that it accepted the pre-1967 lines as the borders of a Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital and the right of return for refugees. While not explicitly saying what would be on the other side of these borders, this nevertheless acknowledged the existence of another entity there.

Ayoob says

In its May 2017 charter, Hamas expressed willingness to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders of Israel and Palestine. The statement, however, done not include recognition of Israel or acceptance of the solution proposed by the Oslo Accords. Nevertheless, acceptance of the 1967 borders can be interpreted as a de facto acceptable of the preconditions for a two-state solution.

VR _talk 16:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not interested in what scholars “believe” Since when? Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Since it conflicted with the personal belief of a Wikipedia editor, obviously. nableezy - 18:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth. I’ve removed the bulk of the original editor’s clarification template "reason" and directed it to this particular topic (thanks for copying it over and quoting)

It did not seem fitting to include so much editorialized/pointed comments in the article itself (when such concerns could be much more easily discussed here). Pedantical (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing here. @Nableezy: suggests(11/11) that I want/wanted to throw out scholarly interpretations that conflict with my personal ideas (belief, opinion). No, that’s not my point or purpose. My point was here (in that ‘clarify’ request copied in the top of this talk section), that I couldn’t find, on 10 November, a relevant interpretation of a relevant fact in that (summarizing?) sentence about “many scholars believe...”.
With my second sentence in that request (“Wikipedia is not interested in…”, misunderstood by VR (=@Vice regent:) here, 11 Nov), I only meant to say: if scholars (or authors or other notable people) think or deduce or interpret or “believe” that Hamas in the 2017 charter states their willingness to accept a (two-state) solution of Israel next to a P. state, and write that in their book, and a Wiki contributor wishes to report on that in our article, then the contributor should give any direct quote testifying such “belief” or interpretation, and in that quote the author (why do you entitle them as “scholars”? One of them, Ayoob, is Professor at a U.S. university, that doesn’t make all of them ‘scholars’; perhaps, you can enlighten us as to why these people are notable in relation to the issue Palestine/Israel?) should preferably make clear how he/she deduces that belief from statements of Hamas; but if the author nowhere in his book explains how his “belief” in (or interpretation of) such two-state solution is based on (or is interpreting/explaining/expounding) any facts, his ‘belief’ appears to be a purely private, 100% unscientific/unbased thing, (glaringly at odds with the text of the 2017 charter,) which (he/she ofcourse is entitled to have but), if included in our article, should be described more clearly (‘scholars/authors believe that Hamas supports a two-state…’) and should be demonstrated with at least one direct quote. If none of that can be delivered by the Wiki contributors, the bare (and unreferenced) contention of some (not specifically well-renowned or -reputed) authors having some (vaguely indicated) ‘belief’ (at odds with plain and clear facts) seems to me an unverifiable presumption/allegation (‘belief’ taking place in someone’s psyche which is inaccessible and unmonitorable for others), therefore not relevant for Wikipedia.

The difficult and confusing thing here however is, that that sentence about “many scholars believe(d)...” was first entered in the section on 3 November 00:02 and 00:04 by Vice regent when in this section no substantial mention yet was made of the 2017 charter. In that situation, “believe” seemed to mean: the scholars were not sure what the charter said and therefore made a guess: ‘probably, the new charter accepts a P.state in 1967 borders’. Then, on 4 Nov 13:26 and 6 Nov 10:07, I inserted the link to the full charter and some statements of Hamas’ Political Bureau chairman Mashal while presenting it on a press conference (2May2017), which both seemed to contradict the ‘belief’ of those scholars or at least the way I had understood that sentence about that belief until then (and ofcourse I gave an edit summary with my motivation, trying to point at that seeming contradiction: “even though…still not…”). Insertion of a new sentence in an existing text however will, quite usually and inevitably, alter the meaning of the text following it, even if you don’t change any word or letter from that following text. Therefore, my insertion about the statements on the press conference made it necessary to slightly edit also the sentence coming behind it—not to change the meaning of that following sentence but to preserve its meaning (in the way how I had understood its meaning). Nevertheless, I perhaps should not have edited it in exactly the way I did.

Next thing that happened, is that Vice regent on 7 Nov 01:10 removed the press conference of Mashal 2 May 2017, while maintaining the link to the full Charter, and mostly restored his earlier sentence about “many scholars believe”, but gave no edit summary and thus no motivation for that edit (including that deletion). This struck me—and still does—as uncooperative, autocratic (Wiki) behaviour and especially that unmotivated deletion as obstructive/disruptive. What can you do on a supposedly cooperative project if (some) other participants refuse to confer, consult with each other about (seeming) disagreements?

I had given my motivation for that 2017press conference already on 4 Nov, but while Vice regent ignored that given motivation there seemed little point in repeating it. It seemed (on 4 and 10 Nov) and seems (today) nevertheless obvious to me, that if Wikipedia considers reactions from ‘scholars’/authors on a new Charter relevant for the article, you’d first mention the most contentious items from that charter in the Wiki article – like I had done by citing Mashal from his press conferenceMay2017 – and only then give those purportedly relevant reactions etc. from authors. So, on 10 Nov 21:35, I just reentered that press conference passage (slightly condensed), just noting in my edit summary that it had been ‘removed without motivation 7Nov01:10’. Ofcourse, this resulted in a strange, bumpy junction with the next sentence about ‘many scholars believe’, but for me it was now totally unclear what that sentence still would contribute to the section if the section already cited Mr. Mashal summarizing the main (contentious) points from the new charter. My earlier attempt(4 Nov) on ‘constructively’ editing that sentence having been implicitly discarded by Vice regent I this time tried to ask him more or less directly, in the {clarification} tag, what those authors/scholars had said or written that still was a useful contribution to the section.

