Talk:Hamas/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Hamas No Longer Anti-Communist? - Contd.

WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Continuing where we left off since this was promptly deleted under "Wikipedia:NOTAFORUM" when I am trying to discuss improving this article by putting "anti-communist" back under "ideologies" as well as the primary source that originally supported these links. I am screenshotting this before I post it and putting the link here, so please refrain from moving this to a different Talk Page and claiming I posted it there. I began the discussion by saying: "When did this happen? Are they now promoting Lenin and saying they want to create a dictatorship of the proletariat in Gaza? Hamas is and always was explicitly anti-communist. Change it back." "This is kind of reaching into discussion of the topic territory as opposed to discussing the article, but I think that given their cooperation with the PFLP in the current war, they arent exactly stringently devoted to anti-communism. (sorry if this is formatted wrong, i dont edit much)" -Emulsification92 that was the last comment before it was originally deleted from here. Then I said: We are in fact discussing the article here and whether to put back "anti-communism" under ideologies. Is it possible that militants in Gaza being frequently bombed right now have a temporary alliance based on strength in numbers/public support alone and if not, why not? To me it doesn't seem like these are the circumstances for a genuine ideological unity Occam's razor would suggest they are not working together because of any ideological common ground. Jester6482 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Support: Anti-communism should definitely be under "Ideologies". I support its re-addition - after further discussion, of course. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Oppose - doesn't mean some group doesn't have the same ideologies then they are anti-{other group's ideology}. Abo Yemen✉ 12:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC) Support: I distinctly remember some pretty fiery anti-communist sentiment in HAMAS. I'm unsure as to why that would ever be removed. Heyimastopsign (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Thank you for your response! It was removed shortly -but not immediately- after October 7th, 2023; the date of Hamas' recent terror attack on Israel. Looking at the edit history I was able to track down the removal of both "anti-communism" and "anti-imperialism" from the infobox to a single edit on October 14th, 2023 at 4:01AM (https://imgur.com/a/w4IyY5E) with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE as the cited reason. As my description shows, this edit was reverted (https://imgur.com/a/5qxRkU6), so apparently anti-communism was removed again somewhere down the line maybe for a different reason. Your memory is accurate: Hamas is most definitely still anti-communist despite temporary alliance with the PFLP during a Israeli offensive and there used to be a link to a political science journal paper called "The Origins of Hamas: Militant Legacy or Israeli Tool?" by Jean-Pierre Filiu (https://imgur.com/a/PekwKNy) in the footnotes to support this infobox link; the problem is on the Hal Portal for Political Sciences, apparently the file has been taken down or perhaps never uploaded? (See "No File" here: https://imgur.com/a/3vPbAxn) while over at Taylor & Francis Online, the article is behind a $53 paywall (https://imgur.com/a/jV9Ps5r). One thing removing "Anti-Communist" from "ideologies" could accomplish in theory is to remove a certain cognitive dissonance western/American readers might have when reading this article. The United States fought Vietnam over communism so some readers might be confused as to why Hamas is "anti-communist" when the west's enemies are typically opposed on the basis of their support for communism. Instead of being introduced to the nuance that anti-communist groups can also be terroristic or "bad guys", without the link these readers may just assume Hamas IS communist given that they are 1. enemies of Israel & the west and 2. "anti-imperialist" (which would be in the center of a venn diagram between the two, Hamas and Communists) as still properly listed in the infobox. I don't think it's fair that the way it's looking right now, someone would have to cough up $53 to get this very basic piece of information back onto a public online encyclopedia and even then you gotta wonder if anyone here would even care that a college kid, probably with no job or income, forked over $53 of money they don't have just to read a source and cite a specific passage to reinstate the infobox link here or would it just be another case of an editor with more authority cherrypicking and stretching some irrelevant Wikipedia policy to weakly rationalize the censorship even after the $53 was spent? It could also just be an accident though, so out of respect I won't speculate any further. Unless Hamas does something truly in the realm of endorsing socialist or communist politics, this remains a lie of omission by Wikipedia in my mind. Jester6482 (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Have you read the WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES section at the top of this page? If so, why are you not complying with it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Because I probably started this thread before that warning was put into effect and I am clicking my notifications inbox which brings me directly to the comment for which I got a notification, skipping past any and all warnings that may have been added to the top of the page. Why are we assuming I'm even breaking the rules at all, let alone on purpose when this thread is in fact an edit request to put "anti-communist" back under ideologies here? If this is referring to my CAREFUL use of the word "terroristic", then I can put a different word. Otherwise I don't know what you're talking about and don't appreciate the accusation. See: Wikipedia:Postulate absence of malice Jester6482 (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC) "Unless Hamas does something truly in the realm of endorsing socialist or communist politics, this remains a lie of omission by Wikipedia in my mind" Doesn't mean that if they do not endorse them then they are against them. Abo Yemen✉ 10:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove Turkey from the list of Hamas state allies

