Talk:Hamas
Welcome! |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 45 days ![]() |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hamas. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hamas at the Reference desk. |
![]() | The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" should be avoided or used with care. Editors discussing the use of these terms are advised to familiarize themselves with the guideline, and discuss objections at the relevant talkpage, not here. If you feel this article represents an exception, then that discussion properly belongs here. |
![]() | Relevant WikiProjects, Historial Stats, and Usage Info | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
"two spokesmen, four stances"
[edit]There appears to be now original research in this article where editors are introducing themes in Hamas' positions that are not found in scholarly sources. For example, can someone tell me which scholars say Hamas had "two spokesmen, four stances"? If not, why is this in the article? VR (Please ping on reply) 01:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I see it was introduced by Corriebertus. In fact, most of that edit appears to be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Much of it is also unsourced.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I went ahead and changed the section titles, mostly removing what I felt was OR. If anyone has objections, let me know.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Corriebertus: can you kindly explain this edit? VR (Please ping on reply) 08:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that should be very clear: VR has, in a complicated edit on 7 July, ‘decided’ that the truce offer from Yassin came after the year 1992 (by unmotivatedly changing some subheadings) but we don’t have any real information about when that truce offer was made. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm really not following your comment. As I've shown you elsewhere, scholars consider 1988-1992 to be a distinct period in Hamas' evolution.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, 1988-1993 (not 1992). The source is here.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm really not following your comment. As I've shown you elsewhere, scholars consider 1988-1992 to be a distinct period in Hamas' evolution.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that should be very clear: VR has, in a complicated edit on 7 July, ‘decided’ that the truce offer from Yassin came after the year 1992 (by unmotivatedly changing some subheadings) but we don’t have any real information about when that truce offer was made. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Corriebertus: can you kindly explain this edit? VR (Please ping on reply) 08:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I went ahead and changed the section titles, mostly removing what I felt was OR. If anyone has objections, let me know.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 June 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add before "political and millitary movement" that it's a terrorist organization. Somebody938467 (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not done This has been the subject of extensive discussions before and consensus is presently not in favour of doing this for reasons elaborated on there. Yr Enw (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thats just not good enough. Terroism is "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims." According to wikipedia itself which is exactly what Hamas has done for almost a year now. This needs to be corrected regardless of what people think, facts don't care about feelings. 115.189.96.16 (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, this has been the subject of extensive discussions before and consensus is presently not in favour of doing this for reasons elaborated on there. So, if you disagree with that, those discussions are where to air your feelings. But you may not do this at present, due to the decision of the Arbitration Committee to restrict non-EC users (see here) from editing articles or talk pages relating to Israel-Palestine, with the sole exception of creating edit requests (I think it's this one [1]).
- Perhaps you also need to read about the Problem of universals to realise these "facts" you're spouting are based on concepts that humans invent to refer to phenomena in the real world. Terrorism is a word, a label, a human invention. The violence to which it refers is, of course, real, but what word we use for it isn't as magically set in stone as you suggest. I mean, the word has only existed for a couple hundred years. And if we proceeded to apply it in the way you suggest, it would lose all utility because we'd be sticking it on every page for every single country on earth. Yr Enw (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thats just not good enough. Terroism is "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims." According to wikipedia itself which is exactly what Hamas has done for almost a year now. This needs to be corrected regardless of what people think, facts don't care about feelings. 115.189.96.16 (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Conflicting estimates of size of Qassam Brigades
[edit]I noticed as of Corriebertus's recent edits there are now two conflicting estimates of the size of the Qassam Brigades in the article. Can anyone familiar with the topic comment on whether there are any sources evaluating the relative reliability of these different estimates? It doesn't really feel right to just say "some sources say this, some sources say that, other sources say third thing..." They're both ranges too, so I feel like the least confusing-for-the-reader way to do this would be to have one estimate inline and if there's a need to put an asterisk on that number, that can be done in a footnote. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 20:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I must say or concede, that my editing on 2 July on section #Military wing was rather lazy and/or lousy. I had found those differing third and fourth estimates of that size of QB in our own sub-article about the topic. So no, we don't have two, we have indeed four estimates. But that can be stated in a more transparant way in our article, I agree. I think though, it is too difficult for us, and/or not our task, to assess which estimate is 'most reliable'. Four estimates lie rather far apart, so I think we may (and must!) assume that the outside world does not have a sharp idea or picture of those brigades' strength etc., and we (Wikipedia) should not try to hide that fact (= the acknowledged uncertainty of that strength) from our readers by giving one simple (seemingly 'certain') estimate and stalling that obvious uncertainty only in a footnote. --Corriebertus (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- It sounds like we should find a source discussing the implications of how far apart these estimates are (unfortunately, simply saying that and providing sources A, B, C, and D with the variance in their numbers as evidence would be WP:SYNTH). I'd need to check the sources to be sure but we may even be able to use different sections of the same sources for this, as estimates typically also come with a discussion of the level of confidence associated with them. (And for what it's worth, because of the same sort of WP:OR concerns, I wasn't suggesting that we try to make that determination of reliability, but rather find a source discussing it that we can refer to.)Corriebertus, since you've been looking into this, could you list the four sources you mentioned here for ease of reference? Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 15:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
decison = decision 2603:8000:D300:3650:B089:CD81:58FB:92D (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Done Would've been easier to figure out what you meant if you used more words, but I did finally manage to parse it out. Good catch. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 23:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Restoring summary
[edit]I restored the summary of Hamas' political positions verbatim as it existed in this edit I think the summary at the top of every section is important given how long the sections are. And the section on political positions is indeed way too long, with a lot of verbatim quoting. We should ideally be paraphrasing and summarizing.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Summarizing Hamas' policies towards two-state solution
[edit]Given this article is way too long, I'd like to go ahead and summarize the section on Hamas policies towards the two state solution. We should give the most WP:WEIGHT to scholarly sources, and less weight to news reports in news sources that never made it into scholarship. If no one objects, I can start.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- The many statements of Hamas about how to regard or how to ‘deal’ with (the existence of) Israel are undoubtedly (very) complicated, because, as I explain today in Talk section “two-state solution” Needs not and should not be in that section heading, different spokesmen etc. keep phrasing (perhaps also changing) Hamas’ attitude/policies towards Israel very often differently than the previous time. The fact that those attitudes are often published via news media or ‘charters’ and not via ‘scholars’ doesn’t make them less relevant, but also perhaps not easier to understand. Therefore, I strongly disadvice colleague VR to go ahead with, as he calls it, (drastically) “summarizing the section on Hamas policies towards the two state solution” (ofcourse he means the section on policies towards Israel) for his alleged reasons that the article (and this section!?) would be ‘way too long’ and ‘non-scholarly’ sources should be shunned, slighted, scorned, disregarded or downplayed. Yes, the article is rather long, partly because the Pal.-Isr. conflict is older than a century and very complicated. Especially the issue ‘policies’ is mindtwistingly intricate, thus should get the place and length in the article that it needs for clarity, without smuggling away positions/statements/information that don’t please us, on the pretext that they are ‘not scholarly’ etc.. Western countries including Israel have the infrastructure and facilities and luxury for scholars; many Hamas adherents don’t even have a house, nor much certainty of having a meal (or merely to still live) at the end of the day. Section ‘Policies’ is core business in this article and should be treated with care, not shortened carelessly or for the wrong reasons/motives that I just tackled. If the length of the article really is problematic, I note that two sections are longer than section ‘Policies...’: sections “Organization”, and “Violence” (nearly twice as long, and its subsection “terrorist designation” alone is already almost as long as section “Policies…”). One or both of them might be largely replaced to a sub-article. Especially “Violence” is a rather trivial issue: Hamas is at war, doesn’t deny that, and war means violence. You can spell out every war act of Hamas in great detail, tell them they are terrorist, terrorist terrorist terrorist terrorist, many pages long, but that doesn’t change Hamas much and hardly helps anyone to understand that political/military organisation nor to end that shameful and heart-rending war. That pretty multicolor very long wikitable “Terrorist org.” might be replaced to a subarticle, perhaps even with (most of) that whole topic ‘[Hamas] violence’. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your comment is really long and parts of it are off-topic. Responding to attempts to summarize a very long article with very long comments is unhelpful.VR (Please ping on reply) VR (Please ping on reply) 05:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Scholarly sources are good and all things being equal should be preferred to newspaper articles. Most of the section is already based on the former and I wouldn't object to removing information based on articles published 15-20 years ago in the NYT or Haaretz.
- However, the scholarly consensus takes time to coalesce. We're in the middle of a war it's worth letting the reader know what the most recent position is, even if it comes from the AP or even Middle East Monitor. Later we'll replace these articles by scholarly sources. Alaexis¿question? 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- At the very least their pre-2023 positions should be determined from scholarship, no? VR (Please ping on reply) 05:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
“two-state solution” Needs not and should not be in that section heading.