Vice regent here on 11 November now reports two direct quotes from those authors, one from Brenner and one from Ayoob. Brenner in the given quote has no more to say than repeating what Mashal said and what the Charter writes (accepting that P.state in 1967 lines) continued by stating the too obvious observation that if a thing has borders then there will be something else (an ‘entity’) outside those borders: both no useful contribution to the section. Ayoob’s given citation however is more interesting but seems to contain two minor slips of the keyboard (‘done not include’ → ‘does not include’ ; ‘a de facto acceptable of the preconditions’ → ‘a de facto acceptance of the preconditions’). Therefore, I now propose to replace sentence: “On 2 May 2017, Hamas presented a new charter, that many scholars believe, accepted a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders”, in section ‘Hamas#Two-state solution’ with:
“Several authors though have reacted on that new charter by writing that Hamas' "acceptance of the 1967 borders can be interpreted as a de facto acceptance of the preconditions for a two-state solution", or the like”. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Slightly adapting my proposal here of two days ago:
Thanks to this discussion here, we have found out that the gist of the referenced comment (in section ‘Hamas#Two-state solution’, first paragraph, last sentence) of Professor Ayoob (in January 2020) on the 2017 Hamas Charter is: this charter seems helpful towards finding a “two-state solution” (of the long-running Palestinian–Israeli conflicts). Ayoob’s wording there may be rather vague, but undoubtedly Professor Ayoob wanted to express there his hopeful mood (towards ‘two-state solution’) after reading the 2017charter. Unfortunately, we cannot yet generalize that interpretation to the other five authors referenced there (B.Brenner, M.Koinova, J.Zartman, A.Siniver, L.Seurat): not to Brenner who only remarked that outside of a Palestinian state there will always be something else (which is only logical); and (for now) even less to the remaining four authors. Perhaps, if Vice regent can find really useful comments (in direct quote) on the 2017charter in those books of those four or five people, we can and should still add it in our article.
I’m sorry, mr./mrs. Vice regent. Your plain listing of six authors ‘believing that the Hamas charter accepted (a state in) the 1967borders’ was useful, as long as we didn’t have direct information about what that 2017charter actually said. But since the article (since two weeks), in its section ‘Two-state solution’, refers both to the full charter and to Hamas leader Mashal presenting and summarizing it in a press conference(2017), there seems no essential, notable extra information in telling our readers that several scholars or authors had read that charter too, and had found in it what Mashal had said about that charter on his press conference, and had believed this. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I say go for it and be WP:BOLD. Seems uncontentious to make an enhancement to the phrasing that may have been misconstrued.

Thanks!

– Pedantical (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Fake website

The domain Hamas.com is owned by an Israeli company called wix.com that specializes in websites and the link isn’t the real link of the organization. The real link is https://hamas.ps/en/ Someone should fix this 84.32.71.40 (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Wix is a website building company. It seems that many Palestinians sites choose to host their websites at this platform. Is there any source that it is not one of them, but some-kind of Israeli conspiracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a06:c701:4b36:7100:aff8:db82:23d2:a03e (talk • contribs) 11:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Apparently it was hijacked."Israelis Hijack Hamas.com, Turning It Into a Display of October 7 Atrocities". Haaretz. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

That said, I don't see that we link to Hamas.com from the article. Am I missing it? If not, why are we talking about it, IP? --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a draft about this site at Draft:Www.hamas.com. As I just said on it's talk-page, this is obviously fake, and worse: virus-infected. Do not look at it, unless through places like https://archive.is/www.hamas.com. The web-site might warrant an article, though; if for noting else, as a warning for people not to look at it, cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

"Do not change this to "terrorist" without gaining consensus on the talkpage first"

I see this comment inside the text, asking to not change the designation of Hammas to be "terrorist", but to keep it as "political and military organization". I would like to understand what's the missing piece by fellow editors to agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization. I see that the infobox already mentions that Hamas is: Designated as a terrorist group by

Australia
Canada
European Union
Israel
Paraguay
United Kingdom
United States

So why can't Wikipedia editors also agree to call it that? I understand that countries such as Russia, China, and Turkey, don't call it a terrorist organization. And that the UN got a plurality of votes to call it a terror organization (but not a 2/3 majority).

Is the bar the UN? What do the editors find that is missing?

Tal Galili (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, this debate crops up frequently on this, and a whole host of other pages, but MOS:TERRORIST advises extreme caution in using the term and using attribution when doing so. As such, this article seems to follow the MOS guidance because it attributes the label to those who have proscribed Hamas as such. The hidden text is likely there bc any such change would undoubtedly be opposed by other editors and so you cannot make changes to contentious topics that you know would potentially do so, without first gaining consensus. Yr Enw (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn't just that some countries do not call them terrorists, some countries like Turkey specifically call them liberators and freedom fighters. To call any indivdual or group a terrorist in Wikipedia's voice, there needs to be very broad agreement amongst reliable sources. You were a little closer in attributing use of the term to the specific countries that do, but I still think that doing so in the lead requires a consensus. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Yr Enw and 331dot.

Thanks for the reference to MOS:TERRORIST.

I can understand that given that Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization only by the US, UK, EU, etc. - is not a broad enough consensus to just use the term "terrorists".

In which case, I'd like to ask if there is agreement to move the section at the end of the lead (forth paragraph) to be at the end of the first paragraph. i.e.: that at the end of the first paragraph that says:

"Hamas .... is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist[61] political ... in which its secular rival Fatah exercises control."

we will move into it the section:

"The group's attacks, including suicide bombings against civilian targets and indiscriminate rocket attacks, have been described by academics as acts of terrorism[61] and has led many countries to designate Hamas a terrorist organization.[93][94][52] A 2018 attempt to condemn Hamas for "acts of terror" at the United Nations failed.[g]"

The paragraph itself seems to be fine in terms of keeping the balance with regards to NPOV. However, I think it should be pushed to be the end of the first paragraph because the "notable" of the organization's definition seems more critical to convey to the casual reader as early as possible in the text. The the current second paragraph starts describing the history of Hamas (i.e.: In 1987,...), which seems less notable than the (debate over the) military tactics of the Hamas organization.

My proposition is based on the description in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section which suggest that "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." An example of this can also be seen at the wiki page of an organization such as ISIS, in which the relation it has to terror is already presented in the second sentence:

"The Islamic State (IS)[147]—also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL; /ˈaɪsɪl/), the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS),[148][149] and by its Arabic acronym Da'ish[150][151]—is a Salafi jihadist transnational Islamist terror group and former unrecognised quasi-state.[152]"

What to others in this thread think about my suggestion? (thanks upfront) Tal Galili (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure I am entirely understanding. Are you suggesting we move the reference to Hamas’s violent tactics higher up in the lede? I am a bit ambivalent about using ISIS as an guide bc I think, for Hamas, there is a need for emphasis on violence being a tactic not an end in and itself, whereas with ISIS violence was very much an end in and of itself. Yr Enw (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

"Are you suggesting we move the reference to Hamas’s violent tactics higher up in the lede?" - yes, that's exactly what I'm proposing.

I think the current article lead for the Hamas article does not comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section since, as I mentioned above, the notability of the article is not established in the first paragraph. And I think the notability of the organization is less to do with when it was founded (i.e.: second paragraph), and more to do with its actions (which deemed it, again, by many countries, to be a terrorist organization).

If you think ISIS is not a good example, I've looked for another organization to compare against, I came across Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, in which the first paragraph included the sentence "Some sources, including United States Department of State, as well as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan listed it as a terrorist organization."

To be honest, I also think the example of ISIS is a good one.