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that he was only on the side of the Palestinian people. It did not provide any military aid to Hamas. He invited the parties to a ceasefire. You need to remove Turkey from the list. 149.140.105.75 (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with him, can someone remove Turkey because there is really no help to Hamas? 24.133.152.195 (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Reinstating subsection ‘Policies and attitudes towards Israel’

The topic of this now restored subsection (recently the part of section ‘Political and religious positions’ until the start of subsection ‘Hudna proposals’) has since its inception on 11 Apr 2023 always been: policies and attitudes [of Hamas] towards Israel – though it never yet fully bore that name. The last title it had (‘Two-state solution’) was not fully right (the subsection covered more options than that) but was removed on 10 Dec and not replaced by a new name; possibly to have an excuse to move this subsection back to the top position within section “Political and religious positions” where it had been expelled earlier by another colleague. I don’t have a strong preference as to the following order of subsections here, but I do care for sections and subsections to have clear titles, usefully indicating/demarcating their content.
Next to reinstating a title above the subsection, I’ve organized the already given information chronologically. (The chronologic structure of the subsection had gravely withered away, the subsection had thereby gotten very intransparent and incoherent, except perhaps for a few Wikipedia contributors who regularly edited on it.) While doing so, I noticed some (smaller or larger) mistakes et cetera which I’ve ‘corrected’ in the way and for the reasons I explain here below. Ofcourse, each of these ‘corrections’ stands open for debate and further improvement.
I’ve also integrated the subsection about hudna (slightly summarized) back into (the chronology of) this subsection ‘policies/attitudes towards Israel’: hudna proposals are part of Hamas’s policies/attitudes towards Israel; the Wikipedia visitor may want to speculate about how hudna proposals hang together with other Hamas ‘attitudes’ towards Israel; so I see no strong ground, logic or necessity to keep that information in a separate subsection, outside of the chronology of the rest of the information on this topic.

• In today’s edit, several sentences have been slightly rephrased for clarity or to be more faithful to the text of the given reference source.

• The previously first sentence (Hamas “dominant…force”) needed to be dated (“since 2007”).

• Previous sentence 5 (‘…President of the PNA…’) made a too vague statement (on behalf of author Seurat), I’ve replaced it with more concrete and clear information about the status of PLO and Palestinian President, from the ‘Palestinians’ Prisoners Document’ (2006) itself.

• In sentence 6 (‘Mashal, 2 May 2017’), the explanation of the phrase: “… on the basis of June 4, 1967…” had lost a few essential words, after several edits; I’ve put them back. The date of the press conference is now also corrected, into 1 May 2017.

• As to sentence 7: This statement was not made by Ayoob in his book. Professor Ayoob in his 2020 book wrote (as this Wikipedia article more or less cited until 10Dec2023): “Acceptance of the 1967 borders can be interpreted as a de facto acceptance of the preconditions for a two-state solution”, while only suggesting (not stating!) that such acceptance took place in the 2017 charter. That statement (in its correct citation) seems too vague and hypothetical for this section: this section is about Hamas positions, but Ayoob doesn’t give clear, correct (new) information about any Hamas position. (The 2017 Hamas charter doesn’t speak of any ‘accepting borders’; nobody – not even Ayoob – even contends that the 2017 charter ‘accepts borders’.) If you disagree, please put a (more correct) citation of Prof. Ayoob back into the (sub)section (and please explain the relevance of it).

• Previously third paragraph (‘Whether Hamas…’):
  The third and fourth sentences of this paragraph were drawing conclusions from the ‘fact’ of “Hamas's acceptance of the 1967 borders”, which ‘fact’ however is not prooved or stated anywhere in Wikipedia as to be a fact. In that case, I believe we in Wikipedia cannot draw conclusions from it (as was already noted in a {clarify} tag), so I deleted these sentences. If you disagree, please put the sentences back and tell us, why you disagree, and what the sentences mean (see the {clarify} tag in the now removed version, asking for clarification).