[edit]On 7 July, a paragraph of text was parachuted in the top of section Hamas#Policies and attitudes towards Israel (while also things in it were changed/added and its title changed), with a (scarce) motivation suggesting this top text be a “summary” of the whole section. I’m not yet convinced that it indeed is a sufficiently relevant, representative, and balanced (and correct!) summary of that section: even if all separate statements in that parachuted text would be correct – what I’ll further have to check later – that alone wouldn’t guarantee it to be a balanced, useful, ‘good’ summary.
But my two corrections today, on that 7 July edit (after my first correction on 8 July), concern its unmotivated changing of the section title and its undue emphasis on a vague statement of a professor.
There is no concrete, clear, permanent “two-state solution”(-proposal) for ‘the P.-I. conflict’ currently being proposed, discussed or negotiated (in official political circles), and hasn’t been since 15 May 1948 – thus such t.s.-solution-proposal also has never existed during Hamas’ existence (=since 1987) (and the vague contention/opinion of prof. Ayoob mentioned in this section doesn’t change that fact). But then, to use that word ‘t.-s. solution’ as prominently in the heading and also in the first sentence of this (sub)section as is done recently on 7 July would needlessly and unjustly suggest (and thus easily mislead readers into thinking) that there is – especially if the Wiki text even states that Hamas has had (changing/evolving) “policies towards” such a thing. “The” or “a” t.s.-solut. hasn’t existed during Hamas’ lifetime, logically Hamas hasn’t commented on it, logically such comment can’t be found in this Wikipedia article’s section, thus the assertion in this ‘summary’ of Hamas having “evolving policies towards” two-state solution is incorrect and baseless, thus the changed section title incorrect, baseless and misleading. (By the way: saying that a Wiki text or heading can too easily generate incorrect conceptions/ideas of ‘facts’ within some readers’ minds isn’t saying that the involved editor had the deliberate intention to mislead anyone.)
The only information, more or less involving ‘two states’, mentioned in this section, are statements from different Hamas spokesmen and in some Hamas texts, starting 2006, most every time in different wordings, statements that are either vague [March2006;May2010], or alluding to a (not-permanent but) temporary two-state-situation [several offers of truce through the years;1May2017;Jan2024], or both [April2008;Sep2009;Nov+Dec2010;1Nov2023], so all of them Hamas statements – for one or two reasons – do not comment on a/the ‘two-state solution’ within the definition of that term as given in the Wikipedia article on that lemma (and the vague contention/opinion of prof. Ayoob mentioned in the section doesn’t change that fact).
Meanwhile, I’m replacing that statement of prof Ayoob of 2020 (over “two-state solution” etc.) from this summarizing top paragraph to subsection §Comments from non-Hamas-members, because it is very vague and would be overvalued when placed in this summary. A concrete t.s.-solution(in Wiki definition) is currently not in discussion, the 2017charter itself doesn’t propose one, “acceptance of the preconditions…” for a non-existing plan is an extreme vagueness; this (utterly vague) ‘opinion’ of a professor does not even imply or say that Hamas itself has any opinion about any t.s.-solution(in the Wikipedia definition) and thus doesn’t add any concrete information about Hamas’ policies/attitudes towards Israel (or towards ‘t.s.-solut.’), so it may fairly well be placed in subsection §Comments from non-Hamas-members but it would be misplaced, undue, unbalanced/tendentious, unnecessary to have just this one (rather vague) ‘opinion’/statement of one (fairly obscure) professor—among the 19 other opinions in our article of outsiders about Hamas policies etc. — in this summarizing subsection here. (But while replacing it there, it needs also to be corrected, in the way I’ve already explained here on 6March2024.) --Corriebertus (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- "
There is no concrete, clear, permanent “two-state solution”(-proposal) for ‘the P.-I. conflict’ currently being proposed
" Seriously? Yes, there is a two-state solution proposal. We know some parties oppose it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't evaluate Hamas' position on it based on sources.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Calling Hamas a terrorist group
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
this needs to be made clear for any readers that its classifed hy many governments as a terriorst group. we should not be sugar coating things. its being called a military and politcal orginization Juliantheblaze (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you talking about this article or another article? For this article, the 4th paragraph of the lead covers this, the 'Designated as a terrorist group by' infobox section covers this, the 'Terrorist designation' section of the article body covers this, and the word terrorist appears 129 times. Also, see MOS:TERRORIST for interest. Also, it is a political organization, and it contains a military organization within it. Those are objective facts about Hamas. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to second Juliantheblaze's opinion. While it is of course a well-established fact that Hamas is indeed a political and military organization with significant power in the Gaza Strip, its controversial status is just as relevant. The designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization by numerous states and intergovernmental organizations is a crucial element of its identity, with significant implications for international relations, security, and public perception.