You wrote that "with ISIS violence was very much an end in and of itself.", however from the Wiki article Islamic_State#Goals it says: "Since at latest 2004, a significant goal of the group has been the foundation of a Sunni Islamic state. Specifically, ISIL has sought to establish itself as a caliphate, an Islamic state led by a group of religious authorities under a supreme leader – the caliph – who is believed to be the successor to Muhammad. "

While for Hamas, the wiki article states that:

"The founding charter of Hamas mandates the killing of Jews, the destruction of the state of Israel, and advocates for the establishment of an Islamic state in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank."

So it sounds to me like both Hamas and ISIS (based on the Wiki text at present) share the goal of establishing a state, and both seemed to believe that attacking civilians (e.g.: "killing of jews" in the case of Hamas) to be a legitimate way of achieving their goals of gaining a state.

So given that both ISIS, and Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, seem to be articles dealing with organizations that have been designated as a terrorist organization - and both seem to indicate that designation by some countries in the lead section - hence I think the same rule should apply to the current article.

WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, see below.VR _talk 04:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That is a convincing argument. Personally I don’t have an issue with the lede mentioning the proscription higher up (so long as it’s clearly attributed and not used in Wikivoice). I would imagine that the reservations may be about how much weight academic scholarship gives it specifically. Yr Enw (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Yr Enw.

@331dot - WDYT? are you also o.k. with what I propose? If so - how long would you like us to wait for others to weigh in before making the change? Tal Galili (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection at this time. I would suggest waiting a day or two to see what develops here. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good (Y). Tal Galili (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's stop drawing parallels between Hamas and ISIL, particularly at this time when this is essentially Israel's PR playbook - aside from being jarring for that fact alone, the parallels are thin and the comparison weak. Hamas is, for one thing, an organization with considerably more history, dating from 1987, and thus as a subject as a whole requires the careful balancing of its extremely lengthy and encyclopedically worthy history with more recent content, lest we risk WP:RECENTISM. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Iskandar323,

I don't want to get into the is Hamas similar to ISIS discussion, since I don't think this would help us reach a resolution. So for the sake of discussion, let's (friendly) agree to put that discussion aside.

If you have other organization that has carried out "what have been described as terrorist attacks" as part of their agenda of forming a state that you want us to compare us against, please propose it for us to discuss.

Here, I'll propose another one: Irgun. This is a zionist organization, and its wiki page also says in the lead of the article, in the end of the first paragraph, that "The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts.".

So I think what I'm proposing appears to be consistent both with my understanding of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, as well as examples I can find in existing articles.

As for the risk of WP:RECENTISM, I've googled to see from how early there have been acts described as terrorist attacks attributed to it. For example, I found the link here which seems to indicate cases at least from 1994. So I don't see how this designation is something which is only started appearing recently.

With all of that said - would you agree to continue with my proposal? Tal Galili (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have other organization that has carried out "what have been described as terrorist attacks" as part of their agenda of forming a state that you want us to compare us against, please propose it for us to discuss. Lets go with United States of America, British Empire, Israel. JVL is not a reliable source. Your example on Irgun actually illustrates the point. They committed undeniable acts of terrorism. And our article says has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts. Our article here says The group's attacks, including suicide bombings against civilian targets and indiscriminate rocket attacks, have been described by academics as acts of terrorism and has led many countries to designate Hamas a terrorist organization. We say who says they are a terrorist organization. nableezy - 19:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

As I understood, their proposal was more about where we put that description. But I could be wrong. Yr Enw (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. I think initially it was that we call them a terrorist organization in WikiVoice (or asking why we don't), and then turned into "OK, fine, but can we say that x, y, and z call them a terrorist group, but higher up in the lead." --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy, what @Yr Enw and @Orgullomoore wrote is correct.

I was convinced to not call them "terrorists", but think the text in the lead should move from paragraph 4 to 1.

Would you be o.k. with this suggestion? Tal Galili (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I was mostly answering the whataboutism showing that there are any number of states founded on terrorist acts, including Israel, that dont mention it at all. Id be fine moving the characterization as a terrorist organization by such and such to the first paragaph, along with the view that it is a resistance organization. nableezy - 21:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

As a point of interest, the Provisional Irish Republican Army article has it in the lead, when it was obviously not recognised as such by a great number of states. I’m not keen on over-emphasising the point, but it does seem notability could have role to play here. Yr Enw (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

cool, thanks. Tal Galili (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

There are many similarities between ISIL and Hamas, in particular their shared philosophy that sharia should be imposed by force and that suicide attacks on civilians are a means of attaining paradise. That this or that country incorporates this similarity into their PR playbook, or that you find that jarring, is irrelevant for our purposes. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Similarities are easy to find: we're all human, for instance, or at least I assume that there are not AI chatbots patrolling here yet. Leaving aside the rather two-dimensial description above, the devil-in-the-detail of defining things hinges on the differences. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

All humans, yes. All believe that sharia should be imposed by force and that suicide attacks on civilians are a means of attaining paradise, no. If so, we would all be Islamists and jihadists. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, doubling down. Good talk. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Im not aware of Hamas believing Sharia should be compelled by force, rather than through democratic means. As far as suicide bombings, thats a wee bit simplistic view of their motivation. nableezy - 21:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

We're entering forum territory; send me an email and we can chat all day long about it. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Well I feel its still content, Im disputing the usage of the term Jihadist and the comparison to ISIS. nableezy - 21:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

In that case what you and I (and Iskandar) believe is not relevant. As for scholarly/reliable resources calling it jihadi(st), see: [15] ("Hezbollah, a Shiite militia, and Hamas, a Sunni jihadi group and an affiliate of the Muslim Brothers, are both supported by the Iranian regime.") [16] (" By emphasizing the centrality of “Jihad of the Sword” Hamas's ideas reveal a certain similarity to, or inspiration by, radical Salafi-jihadist Islamic movements.") [17] ("Al Qaeda Confronts Hamas: Divisions in the Sunni Jihadist Movement and its Implications for U.S. Policy" . . . "To explore these distinctions, this article examines the different historical trajectories and current arguments between two of the most well-known Sunni jihadists: Al Qaeda and Hamas.") [18] ("Al-Qa'ida and Hamas: The Limits of Salafi-Jihadi Pragmatism") [19] ("Hamas: A Further Exploration of Jihadist Tactics" . . . "The Islamist answer to solving the Palestinian question, Hamas advocates violent jihad until Israel is destroyed. All attempts at negotiation or a peace settlement are looked upon as a short-term truce and not a permanent peace. The organization began during the first Palestinian uprising, in December 1987. It evolved from a collection of Islamic fundamentalist and jihadist movements in Gaza, such as the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, and it absorbed the Palestinian jihadist movement, Al-Jihad (PIJ).") [20] ("Nationalist jihadi groups, such as Hizbullah and Hamas, are able to attract high levels of public support, whereas all other types of jihadi groups typically remain marginal to society . . .") [21] ("Hamas combines the Islamist ideology with Jihadist action.").