• Previously fourth paragraph (‘In a 2006…’): The second and third sentences of this paragraph were wrongly summarizing the referenced source, so I repaired those statements now.

• The previously tenth paragraph (‘2011, Mishal and Abbas respecting borders’) seemed too vague, so I removed it. “Respecting borders” in this context seems a meaningless statement (as noted in a tag since roughly two weeks: which border exactly is meant, and what exactly does Mishal or Hamas do or not do when they ‘respect’ a border?). If anyone can give clear, substantial information about that Mishal–Abbas–event in 2011, please add it to the article.

• Previously eleventh paragraph (‘February 2012…’) was extensively describing a few weeks of no-direct-violence between Israel and Hamas (in 2012), which I’ve condensed to the essential facts for this (sub)section. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

“Hamas is widely popular in Palestinian society”, our article stated, up until today.

I would very much doubt whether “Hamas is widely popular in Palestinian society…”, as the lead section until today contended. Inhabitants of the Gaza Strip live under totalitarian Hamas regime (“…In the first years of the Intifada, Hamas violence was restricted to Palestinians; collaborators with Israel, and people it defined as "moral deviants"…”, and: even in 1993, long before Hamas dictatorship in Gaza as of June 2007, only 17% of Gazans supported Hamas – both stated in our section Hamas#First Intifada; in 1996, only 3% trusted the Hamas leader (section ‘Oslo years’); torturing of Fatah followers in 2007 (section Hamas#Hamas–Fatah conflict); see also section Hamas#Extrajudicial killings of rivals) where, as in all dictatorships, it would be dangerous for your health to utter anything else than abundant praise for your government.
Now, our article (in lead section) corroborated that claim (“widely popular…”) with four sources. Two of them were press articles from after the start of the 2023–2024 war, which only state that ‘support for Hamas rises’, which is really not the same as saying that it is high (and which rising also is quite logical during a war). Two others were books: Slater 2020, Phillips 2011, which ofcourse I and most of us cannot check. Considering though that it seems rather impossible to proove that civilians truly are fond of the dictatorship they live under, I’d like to see clear citations from those books, for this highly unprobable conclusion. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I questioned that too. I think maybe Palestinian views on Hamas change over time due to circumstances. Here is a report from Oct 25 2023 by Arab Barometer:

https://www.arabbarometer.org/wp-content/uploads/what-palestinians-really-think-of-hamas-2023-10-26-08-4941.pdf Wafflefrites (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2024

Marwan Issa, who was recently confirmed to have been killed by Israel, should also get an X marking his death/assassination, like Saleh Al-Arouri Nextrava (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"two spokesmen, four stances"

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)

Venezuela allied??

Where is the source for this? The only sources listed just show how Venezuela has condemned the actions of Israel, not that they have supported the actions of the Hamas 73.160.109.176 (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

[Edit request] Add Argentina to the list of countries that declared Hamas as a terrorist organization

President Milei has declared Hamas as a terrorist organization multiple times while also supporting Israel.

Here's a link to an article from Clarín, an argentinian news source: https://www.clarin.com/politica/gesto-milei-israel-listo-decreto-declarar-hamas-organizacion-terrorista_0_LavGJmp2y9.html SnowTag (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2024

On third paragraph of the introductory section, someone with the extended protector right could add a hyperlink to the word "2017 Hamas Charter" which upon clicking can lead to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter page. I'm sure some readers would find it useful. Ty. Rhythmic Ocean (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: A previous sentence ("Hamas released a new charter") already links to this article, and we generally do not introduce duplicate links. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Occupation of Gaza

Wikipedia describes occupation as territory actually being placed under the authority of a hostile army. This article states Hamas has been governing since 2007 & that Gaza is Israeli-occupied. Can this sentence be updated to reflect the correct status of which areas Israel currently occupies as of 2007 - such as describing Gaza with an up-to-date word and/or phrase or using a phrase such as "...following occupation by Israel." (A previous edit to the talk page refered to the risk of creating a duplicate link. This is not a suggestion of linking to another article.) Wikchard (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The UN and most human rights organizations continue to consider Gaza to be occupied by Israel as Israel, prior to this latest offensive, controlled Gaza's airspace, territorial waters, population registry, and most border crossings. That, in their view, equated to the exercise of "effective military control" over the territory and as such Gaza remained occupied by Israel. That isn't even in question right now anyway, but even before the invasion by Israeli ground forces the majority view was Israel continues to occupy Gaza. See for example here:

many prominent international institutions, organizations and bodies—including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, UN General Assembly (UNGA), European Union (EU), African Union, International Criminal Court (ICC) (both Pre-Trial Chamber I and the Office of the Prosecutor), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch—as well as international legal experts and other organizations, argue that Israel has occupied Palestinian territories including Gaza since 1967.While they acknowledge that Israel no longer had the traditional marker of effective control after the disengagement—a military presence—they hold that with the help of technology, it has maintained the requisite control in other ways.