Although the article does mention Hamas's terrorist designation at several points, I believe it should be explicitly stated in the lead, as it would provide readers with the necessary context from the get-go and without having to delve deeper into the article to see the full picture.
I guess we could add the following (with references, of course) at the end of the first paragraph to succinctly capture this multifaceted nature of Hamas while maintaining a neutral, impartial Wikipedia style:, and designated as a terrorist group by many countries and international organizations.
—83.8.66.231 (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to second Juliantheblaze's opinion. While it is of course a well-established fact that Hamas is indeed a political and military organization with significant power in the Gaza Strip, its controversial status is just as relevant. The designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization by numerous states and intergovernmental organizations is a crucial element of its identity, with significant implications for international relations, security, and public perception.
- I agree with @Juliantheblaze. Note that Jewish terrorist groups such as Irgun and Lehi are called terrorist organization in the header. We should be consistent with groups like Hamas and PIJ. Leroyhobbes (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- What we say in the lead is much more specific then what is recommended above.... please scroll a few times to read the whole opening of the article Several countries including Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization due to its militant activities and attacks on civilian targets. Moxy🍁 00:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The first paragraph of 1988 and 2017 charters > 1988 > Antisemitism should be reworded
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
− | The 1988 Hamas charter | + | The 1988 Hamas charter says it "mandate(s) the killing of Jews".[230] The "governing" 1988 charter of Hamas says, in Article 7, Hamas is dedicated to a "genocide against the Jewish people".[231] Other authors have characterized the violent language against all Jews in the 1988 Hamas charter as genocidal[232][233][234] or antisemitic.[235][236] The charter attributes collective responsibility to, both Israelis and Jews for various global issues, including both World Wars.[237] |
- Why it should be changed:
This section is difficult to understand.
- References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
N/A
Makemeaname22 (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: The "is said" language is there because the article is using the statements of others; the charter doesn't literally say those things. The word "genocide" does not appear and the "killing the Jews" language in Article 7 comes from quoting Allah. – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 11:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Claim in text must be Claire's or removed. 64.189.18.53 (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2024 (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. Left guide (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Editorializing
[edit]@Corriebertus, please stop editorializing and read WP:NPOV. You inserting the words "cynically" and "vaguely" based on your own opinions here is a violation of NPOV.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Likewise, if you want to insert the words "spokesmen hop between positions"[2] then it would be good if you can find a source for it?VR (Please ping on reply) 05:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Lead
[edit]I believe the lead should say "Hamas,[d] an acronym of its official name, Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Arabic: حركة المقاومة الإسلامية, romanized: Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah, lit. 'Islamic Resistance Movement'),[59] is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist[60] political movement and military organization governing parts of the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip since 2007.[61][62] It has a social service wing, Dawah, and a military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Israel and Hamas have since engaged in several wars of varying intensity. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Add a mention to the false cognate in Hebrew חמס (khamas) meaning "violence" and people's generalization of it. Gallus lafayettii (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Neutrality
[edit]From the opener alone it is evident this article has a serious neutrality problem, with a bias in favour of Israel.
E.g.
"Hamas has carried out attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers, including suicide bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks. These actions have led human rights groups to accuse it of war crimes. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Paraguay, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization. In 2018, a motion at the United Nations to condemn Hamas was rejected."
In isolation from context of why the group was formed, or why these actions occurred, it feels as if this article is almost implicitly telling us that this group is an "evil" terrorist group, when real life is far less black-and-white. Compare, the IDF article.