As for the comparison with ISIS, see: [22] ("In the opinion of Hamas, the solution of the Palestine problem rests in the uprooting of the State of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in its place.") [23] ("In addition to the doctrine of the Islamic state, Hamas also adheres to the doctrine of Palestine sacrality.") [24] ("Accordingly, Hamas adopts violence as a strategic choice, first in its struggle to seize power from Fatah, and second in its struggle to destroy the state of Israel and replace it with an Islamic state.") [25] ("Moreover, Hamas in the Gaza Strip considers itself an Islamic party more than a national party. Especially since they supported the Islamic brotherhood when they took control of the government in Egypt. During that time relationships with Egypt enhanced. This relationship was not a result of national gathering but rather an Islamic gathering. Additionally, several announcements have been distributed in Gaza during the past few weeks with the ISIS name, along with several ISIS flags found in the region. If Hamas is not an ally in the current phase, it might be in the future due to the common values.") [26] ("Hamas Seeds Violent Videos on Sites With Little Moderation: The strategy mirrors efforts by extremist groups like the Islamic State and Al Qaeda in years past.") [27] ("On the surface of it, the Sunni Islamist group Islamic State would seem like a logical partner for the Sunni Islamist group Hamas.") --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course they advocate for the establishment of an Islamist state in all of Palestine. But they do so under the view of gaining that through democracy within an established state in Palestine. And they have been denounced by jihadist groups for that. See for example here (Yet it is important to recognize that Hamas and the global jihadi groups are deeply at odds ideologically. Indeed, in its early days, ISIS declared takfir, or excommunication, on Hamas for a host of perceived transgressions. ... But ideological divergences will limit the extent to which jihadis will be able to seize this moment to reenergize their movement. ... Yet in 2006, Hamas participated in and won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections, going on to form a unity government with Fatah, the dominant faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Al Qaeda’s leadership erupted in condemnation. Bin Laden warned Hamas about the polytheistic nature of democracy, underscoring the “prohibition on joining polytheistic assemblies.” In a 2007 speech, he went so far as to say that the Hamas leadership, by embracing the Palestinian Authority and thereby acknowledging the “agreements” that recognize Israel’s right to exist (referring to the Oslo accords), had “forsaken their religion.”) It consistently treats jihadist groups in one camp, Hamas as an Islamist militant group on the other. Or Rand Corportation: (The charter published by Hamas in 1988 perhaps clarifies the group’s reluctance to join the al-Qaeda network. It makes a clear distinction between global Islamist movements and the Hamas movement in Palestine: --The Islamic Resistance Movement is an outstanding type of Palestinian movement. It gives its loyalty to Allah, adopts Islam as a system of life, and works toward raising the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine. Therefore, in the shadow of Islam, it is possible for all followers of different religions to live in peace and with security over their person, property, and rights. In the absence of Islam, discord takes form, oppression and destruction are rampant, and wars and battles take place.-- So while al-Qaeda and Hamas have similar ideological roots, Hamas’s interpretation of its role in the Islamic community is narrower and focused fundamentally on the Palestinian question. This narrow focus is an important element in Hamas’s ideology. Moreover, the group has been consistent in its beliefs. Nevertheless, a shift in its focus toward the United States is possible under some circumstances, given Hamas’s strategic and operational objectives. ... It continues to argue that it does not want a civil war in the territories and will pursue its Islamic agenda through democratic means after the creation of a Palestinian state.) nableezy - 22:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

So you've come to accept the term Jihadist? I didn't see anything contradicting that term in your response, and the Foreign Affairs article seems to support it. The FA article and many others make the distinction that Hamas focuses its jihad on the Islamicization or de-Judaization of Palestine as opposed to the whole world, i.e., they are a (mostly) nationalist jihadist group as opposed to a global jihadist group, but I don't think there is any dispute that they openly endorse and advocate jihad in pursuit of an Islamic state. ISIS and Hamas have many similarities. They even do sharia patrols, allow male guardians to block women who want to travel for education (HRW), and execute political opponents. Hardly a beacon of democracy.

As for their willingness to pretend to use democratic process as a stepping stone to sharia, that's an interesting little feature, but it doesn't change the basic nature of the beast. I'm happy to agree Hamas and ISIS are not identical. --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

No, my point on the first source is it separates jihadist groups from Hamas, treating them as competing interests basically. Hamas is militant, Islamist, nationalist, not about imposing Sharia over the west, but aims to establish an Islamist state in Palestine through democratic means. Most sources I see do not describe them as jihadist, which from my reading is used in western contexts for groups that seek to impose such an order globally through violent means. Hamas’ terror attacks are about Palestine not about Islam. The Islamist part is their internal platform for Palestine. Their violence is Palestinian nationalist. nableezy - 00:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