nableezy - 14:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No vague, meaningless (and even deceiving) sentences please, in the lead section (about “foreign relations”…)

The lead contains more vague statements that I wanted to address (and still want to), but recently (12 May, 05:49), one more vague sentence was added: the last sentence in paragraph three, about “foreign…relations…Egypt…(etc.)”. Its first five words seem redundant: aren’t (foreign) “relations with Egypt” etc. logically and always part of “foreign policy”? But the sentence ails also in graver respects.

The sentence tells us about “seeking” (frn) relations but not about finding them. Is seeking more important than finding or having? If yes: why? If no: this leads to the conclusion that they have sought, but couldn’t find. But how then did they ‘seek’, concretely? (And why did they not succeed?) ‘Seeking relations’ is only metaphorical (thus vague) language, since ‘relation’ is an abstraction. If Wikipedia can’t tell what Hamas actually concretely did for ‘seeking relations’, except this vague metaphore, this vagueness tells us nothing, really; and a lead section seems not the place for vague idlenesses.

Our section Hamas#Foreign relations however tells us, among much more, that a Hamas minister has “visited (…) Syria”, etc. etc., so Hamas' ‘foreign relations’ actually existed and perhaps still exist. In that obvious case, it is misleading to tell the readers in the lead section only about “seeking” frgn relations but concealing that Hamas indeed also has, or had, such relations. A Wikipedia article however shouldn’t be used for such deception of our reading public. So, please, colleague @Vice regent (and others), either replace this vagueness with serious and highly relevant information, worthy for a place in the lead section, or expect at some moment, sooner or later, this sentence to be deleted. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest you be WP:BOLD and rewrite the sentence based on the information in the Foreign Relations section. Alaexis_¿question? 19:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Corriebertus:, no one is attempting to "deceive" anyone, please WP:AGF and refrain from making WP:Personal attacks. I don't see much of a difference between Hamas has sought and Hamas has maintained foreign relations, but I'm happy to change it to maintained foreign relations.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I find "sought out" to be a better choice because it reflects Hamas's choices and strategic aims. Baconi for example stated (I can't recall the page but I can dig it) that since a long time Hamas has been eager to get Saudi diplomatic and political and support, but the Saudis didn't always reciprocate that interest. Likewise, many sources have said that Hamas, given Gaza's geography, has strongly emphasized good relations with Egypt, although Egyptian interest in relations with Hamas has fluctuated. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2024

The image of the emblem, File:Emblem of Hamas Vector Graphic.svg, which is currently in the main infobox should be replaced with the locally uploaded File:Emblem of Hamas.svg as the former was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, posing a potential copyright violation as it conveys the same meaning of the emblem.

The new image is a vectorization of the emblem frequently seen in Hamas speeches, which means it is more official: [1], [2]

The previous infobox image appears to be more stylistic rather than official.

Bambobee (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Why was Turkey removed?

there is a whole article that states that Turkey supports Hamas - Turkish support for Hamas. The most recent article about this: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-leader-visit-turkey-talks-with-erdogan-2024-04-17/ Turkey is defenitely a Hamas ally. RAMSES$44932 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the allies and enemies listing is helpful, given the complex nature of various relationships. Eg this report[3] which was later denied by Turkey. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Can we add images of the militants in green headbands?

Images should serve to enhance the understanding of an article's subject. I think that there should be images of the Hamas militants wearing green headbands with their faces obscured by a black mask, along the lines of the leading image in this WSJ article. It is a visual that is strongly associated with Hamas, and it should be included in the article. I don't have experience with adding images to articles and dealing with image use policies, so I do not know which image to use, hence why I am not submitting this as a formal edit request. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2
• 
  Option 3

These are the only images I was able to find on commons of Hamas militants wearing the green headband, although there are a lot of results under "Hamas" that I didn't search through so others may exist. I think Option 3 is what you are looking for, although 1 and 2 may come in handy here or in other articles. BilledMammal (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Organizational issues

Corriebertus, with all due respect, I disagree with how you are organizing the article. For example, I disagree with your recent organization of the foreign policy section. Wikipedia:Summary style calls for each subsection to contain a summary of a sub-topic. So "Foreign relations" should contain a summary of Hamas' foreign relations and full treatment should be given in another article. Prior to your edits, there was indeed a summary, but I agree that it was a terrible summary. In your edit, you removed the summary altogether.