There needs to be care that this article reflects the actions of the group with nuance and context. JDBauby (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have added an NPOV template back that links to this section to gather consensus. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- yes article needs some cleanup. Astropulse (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Im working on addressing NPOV in intro - article intro is being updated. please see [[3]] [[4]][[5]]Astropulse (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Changing this article to state that Hamas is a “resistance organisation” and omitting the fact that it has committed crimes against humanity from the introduction section of this article is the opposite of neutrality; it is clear this is being edited in an attempt to alter public opinion. Furthermore, the section regarding violence clearly notes Hamas has committed massacres against Israeli civilians. Please revert this edit. Stratojet94 (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)- The term terrorist is mentioned on the page 130 times. Its also mentioned in lead in last paragraph. The word Hamas itself means Islamic Resistance Movement and is defined as such in opening statement. I'm not disputing Hamas hasn't done massacres. But context is also important for NPOV Astropulse (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I feel as if calling it a “militant” group is more neutral than “resistance group” as that implies their violence is in some way justified, when the majority of their attacks have been on civilians which has zero military value. Calling it a resistance movement puts it into the same category as WW2 resistance movements agains the Nazis, the near majority of whom never committed mass violence against civilians Stratojet94 (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)- i updated to militant resistance movement. Astropulse (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hamas has been encompassing militant, political, and societal (cultural) resistance, and started as an ordintary, albeit radical political party. I know that some corners are trying to reduce Hamas to a militant outfit, but its profile is much wider. — kashmīrī TALK 20:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- my change is already reverted. im fine with this Astropulse (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hamas has been encompassing militant, political, and societal (cultural) resistance, and started as an ordintary, albeit radical political party. I know that some corners are trying to reduce Hamas to a militant outfit, but its profile is much wider. — kashmīrī TALK 20:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- i updated to militant resistance movement. Astropulse (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- The term terrorist is mentioned on the page 130 times. Its also mentioned in lead in last paragraph. The word Hamas itself means Islamic Resistance Movement and is defined as such in opening statement. I'm not disputing Hamas hasn't done massacres. But context is also important for NPOV Astropulse (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Im working on addressing NPOV in intro - article intro is being updated. please see [[3]] [[4]][[5]]Astropulse (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've reverted Astropulse's edits because these edits go too far downplaying Hamas's attacks on civillians. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the article has clear NPOV issues.
- For eg. this edit [[6]] is fair. It just adding some background. Its not downplaying. Its adding context to a complicated issue.
- I also think as per WP:ONUS this edit [[7]] should stand. For eg. why is Israel biggest military setback mentioned here? This is clearly written in Israel point of view. The cause of war is a understatement - its much more complicated than that. Unless you can explain it in lead - i have removed it Astropulse (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also i think your revert of multiple edit violates WP:3RR Astropulse (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reverting back to a particular version of an article (and thereby reverting multiple edits at once) counts as a single revert, which I was perfectly entitled to do, and is not a violation of the 1RR. Wikipedia:Edit warring also says that reverting consecutive edits by a single user counts a single revert. Perhaps @ScottishFinnishRadish: can clarify this for you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- That is correct. Any edit or series of consecutive edits is a single revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia @ScottishFinnishRadishit says in WP:3RR that "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." But here there were intervening edits made by other user [8]] Is this revert [[9]] by Hemiauchenia still count as one revert ? Astropulse (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- That is correct. Any edit or series of consecutive edits is a single revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reverting back to a particular version of an article (and thereby reverting multiple edits at once) counts as a single revert, which I was perfectly entitled to do, and is not a violation of the 1RR. Wikipedia:Edit warring also says that reverting consecutive edits by a single user counts a single revert. Perhaps @ScottishFinnishRadish: can clarify this for you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain your objection [[10]] here? Astropulse (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Calling Hamas a resistance movement is not neutral at all. I’m fine with your other edits but please revert this characterisation as a resistance movement, the translation of their name has no basis on their conduct Stratojet94 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)- I also object to describing Hamas as a resistance movement. The original "political and military organisation" label was fine, and I will be reverting back to it once my 1RR has expired. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia this is fine. my changes weren't perfect. but a blanket revert on all of my edits were also uncool. Astropulse (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also see We should try to edit article to improve it - rather than resorting to revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Reverting_drives_away_editors Astropulse (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia this is fine. my changes weren't perfect. but a blanket revert on all of my edits were also uncool. Astropulse (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'd suggest discussing changes one-by-one. As far as I can see the characterisation as a terrorist group isn't done in wikivoice - we're reporting what others said. The attacks against civilians are prominent and are extensively covered by RS. The translation of their name is irrelevant. Alaexis¿question? 12:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also agree that attacks against civillians needs to be emphasised in the lead, and that Astropulse's edits seem to have effectively downplayed them, which I think is undue. Hamas was historically very well known for its suicide bombings against civillians. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, thank you, I’m not sure what the motive behind Astropulses edits are. The page for Palestinian Islamic Jihad also contains an introduction emphasising their attacks on atrocities Stratojet94 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)- Im okay with current revision's since my edit. Astropulse (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also agree that attacks against civillians needs to be emphasised in the lead, and that Astropulse's edits seem to have effectively downplayed them, which I think is undue. Hamas was historically very well known for its suicide bombings against civillians. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the article currently needs an NPOV tag, and I would support its removal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