If Jihadist means "militant Islamic movements that are perceived as existentially threatening to the West," as Wikipedia says, then the only thing keeping Hamas from being indisputably jihadist would be that it is not "perceived as existentially threatening to the West," because Hamas is definitely a militant Islamic movement. Now, two questions arise: (1) Is it true that to be jihadist an organization must be threatening to "the West"? I don't see why. It is axiomatic that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so we shouldn't say it's so because Wikipedia says it's so. According to the article, it was first used by Indian and Pakistani mass media, obviously not part of the West. (2) Is Israel part of the West? Many would say that it is. It is west of Australia. Again consulting Wikipedia: "In modern usage, Western world refers to Europe and to areas whose populations largely originate from Europe, through the Age of Discovery's imperialism." Some would say that "Israel is a quintessentially 'Western' entity—democratic, wealthy, educated, teeming with immigrants from white-dominated regions like Europe and the United States." That is one of the major criticisms of Israel, no? That it is a Western invention carved out and propped up by Western superpowers in the middle of the Orient. Though Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel right now, it certainly aspires to be. Assuming the "the West" aspect of the definition is correct, what part of "the West" is perceived as threatened? Intuitively, I would say liberalism, democracy, separation of church and state, etc.: the so-called "Western ideals." Hamas, if it were powerful enough, would threaten these, as evidenced by its patrolling of beaches for un-Islamic swimsuits, its willingness to allow men to control women, its summary execution of political opponents, and its insistence on framing literally everything in terms of religious fundamentalism. Given all of this, are we arguing that Hamas cannot be jihadist merely because it's not perceived as threatening enough? Or because it is only perceived as threatening to non-Western Israel? Seems arbitrary. On the other hand, Firestone, quoted in the first footnote of Jihadism writes that, while the term is ill-defined, jihadism is essentially transnational or global Islamism/political Islam. Adopting this definition, the characteristic disqualifying Hamas from the jihadist category is not its failure to threaten the West but rather the confinement of its activities to Palestine, although, this assumes that Israel does not exist and that Tel Aviv and Sderot are located inside the State of Palestine. Applying this definition, Jaish-e-Mohammed would not be Jihadist ("The group's primary motive is to separate Kashmir from India and merge it into Pakistan"), but it frequently is described as such, and is described as such on Wikipedia.--Orgullomoore (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I know your Arabic is probably stronger than mine but i think you’re using jihadist the way an Arabic speaker would, not how an English speaker would. Jihad fi sabil illah covers a range of things that western audiences wouldn’t really association with "jihadism". From my reading of western sources jihadism is usually meant to denote acts of international terrorism by Islamist or even just Islamic organizations or people, though usually with the aim of establishing an Islamist state. But I do think there is a distinction between nationalist and and religious ones, and I think sources put Hamas's violent actions in the former camp more often. nableezy - 02:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• I was the one who added the note initially. Wikipedia is supposed to present events from an impartial international perspective. Hamas just isn't universally reviled by world governments in the say way ISIS is that would justify flat-out calling it a terrorist organisation in the opening sentence, or mentioning its terrorist designation by (largely Israel alligned) countries within the first few sentences. That said, I'm not opposed to saying that A. that Hamas is a jihadist group and B. that Hamas has carried out what have been described as terrorist attacks. (I added the latter to the lead in fact). Reading Britannica, their position on describing Hamas is similar [28]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I would oppose calling Hamas jihadist, the literature calls them Islamist much more consistently Yr Enw (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. I think "jihadist" is fair, though, given their charter and istishhad worship. Sources calling them this abound. I think one must be an Islamist to be a jihadist, though an Islamist is not necessarily a jihadist. --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t know of many scholars who apply the term “jihadist” to Hamas (certainly not consistently)? They might mention “jihad” as part of their programme, but “jihadist” is a label that (as far as I know) mostly tends to get used with Salafi groups. Obviously there’s not a consistent definition across all scholarship, but Islamist is much broader Yr Enw (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Jihadist in a western context usually refers to acts of international terror by Islamist groups, and I dont think it is usually applied to Hamas, which has thus far restricted its attacks to Israel and the occupied territories. nableezy - 21:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hey @Hemiauchenia, thank you for the context and discussion.

  As I mentioned in other parts of this discussion, I understand the considerations mentioned regarding MOS:TERRORIST, and I agreed that in the current state of things (having a range of countries taking different positions), then calling it a terrorist organization in Wikipedia will not be appropriate. So we're in agreement about that.

  What I've instead proposed is to move the text, which is already available in the article's lead, from the 4th paragraph to the 1st paragraph. My claim is that doing so would be in the spirit of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (as I've mentioned above), as well as aligned with other articles such as Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia and Irgun, have also taken.

  I think this aligns with the B item you've mentioned "hat Hamas has carried out what have been described as terrorist attacks.", all I'm suggesting is to move it to the first paragraph.

  WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, see below.VR _talk 04:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Most of the characteristics you describe are simply Islamist. Also Israel = "liberalism, democracy, separation of church and state" ... pfft ... less and less according to the news the last few decades. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Not Iskandar dissing Israel again! --Orgullomoore (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey, don't take it from me - just ask any human rights monitor. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm an Israeli (my family has lived here for at least 8 generations), and I agree with you that the Israeli government for at least the past 15 years has become more radical, less democratic, and more religious. This is why so many of us are taking part in the 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests. That said, I think the focus of the current thread should be on including the terrorist discussion in the lead section (which a consensus seems to have been reached). Thank you all for your input <3 Tal Galili (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for a fruitful discussion, I feel I've learned from it. I have moved forward and made the change, as discussed throughout this thread. Please let me know if you have any open issues with the edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamas#%22Do_not_change_this_to_%22terrorist%22_without_gaining_consensus_on_the_talkpage_first%22. Thanks all for caring about our shared resource and striving, in good faith, to find common grounds for productively describe reality as best as we can. <3 Tal Galili (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone agrees with that above. I certainly don't because the long-standing placement made sense because it was adjacent to Hamas' anti-Israeli ideology. The previous placement was also chronologically consistent. One thing we can do is give a note at "Hamas... is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist[61] political and military organization" to indicate that some countries consider it terrorist.VR _talk 04:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's consider organizations that have been considered terrorist organization by many countries but also have formed governments:

• Hezbollah. The terrorist designation is mentioned in the 4th paragraph of a 4 lead paragraph (meaning last paragraph).
• African National Congress. The terrorist designation is mentioned at the end of the second paragraph (in a three paragraph lead).
• Palestine Liberation Organization. The terrorist designation is mentioned in the second paragraph of a two paragraph lead (meaning the last paragraph).
• Muslim Brotherhood. The terrorist designation is mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 6 of a 6 paragraph lead.VR _talk 04:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I think a better comparison for Hamas is the Provisional Irish Republican Army (which currently sits in government as Sinn Fein), which mentions the terrorist designation early on. I agree that "many" is a WP:WEASEL word, though any attempt to clarify it seems likely to run into opposition. I don't think we're going to get unanimous agreement regarding almost any element of this article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused by that sentence "It was designated a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom and an unlawful organisation in the Republic of Ireland, both of whose authority it rejected." If the Irish designation was repealed, it is incumbent upon that sentence to say so. If not, I'm curious why PIRA didn't repeal it after coming to power? VR _talk 04:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The PIRA and Hamas are different in that the political and military wings of the PIRA/Sinn Fein denied (and continue to deny) that they were affiliated, even if it is obvious to everybody else that they were in fact inseparable. Therefore there was no reason for Sinn Fein to try to rehabilitate the moribund PIRA one they got into government, as making the connection explicit would expose them to liability. This is getting quite off topic though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

SF aren't in government in the Republic. Yr Enw (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Even if we use that example, it only contains a single sentence on the terrorism while the rest of the military activities are covered later below. The way Talgalili edited the lead, pretty much most of Hamas' military activities are in the lead, making it seem like Hamas is mainly known for rocket attacks, which is a very Israel-centric view and denies Hamas' long history as a political, social and religious organization.VR _talk 20:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Vice regent,

I accept your argument that the current phrasing in the lead is too long. I share with you the wish to not make the lead be too "Israeli centric", but also don't want to have it be too "Palestinian centric" (by ignoring the terroristic aspect of the organization in the lead first paragraph all together).