The summary is important not just for organizational reasons but also because certain things are connected to one another. Take a simple example. Previously the section summary said:

After winning the Palestinian elections, Hamas leaders made multi-national diplomatic tours abroad. In April 2006, Mahmoud al-Zahar (then foreign minister) visited Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kuwait, Bahrein, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Sudan and Egypt.

With your reorganization, we would cover this information like this:

Syria

In 2006, Mahmoud al-Zahar (then foreign minister) visited Syria.

Qatar

In 2006, Mahmoud al-Zahar (then foreign minister) visited Qatar.

...and so on. In your organization theme, where everything is broken down by countries, a particular foreign policy theme that spans across countries is lost.

I hope you will engage me in constructive dialogue on how to best organize this article which is already too long.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Vice regent: for discussing this point, here. I (still) consider section ‘Foreign relations’ (very) intransparent, unstructured etc.. But that does not mean, that my attempted ‘improvement’ on 20 May was good enough; in retrospect, it seems to have been perhaps a little overhasty (not necessarily for all the reasons you mentioned here). --Corriebertus (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

edit request on 26 May 2024

In the criticism section it says that the European Parliament started the 2023 Israeli-Hamas war. This is untrue. GingerNinja2711 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2024

2001:1970:52E9:4C00:F0D1:F193:97CE:EB37 (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
In section two (2) "History" the claim:  Israel responded by invading Gaza Strip and killing 35,000 Palestinians, majority of them women and children. needs to be cited or removed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-69014893.amp

There are lots of sources, BBC is a good choice as it can’t be accused of favouring Palestine. Not sure why you’d want it removed. Even with the unidentified remains skewing the demographics, the majority of identified victims are still women and children. KittyBukowski (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done removed as unsourced. Also poorly written. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 13:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Typo? Or misinformation?

“The charter is said to echoe Nazi propaganda in claiming that Jews profited during World War II” - spelling mistake of echo aside, the Nazis did not spread propaganda claiming Jews profited during World War 2. Why would they? It would make them look incompetent given they were in charge. They also did not spread propaganda following the second world war, since they were either in hiding or on trial.

I know they spread the “stab in the back” myth about the first world war, so maybe WW2 was a typo, but if so it just needs editing with a source about Nazi propaganda that specifically claims Jewish people profited from that war.

Or, if the typo was using “Nazi” instead of “Neo Nazi” then same goes.

But if it was meant as is, it’s categorically false. The Nazis never would have claimed that Jewish people were benefiting as a result of their actions.

KittyBukowski (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

During WWII Nazi Propaganda did accuse Jews of profiteering. These false accusations were done as part of their efforts to portray Jews as the enemy of the German people, and to dehumanize them to facilitate the Holocaust. BilledMammal (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Islamic Salvation Party" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Islamic Salvation Party has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 15 § Islamic Salvation Party until a consensus is reached. Anonymous 20:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

References for casualties being "vastly" comprised of non-combatants

Only 1 of the 3 references provided actually includes the qualifier "vastly", while the others only mention the estimated number.

If this article must to mention civilian casualties in the latest conflict, it should defer to sources in the more relevant article, Israel–Hamas war, which includes a news article with a quote from a WHO spokesman that estimates a 56% civilian casualty rate, which is not a percentage compatible with the usage of "vastly".

I propose removing the 3 news sources in this article and replacing them the source from the Israel–Hamas war article. Tog000 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The only source for "vast majority" seems to be Anadolu Agency, which WP:RSP says is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Turkish government that engages in propaganda, owing to its state-run status. More neutral sources also use slightly broader language like "killed during the war" rather than "Israel killed".

I'll just remove the extraordinary claim for now, but no objection if someone wants to add that milder claim with the other source. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Not an extraordinary claim. Even with down revision >50% of the casualties are women and children[4].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2024

Remove Venezuela from the list of state allies in the infobox. Neither of the two sources referenced verify this claim, and it was originally added by a user who is now blocked. Kinsio (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Got approved for extended-confirmed so I did it myself :) Kinsio (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2024

This claim has no basis in history and seeing as it lacks a source should be removed. "campaigned for the wearing of the hijab, which is not a part of traditional women's attire in Palestine,[citation needed]" The photo for who Khalil Raad is the source in this link (https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/5/15/the-photo-archive-bringing-pre-nakba-jerusalem-alive) shows a primary example of a Palestinian women in traditional dress wearing hijab. Numerous other photos exist, but a simple Google search explains that hijab was worn by Palestinian women traditionally and varied by social status and class. Tamush05 (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 June 2024

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 [5]).