After the latest edits I agree, although I still think the original edit that emphasised the war crimes and stated the background to the ongoing war was a better article Stratojet94 (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)- I would also prefer if the details of the October 7 attack were also added back to the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- +1 FortunateSons (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- i think previous version on this violated NPOV - If you can propose a way to write it in NPOV - we can include it. Astropulse (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- i added details about oct 7 attack. Astropulse (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- i think previous version on this violated NPOV - If you can propose a way to write it in NPOV - we can include it. Astropulse (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- +1 FortunateSons (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would also prefer if the details of the October 7 attack were also added back to the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose the Astropulse changes, we should cover it the way RS do, and the attacks on civilians are often prominently included, as is the recognition as a terrorist organisation. FortunateSons (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with FortunateSons; we shouldn’t be whitewashing this organisation. BilledMammal (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal thats your editorial bias talking. there are further edits after my changes that reverted and improved upon my changes. there are two sides to everything. You dont get to decide where you applies NPOV and where you dont. Astropulse (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- and why there is no mention of "indiscriminate attacks" on Gaza civilians in IDF article? But you decided we should not whitewash Hamas ? Astropulse (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with FortunateSons; we shouldn’t be whitewashing this organisation. BilledMammal (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
<- Given that Stratojet94 is not yet extendedconfirmed they are not permitted to participate in consensus forming discussions covered by WP:ARBECR. Their comments should not be factored into the outcome. They are limited to making edit requests. Sorry Stratojet94, those are the current rules. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for letting me know, how do I make an edit request? 174.167.89.18 (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Answering this question is much harder than you might imagine. Have a read through WP:MAKINGEREQ and WP:EDITXY for some useful guidance. But in practice, editors give new users quite a lot of wiggle room. If a new user creates a talk page section and just describes what they think should be changed with some specificity, explains why in a calm-ish, rational-ish (preferably wiki-policy-based, evidence-based) way, with sourcing if required, it is usually treated as an edit request. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
The lead needs to mention the horrible state of the Gaza Strip as right now it seems like Hamas started a war for no reason. Also the fact the article has a section about "Violence" but no section talking about the killing of many Gazan civilian's (and also assassination of Hamas officials) by Israel is pretty clearly biased toward Israel .AlexBobCharles (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Link "Political Bureau" to article "Politburo"
[edit]Hamas is led by a Political Bureau. The name and function of this institution seems to be that described by the article Politburo, and it is referred to as a politburo in some reputable sources, e.g. https://ecfr.eu/special/mapping_palestinian_politics/politburo/. I suggest adding a hyperlink to article "Politburo" in the "Political Bureau" section of this article (I'm too junior an editor to do this myself). Mosi Nuru (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The description does not state the Hamas is a terrorist organization which uses violence and fear against civilians as a means of achieving it political and religious goals. 2600:1017:B836:117:BCF3:F1C0:2B75:9141 (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not done it is mentioned in 4th para as per wiki NPOV Astropulse (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Lead section - Hamas "governs parts of the Israeli-occupied gaza strip" since 07
[edit]Isn't this sentence an oxymoron? How can Hamas possibly govern the parts of the Gaza Strip which are occupied by Isreal? The entire purpose of an occupation is for Isreal to govern those parts of Gaza.
I propose rewriting the lead sentence to say:
"Hamas, an acronym of its official name, Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Arabic: حركة المقاومة الإسلامية, romanized: Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah, lit. 'Islamic Resistance Movement'), is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist political and military organisation governing parts of the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip since 2007" Lluq (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not an oxymoron. The Status section of the Gaza Strip article explains why. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- ... which lists Isreali sources stating that Israel has not exercised a level of control over Gaza sufficient to amount to "occupation" since 2005.
- At best, whether parts of Gaza are "Israeli-occupied" or not (notwithstanding the 2023-24 invasion) is a contentious issue, and not needed to be solved in order to demonstrate the point being portrayed in the lead sentence - which is that Hamas has control over parts of Gaza. Lluq (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Lluq Please note that this article is under WP:ARBECR restrictions and as a new account you're not allowed to engage in discussions other than making straighforward edit requests. See page header above. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 13:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Governmance is not the same as sovereign rule. — kashmīrī TALK 12:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Given the ongoing war it's not obvious to what extent Hamas governs the Gaza strip, let's take a 30,000 foot view. Something along the lines of
"Hamas, an acronym of its official name, Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Arabic: حركة المقاومة الإسلامية, romanized: Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah, lit. 'Islamic Resistance Movement'), is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist political and military organisation. It has engaged in ongoing conflict with Israel and has held varying degrees of governmental authority in the Palestinian Territories."