I propose to move forward with discussing a shortening of the lead sentence in a way that we would agree in it, I will leave a proposal in response to your other comment down below. Tal Galili (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Talgalili this is edit-warring. The longstanding version before your bold edit on Nov 21 does not contain most of the military activities in the first paragraph. Indeed this is how the lead was before October 7 (when the current war started). It was like this in 2022 and so on. I suggest you leave the long-standing discussion in place while discussion is ongoing. Other options are WP:MEDIATION and WP:RFC.VR _talk 20:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hey @Vice regent,

  First - I'd like to invite both of us in this discussion to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and do our best to keep the discussion friendly and honest.

  I am not trying to start an edit war. I did not make a "bold edit" out of no where. I started a discussion here, read and responded to every concern - and after I got several people to accept my suggestion (with no objection), I proceeded with my edit (while announcing it clearly). 3 days after that you came and changed my edit, without leaving a response in the talk page. I assume you did not see the talk page discussions (which were moved to the archive), and that you made your change in good faith, so I reverted your change to what was discussed and also went to your talk page to let you know I did so. So calling my actions an edit war seems to somewhat ignore my efforts here - and I'd appreciate it if you could express recognition of my efforts here as well.

  In that spirit, I've now also changed back my edit for us to continue the discussion now that you've raised further concern. But it doesn't mean I want the "status quo" to stay - I believe it should change.

  Second - I read what you wrote above, I accept your concern that the proposed new lead is too verbose, and am o.k. with keeping the original text were it was, and instead add to the lead a shorter phrasing.

  How about instead of:

  Hamas has waged an armed campaign against the state of Israel, which has included suicide bombings against civilian targets and indiscriminate rocket attacks, the former of which have been described by academics as acts of terrorism and has led many countries to designate Hamas a terrorist organization. A 2018 attempt to condemn Hamas for "acts of terror" at the United Nations failed.

  To simply add:

  Due to its ongoing military actions against civilian targets, Hamas was designated as terrorist organization by several countries, including the United States, European Union, and others.

  This way the sentence is shorter, and is explicit about some of the major countries involved in the definition.

  @Vice regent - WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry to nitpick, but I don’t think we should assume the cause of the designation (ie. Through the words “due to”). Yr Enw (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Yr Enw - I'm all for nitpicking :)

  The reason I went with "due to", is because the original sentence said "the former of which have been described by academics as acts of terrorism and has led". So I thought that using due to would fairly reflect that original sentence's intent. If you have an alternative suggestion, I'd be happy for improvements. Tal Galili (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  I see what you mean, although I think the original sentence has the same problem. I would just suggest two separate statements adjacent to one another: 1. Short sentence mentioning criticisms or scholarly emphasis on violence of their tactics (if indeed the scholarship supports such a sentence), 2. Matter of fact statement on the proscription and by whom. Yr Enw (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Yr Enw I've made a revised proposal, please let's continue the discussion here:

  Talk:Hamas#Adding_a_"Criticism"_sentence_to_the_lead's_first_sentence Tal Galili (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Might I suggest we start a new thread on whatever the actual issue is here? This one is becoming hard to follow. It started out asking why we are not calling Hamas a terrorist organization in WikiVoice, then changed to a discussion on re-ordering some sentences in the lead, contains a forum-ish sidebar between me, Iskandar, and Nableezy about (dis)similarity with ISIS, then was archived, then re-opened, and now there are some accusations of edit warring, discussion of possible mediation or dispute resolution, and so forth. I think we should narrow down what we are actually talking about and start a new thread. --Orgullomoore (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Orgullomoore following your suggestion, I've started this new thread:

  Talk:Hamas#Adding_a_"Criticism"_sentence_to_the_lead's_first_sentence Tal Galili (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Under the subheading "2023 Israel–Hamas war," the death toll mentioned for the Oct. 7 attack is inaccurate. It falsely says 1,400; the Israeli government itself said this number was incorrect and media outlets have widely reported that the accurate number is actually 1,200.
• Why it should be changed: The number is inaccurate and has since been corrected by multiple outlets including the Israeli government itself.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/12/world/middleeast/israel-death-toll-hamas-attack.html

216.165.95.187 (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, I've updated the article. Tal Galili (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

References

"One-party state"

There was a longer discussion on Hamas being an oppressive one-party state at Talk:Gaza Strip. I'll ping all the participants there. Makeandtoss (Iskandar323—Selfstudier—nableezy—TaBaZzz—Homerethegreat—Dovidroth—Jean-de-Nivelle)

I don't dispute that Hamas is oppressive, but Gaza Strip is not a state! Hamas has never declared independence, nor has any entity ever recognized Gaza Strip as an independent state. Hamas, and every one else, continue to view Gaza Strip as an integral part of the Palestinian territories and the partially recognized State of Palestine. VR _talk 03:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That's why it was always de facto , but Hamas is effectively ruled seperetly from the rest of the Palestinian Territories (Whole Palestinian Civil War, Fatah-Hamas episode). And since Hamas has opressed opposition to it, it makes it effectively, One party rule. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Even de facto is not true. The West Bank-based Palestinian Authority pays the salaries of civil servants in Gaza Strip[29][30], and Israel controls the population registry for Gaza Strip (and West Bank)[31]. As far as I know, Gaza Strip residents can only get a Palestinian Authority passport - there is no such thing as a "Hamas passport". And the United Nations (and others) consider Gaza Strip under Israeli occupation, just like the West Bank.VR _talk 17:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

UN recognition has nothing to do with this. Usually the term "de facto state" is used precisely for states that are not widely recognised (Abkhazia, TRNC, Somaliland, etc).

In case of Gaza under Hamas, there are many sources which apply this term to Gaza, for example

• Bombs and Ballots. Governance by Islamist Terrorist and Guerrilla Groups, p. 128
• Between State and Non-State. Politics and Society in Kurdistan-Iraq and Palestine, p. 92 Alaexis_¿question? 20:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• In each of these cases, Abkhazia, Somaliland, the territory itself views itself as an independent state. Where is the evidence that Hamas views itself as an independent state? The claim that Gaza Strip is an independent state is a very WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. It is telling that, while Abkhazia, Somaliland, TRNC etc are all listed at List of states with limited recognition, Gaza Strip is not listed there. VR _talk 04:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  What would you propose as an alternative to convey that Gaza is run by a single party that exercises de facto sovereignty within the territory it controls? --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  The Gaza Strip is ruled de facto as an authoritarian Islamist state by Hamas. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• I personally don't agree that Hamas exercises sovereignty per arguments above, but we go by sources and not personal opinions, so lets see what others say.VR _talk 21:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

We should not call it an independent state since the Gaza Strip had not delcared sovereignty or anything of the sort. Therefore it should be "de facto" Homerethegreat (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding a "Criticism" sentence to the lead's first sentence

I would like to propose to add the following sentence to the first paragraph of the lead:

Hamas has been widely criticised for a variety of reasons, and has been designated as a terrorist organization by countries such as the United States, the European Union, and others.