- Hamas is not only active in Gaza, they are present in the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria. If you feel that the rule over the Gaza Strip needs to be mentioned, it can be added to my version. Still, we should strive to start with something that encompasses the whole 40-year history of Hamas. Alaexis¿question? 19:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Assuming everything is covered by RS (which I believe it is), I would support this FortunateSons (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- A good start, although I would prefer for the first few sentences to be more permanent, unchangeable, i.e., explaining what the organisation is and what it does in general before mentioning what it's doing at the moment. — kashmīrī TALK 22:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hamas conflict with Israel is mentioned in 4th para. If we gonna mention the conflict, then we need to mention the reason for conflict. i think its better left alone in 4th para. My understanding is that Israel also do not govern gaza. Hamas has lost some control during the recent war - but i do not see any factual errors in lead statement. Hamas has governed of whole or parts of the Gaza Strip since 2007 Astropulse (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Mentioning the conflict doesn't mean we necessarily have to discuss its reasons. I also don't see factual errors in the current first sentence, I suggested this change to take a broader view. Another option is to wait until the dust settles and decide on the lede then. Let's hear what others have to say. Alaexis¿question? 19:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- What does this refer to "has held varying degrees of governmental authority in the Palestinian Territories". Is it governance of Gaza or winning the last Palestinian elections or both? VR (Please ping on reply) 00:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Mentioning the conflict doesn't mean we necessarily have to discuss its reasons. I also don't see factual errors in the current first sentence, I suggested this change to take a broader view. Another option is to wait until the dust settles and decide on the lede then. Let's hear what others have to say. Alaexis¿question? 19:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do we really need to mention "Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya" twice in the first sentence? VR (Please ping on reply) 00:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is too vague , but i cannot find any good explanation about Hamas as what it does is contested . Also i would change the last line to
the partially-occupied Palestinian Territories
AlexBobCharles (talk) AlexBobCharles (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)- We should either refer to them as "occupied Palestinian territories (OPT)", as most RS do, or alternatively as Palestine.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
List of leaders of Hamas and their pages
[edit]Hi Everyone,
I see that we now have a popper list of leaders of Hamas, this is a step in right direction. However, I have within the last few days noticed on their separated pages two major issues, starting with Ahmed Yassin and then his successor, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi. There is no official "job title" within their info boxes. This should be fixed. The second issue is who comes after al-Rantisi? I've seen two names Mousa Abu Marzook (the first Political Bureau Chairman from 1992-1996) or his successor Khaled Mashal (the second Political Bureau Chairman from 1996-2017). I believe that time should be given to editing each leader's page in order to make the timeline of leadership more cohesive and correct because right now it's a mess. I like to hear your thoughts. 2600:1702:5870:5930:C093:ED0B:780:8C5A (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
abu omar hassan has been appointed hamas leader 78.148.61.169 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — kashmīrī TALK 00:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hamas declared Yahya Sinwar as Chairman of its Political Bureau
source: https://t.me/c/1407249165/5197 (Hamas official telegram channel)
Please change that within the infobox — 🧀Cheesedealer squeak!⚟ 17:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Done Already changed in this diff by Daran755. Morris80315436 (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
GS
[edit]@A3811: Many RS, including most prominently and recently the ICJ, have said that Israel's 2005 disengagement did not change the occupied status of the Gaza Strip. Please restore. [11] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have restored it AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Very long
[edit]This article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. When the tag was added, its readable prose size was 14,055 words. Consider splitting content into sub-articles or condensing it. The article size impacts usability in multiple ways: Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc. (when articles are large). Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections or mobile devices or who have slow computer loading. Some large articles exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size are split into two or more smaller articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree the article is too long ,as someone with bad internet its a pain to edit it, the history section has already been split . So has the charters section. So has "Foreign relations". I suggest splitting the "Violence" section or "Lawsuits" AlexBobCharles (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- The violence should be merged in with history. It is difficult to consider the two as distinct topics.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Much of the "evolution of positions" should also be merged into History of Hamas.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- The violence should be merged in with history. It is difficult to consider the two as distinct topics.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Word count | What to do |
---|---|
> 15,000 words | Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed. |
this article 14,055 words |
Probably or almost certainly should be divided or trimmed |
> 9,000 words | Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. |
Thomas de Maiziere
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ((Thomas de Maiziere)) to ((Thomas de Maizière)) 97.103.116.88 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Potentially controversial revert
[edit]Was this revert justified? AlexBobCharles (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Mentioning Israel-Hamas war crimes in the lead
[edit]Hemiauchenia I noticed you added Hamas' war crimes in the Israel–Hamas war to the lead. Would you also support specifically adding Israel's war crimes in the current war to the lead of the IDF? VR (Please ping on reply) 19:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- They've been present in the lead for a long time. I was only effectively restoring what Astropulse had recently removed. I am neutral regarding the inclusion of Israeli war crimes, so I'll let others chime in. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please raise this at Talk:Israel Defense Forces. Alaexis¿question? 20:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- They logically should be ,practically equivalent situation and IDF's war crimes are also much more. AlexBobCharles (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Mandates killing of Jews
[edit]The article currently says "The 1988 Hamas charter "mandate(s) the killing of Jews".
" The fact that its in quote implies the text comes from the Charter. But instead it comes from an op-ed in CNN.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I removed it as it is pretty much repeated by the following line AlexBobCharles (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also changed section name to "Allegations of Antisemitism". AlexBobCharles (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's a reasonable interpretation of Article 7 of the charter. If there are RS offering an alternative explanation we can add that too. Alaexis¿question? 20:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alaexis removed "Allegations" from the title , it should be "Allegations" as it isn't an undisputed fact and the section itself cites Hamas's disagreement. AlexBobCharles (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- The 1988 charter was widely described as antisemitic, there are references in the section. Is there anyone who disputes that? Of course Hamas would deny that, that's not a RS for our purposes. Alaexis¿question? 19:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Infobox collapsible lists
[edit]@TheJoebro64 , I support removing all the collapsible lists as they aren't long enough and contain very important information AlexBobCharles (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The infoboxes are both extremely long, which hampers readability since it begins to seep into the actual article. (On my monitor, both infoboxes uncollapsed reach all the way to the bottom of the History section.) There's precedent at similar articles (Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Islamic State) to have the lists collapsible. I think applying that precedent here makes sense. JOEBRO64 13:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay , i fixed my mistake of the collapsible lists not being correct , i believe either none/all of them should be collapsible because it introduces NPOV issues , the first thing a person sees has more impact AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. 👍 JOEBRO64 15:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay , i fixed my mistake of the collapsible lists not being correct , i believe either none/all of them should be collapsible because it introduces NPOV issues , the first thing a person sees has more impact AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Gaza was not occupied
[edit]In the opening paragraph it states that israel occupied the gaza strip since 2007. But its exactly the opposite, they left in 2005. It is only now that they invaded gaza again. Is this a mistake or am I missing something? 147.235.201.116 (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, it is not a mistake, Gaza continuing to be occupied is the majority position, with the UN, ICRC and most academics agreeing that Gaza has remained occupied as Israel continued to exercise effective military control over the territory. See for example: The ICRC considers Gaza to remain occupied territory on the basis that Israel still exercises effective control over the Strip, notably through key elements of authority over the strip, including over its borders (airspace, sea and land – at the exception of the border with Egypt)., RULAC: Following the implementation of the 2005 Disengagement Plan, Israeli armed forces were no longer present in the territory of the Gaza Strip. For this reason, some reject Israel’s classification as an occupying power.
However, international practice and the majority of scholarly opinions have long considered that, even after its withdrawal in 2005, Israel has continued to occupy the Gaza Strip by virtue of the control exercised over its airspace and territorial waters, land crossings at the borders, the supply of civilian infrastructure, and the exercise of key governmental functions such as the management of the Palestinian population registry. ... This view has been supported in relation to the Gaza Strip by several reports and declarations by relevant international bodies, such as the UN, the ICC and the ICRC.) Scholarly opinion is more split than it is for the WB/EJ, but the majority view is that Gaza has continued to be occupied despite the disengagement. The ICJ ruling also included In light of the above, the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip. nableezy - 14:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Rewording in support section.
[edit]For the area that covers public support of hamas, it just states (verbatim) “In November 2023, during Israel's bombing and blockade of the Gaza Strip,” shouldn’t it be more like “After the October 7th attacks, and the subsequent bombing and blockade of the Gaza Strip by Israel,”? Or would that infringe on the (Very fragile) neutrality of this article? MrMcOrange (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've replaced the whole thing with the Israel-Hamas War. As far as I can see the sources mention both the October 7 attack and the Israeli response as contributors to the rising support for Hamas. Alaexis¿question? 21:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Superfluous "sources" section?
[edit]Question,
There's a giant section below the "references" section labelled "sources" that don't appear to be citations for the article and therefore seems to be redundant information that was never removed before the move to in-line citations. Shouldn't these therefore be removed as they aren't actually used to support the article's contents? Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- High-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- Low-importance Islam-related articles
- B-Class Sunni Islam articles
- Unknown-importance Sunni Islam articles
- Sunni Islam task force articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- B-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- B-Class organization articles
- High-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class political party articles
- Mid-importance political party articles
- Political parties task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Terrorism articles
- High-importance Terrorism articles
- Terrorism articles needing attention
- WikiProject Terrorism articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press