This is a followup proposal to the discussion at Talk:Hamas#"Do_not_change_this_to_"terrorist"_without_gaining_consensus_on_the_talkpage_first". My proposition aims to better align with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section which indicates that "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences". And I believe that given the level of disagreement this article draws, I find it self evident that a major part of the notability of the article's subject is also the criticism Hamas has gained (as well as its designation as a terrorist organization by some countries).

I'm looking forward to your input to my proposal, and hoping to reach a broad consensus. Tal Galili (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

FYI: @331dot, @Hemiauchenia, @Iskandar323, @Nableezy, @Orgullomoore, @Vice regent, @Yr Enw. I've started this new thread to re-focus our conversation in the hopes of reaching a consensus. I'd appreciate your constructive feedback. Tal Galili (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Variety of reasons" is vague and the Easter egg is bad, it is taking Criticism of Hamas and expanding it to "widely criticized for a variety of reasons" without a source for that. Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This sentence is taken verbatim from the article, see: Hamas#Criticism (which itself leads to an entire article on the topic - since there has been quite many criticisems...). How would you propose to improve it? Tal Galili (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Should we add to the first paragraph of the Likud article that it has been widely criticized for a variety of reasons too? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss, given that the Likud article doesn't have a Criticism section, is not locked for editing, nor was it considered to be a terrorist organisation by various countries, I think it is less relevant. But if you want a good parallel, you can take a look at Otzma Yehudit party (currently part of the Israeli government), in which the first paragraph looks like this:

Otzma Yehudit (Hebrew: עָוצְמָה יְהוּדִית) or Jewish Power is a far-right political party in Israel, which has been referred to as Kahanist and anti-Arab. It was originally formed as Otzma LeYisrael (Hebrew: עָצְמָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל; lit., "Strength for Israel"), on 13 November 2012 by MKs Aryeh Eldad and Michael Ben-Ari, who split from the National Union to form a new party ahead of the 2013 elections.

Which, honestly, I'd be happy to see the Hamas article written similarly. I.e.: similarly to how it indicates in the first sentence that it is "Kahanist and anti-Arab." But I'm trying to reach a consensus, so feel fine adding the sentence I proposed to the end of the first paragraph. Tal Galili (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

MOS:LEDE states that the opening paragraph should be neutral, so neither here nor at Otzma Yehudit being described as anti-Arab. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The article Israel has in the first paragraph: "while its seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, although Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is unrecognized internationally."

Should the last sentence be removed?

I would say no, since the lead includes that Jerusalem is it's captial. In a similar way, since Hamas is called a "militant" group, it should be mentioned (IMHO) that there are nations that consider it a terrorist organisation. I am convinced by your argument that the first part of my proposed paragraph should be omitted (i.e.: critisized by...). WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, looking at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view it says that:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

I think the concern seems to be about "all the significant views". I think the designation of terrorist is a significant view. Tal Galili (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Being unrecognized is a matter of factuality; being anti-Arab is a matter of perspective. There is no resemblance here. Please read MOS:LEDE and MOS:OPEN. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The sentence on its terror designation is already more meaningful than any broad statement on "wide criticism" - it says who, i.e.: the countries involved, and for what: activities deemed terroristic. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Iskandar323 - I accept the concerns raised about "has been criticised". I still think the terrorist designation should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead. Tal Galili (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Talgalili: Thanks for starting the new thread and for the ping. I understand that you want to get the terrorist buzzword in the first paragraph of the lead. Obviously, you are going to get a lot of pushback from fellow editors who believe that's not neutral. The lead as it is now mentions in the second paragraph that Fatah renounced its terrorism and other acts of violence, and in the third paragraph mentions their attacks on civilians and terrorist designations by "many countries." You have argued that the first paragraph should not "ignore the terroristic aspect of the organization in the lead first paragraph all together", but allow me to point out that there is nothing overtly laudatory in the first paragraph either. So, I think you need to convince others why having that word in the first paragraph, as opposed to the second and third and infobox to the right is so important to achieve NPOV. There is no doubt that in Israel and NATO (minus Turkey) countries that is the prism through which Hamas is viewed, but you have to take into account that in Turkey, Iran, etc. Hamas is seen as a completely legitimate and even heroic resistance force. We are not supposed to take sides. --Orgullomoore (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

How long has the "Fatah renounced its terrorism and other acts of violence" sentence been in the lead? That's not in the Oslo Accords and isn't attributed to a scholar. Yr Enw (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Since 11 October 2023 (diff). --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It can be found on p. 226 of Jerome Slater (2021), Mythologies Without End. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Most helpful. I'm going to stick that citation in the text because presently it reads a bit POV without it. Yr Enw (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Orgullomoore,

I admit this discussion is forcing me to be very clear about my own thoughts about this, given the great points you are raising.

Before trying to convince "everyone", I'd like us two to try and convince each other on one direction or another for this article. And I acknowledge that I might be wrong here, but here goes:

I think the terristic designation touches the reflection about one of the "core activities" of Hamas. And as such, I believe it should be mentioned (briefly) in the first paragraph.

Why the first (and not just the third)? Because the first paragraph should be "an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents." , as stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. And I think the debate is if the terrorist designation is one of the "most important contents" that should be mentioned.

The current way the first paragraph is structures includes:

1. How Hamas should be called

2. That it's Palestinian Sunni Islamist

3. political and military organization

4. governing the Gaza Strip of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

5. Headquartered in Gaza City,

6. it has a presence in the West Bank, the larger of the two Palestinian territories, in which its secular rival Fatah exercises control.

I could ask - why include "the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories." in the lead? I mean - we can just say that they are "governing the Gaza Strip", why is the fact that it is called "Israeli-occupied" appear there? Is that NPOV?

Well, I think it should appear there - because the conflict of Hamas with Israel is a central part of its definition.

And in a similar way, calling it a "military organization" seems to glance over the fact that the way in which this military force is used is considered by many western countries to be terroristic.

Another example of this is the article Wagner Group. The lead paragraph says:

Evidence suggests that Wagner has been used as a proxy by the Russian government, allowing it to have plausible deniability for military operations abroad, and hiding the true casualties of Russia's foreign interventions.

Now, this sentence is clearly going to be denied by Russia (and I'd guess also Iran etc.). But still, it's in the lead. How come? Because that "suspicion" by western countries is part of the most important content about the topic.

And regarding NPOV, it doesn't require us to discuss only topic of consensus (we all agree that they are militants), but also include "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". And the terrorist designation is IMHO a significant view.

WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Talgalili: I'm fine with helping you to refine your argument, but there is no need to convince me because I am mostly indifferent. My suggestion would be that, once you have a concrete proposal—you seem to be a bit unsure yourself about what you are asking for)—you start a somewhat formal Request for Comment to try to build consensus. For that, you are going to need a question that can be answered simply (like Yes or No or Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3). That way the consensus can be clearly assessed, and you don't run into the GIGO phenomenon that is often produced when the question is unclear. With respect to what the article x, y, or z says, I would advise against relying too heavily on that. You are always going to get editors who respond to that sort of argument with reference to WP:WHATABOUTX and say, of course there are other articles that get it wrong, but Wikipedia is not perfect, and we have to focus on this article for the time being. It's fine to draw analogies from other articles—especially if they are featured articles or have been the subject of rigorous community debate. But you are going to need to come up with good reasons why your proposal is an improvement upon the status quo.

So if you are going to go with a yes/no RfC, it appears to me that your question is "Should the fact that Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by some countries be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead?" If you are going to go with a multiple choice RfC, you're going to need to come up with two or three proposals that other editors can choose from.

The guidance for the first sentence in the lead is that it answer two questions: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" Currently the "what" is answered as "a Palestinian Sunni Islamist political and military organization" and the "why" is answered as "[because it] govern[s] the Gaza Strip of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories." The guidance on the first paragraph of the lead (which, in our case, is only two sentences long) is that it "define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific."

With those principles in mind, you should come up with a reasoned argument about why the "terrorist" buzzword should be placed with the prominence you are proposing. Probably, your best argument is that the opening paragraph can afford a third short sentence and that should be: "It has been designated as a terrorist organization by many Western countries, though numerous other countries view it as a legitimate resistance force and a 2018 United Nations resolution to condemn it for acts of terrorism failed." You will need to be prepared to address the argument that many people view "terrorist" as an arbitrary loaded word that is per se judgmental and non-neutral.

I think you're doing a great job of remaining calm, maintaining civility, and listening. From my perspective, Vice regent was wrong to say you were edit warring and should apologize. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Orgullomoore for your extremely helpful response! This is all very instructive and constructive. I'll work to carve out my proposal in the coming day or so. Tal Galili (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I don't think any hypothetical argument about "terrorist" being a loaded term is entirely relevant to what's being proposed anyway. As I understand it, @Talgalili isn't proposing using it in wikivoice (which I would strongly oppose), so I think we avoid that problem because it's being attributed matter-of-factly. Yr Enw (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree. Tal Galili (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think we need to mention some of the "reasons", in the spirit of summarising some of the article information - the most notable of which is, of course, the use of violence, particularly against civilian targets. But, as I have said previously, we also need to be careful to avoid linking one clause (criticised for violence) to another (designated a "terrorist" org by the US, UK, Israel and EU) ourselves. I remain of the view the sentences should be two adjacent statements, not adjoined into one. And they should both, of course, be cited. Yr Enw (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Yr Enw,

After seeing the various responses, I came to the realization that mentioning the criticisms would be too much. Instead, I think it make sense to focus only on the terrorist designation, and leave the rest for the rest of the article.

WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I share the belief in the need for brevity in lead paragraphs, although I think the specific criticisms of violence meet the notability standard. That said, if others don't, I'm not fighting it. Yr Enw (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Yr Enw,

I'm still debating this within myself. I'll soon open a new discussion thread, and pose this as an option. Tal Galili (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think that "has been criticised" is a useful sentence structure. We should simply say what Hamas has done, and what other countries have designated it as. I didn't really oppose the movement of the suicide bombings and terrorist designation section up. It needs to be in the lead somewhere obviously, but I don't really think it matters where. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with you. To me, it's insignificant. Apparently @Vice regent feels very strongly about it. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  I do, because we have not done the same for various other similar organizations like Palestinian Liberation Organization, Hezbollah, African National Congress, Muslim Brotherhood etc. All of these organizations - and Hamas - have a very significant political and social dimension, and thus we don't overemphasize the military dimension any higher than the political and social dimension.VR _talk 22:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @Hemiauchenia - I accept the concerns raised about "has been criticised". I still think the terrorist designation should be mentioned. And as @Orgullomoore, it does appear that @Vice regent opposes it. Tal Galili (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, if the main consideration is neutrality - then presenting only one side (doesn't matter which one) damages neutrality. So I think we have two options. The first option is to be satisfied with the general description "organization" without specifying which type - because as far as I understand there are no differences of opinion about it. The second option is to say both how that organization defines itself, and the controversy that exists regarding the various possible definitions in the international community. That way the reader can get an impression of the situation as it is. Chenspec (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Polisario Front Ally?

Sorry for being logged out. The article cited as a source for the Polisario Front being a Hamas ally seems kind of dubious. All it really says pertaining to the issue is that the Polisario support a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. Not really openly pro-hamas. 2600:1700:5DB0:5860:4B7E:7E89:577B:B6B2 (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2023

Please correct the transliteration of حركة from Ḥarakat to Ḥarakah. Even a cursory glance by non-readers of Arabic shows the matching endings in Arabic are not matched in the transliteration. The correct form is used elsewhere on the page. 139.218.115.211 (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I should have added, the other possibility is that the ending in t is correct if it is supposed to be plural, Movements. Either way, the transliteration doesn’t match, even though the internet is littered with the same mismatch. So is the Arabic correct (singular), or the transliteration correct (plural)? 139.218.115.211 (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this might be because it reflects the pronunciation of taa marbuta within an idafah, but interested to see what other editors think Yr Enw (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Which change are you requesting? I can (and my preference would be to) change the mention in "Etymology" from Ḥarakah al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah to Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah, although your Arabic is undoubtedly better than mine, shouldn't Muqawamah then also be Muqawamat? Yr Enw (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Very interesting question about muqawama! Grammatically, it would be harakatu l-muqawamati l-islamiyyah. I think we need a reliable source to base our changes on, as opposed to relying on me. But as IP points out, the web is full of "reliable" sources who are wrong about this. So we need to find a correct reliable source. --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Its not plural. Harakaat (حركات) would be movements. The last vowel would be doubled. --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The T should be there if we are seeking to transliterate in accordance with pronunciation. In Fusha, it's technically harakatu l-muqawama (حركةُ المقاومة) in nominative case. It's H if in pausal form. Theoretically it makes sense for the transliteration to be one way and the etymology to be another, since in etymology the words are examined in isolation (pausal) and in transliteration we are trying to approximate pronunciation (elision). The taw article does a decent job of explaining how the taw marbuta loses its "t" sound when pausal. --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)