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2024

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

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)

Conflicting estimates of size of Qassam Brigades

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)

Notified: Talk:Al-Qassam Brigades. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 20:27, 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)

The first paragraph of 1988 and 2017 charters > 1988 > Antisemitism should be reworded

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

−

The 1988 Hamas charter is said, November 2023, to "mandate(s) the killing of Jews".[230] The "governing" 1988 charter of Hamas was said, in 2018, to "openly dedicate(s) Hamas to genocide against the Jewish people", referring to the Hamas 1988 charter, article 7.[231] More authors have characterized the violent language against all Jews in the original Hamas charter as genocidal,[232] incitement to genocide,[233][234] or antisemitic.[235][236] The charter attributes collective responsibility to Jews, not just Israelis, for various global issues, including both World Wars.[237]

+

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

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

@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"[6] then it would be good if you can find a source for it?VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

"two spokesmen, four stances"

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)

Summarizing Hamas' policies towards two-state solution

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.

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)

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005

“facts are stubborn things” -John Adams

It’s honestly insane that people are still trying to claim that Israel was in Gaza after 2005 even though it factually wasn’t. We truly live in a post-truth society. Wow. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You have a false premise and are missing some pertinent facts. See Gaza_Strip#Israeli_occupation for example. Since you are not a registered user with extendedconfirmed privileges, you are limited to making edit requests. See the Warning: active arbitration remedies section at the top of this page. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Link "Political Bureau" to article "Politburo"

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)

Lead

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2024

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)

List of leaders of Hamas and their pages

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

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

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)

Neutrality

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 [[7]] [[8]][[9]]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)

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 [[10]] 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 [[11]] 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 [12]] Is this revert [[13]] by Hemiauchenia still count as one revert ? Astropulse (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain your objection [[14]] 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)

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)

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)

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)

<- 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)

GS

@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. [15] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I have restored it AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thomas de Maiziere

please change ((Thomas de Maiziere)) to ((Thomas de Maizière)) 97.103.116.88 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Potentially controversial revert

Was this revert justified? AlexBobCharles (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Very long

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)

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.

Mentioning Israel-Hamas war crimes in the lead

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)

Infobox collapsible lists

@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)

Gaza was not occupied

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)

Calling Hamas a terrorist group

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

Rewording in support section.

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)

Thanks! MrMcOrange (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Superfluous "sources" section?

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)

Several of them are used to support short citations. Removing the lot causes Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. I'll have a look at removing those that aren't. DuncanHill (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler: I've removed those which aren't used for short citations. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@DuncanHill thanks for that. Much appreciated. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2024

Hamas is now for 2 state solution Vegetapower (talk) 07:52, 24 August 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. Skitash (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Make Israel's aid to Hamas more prominent

The fact that Israel aided Hamas and its predecessor in its early stages should be made more prominent in the article, since this is an essential part of its creation and rise to prominence. I could only find this mentioned in the linked article History of Hamas, buried under "Early Islamic activism in Gaza". I believe this fact should be mentioned in the lead of the main article on Hamas instead. The aiding of Hamas by Israel is not disputed, with multiple credible sources confirming it.

Sources:

- The Hundred Years' War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi, page 223: "Notably, Hamas, founded in 1987 (and initially discreetly supported by Israel with the objective of weakening the PLO)..."

- Israel gave major to aid to Hamas by Richard Sale (UPI, 24 Feb, 2001): "Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years. Israel 'aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO,' said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies."

I propose changing the following sentence in the lead: "It emerged from his 1973 Mujama al-Islamiya Islamic charity affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood." to something like: "It emerged from his 1973 Mujama al-Islamiya Islamic charity affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, with direct and indirect aid from Israel since the late 1970s." - citing the sources I mentioned above, plus the existing source already cited for that sentence (How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas by The Wall Street Journal). Jmerhar (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added it to the History section. Not sure about the lede. This is certainly an interesting fact which might not be known to everyone but I'm not sure that it's lede-worthy, after all more than 35 years have passed since then. How much weight do sources that tell the history of Hamas give to it?

Also, some sources hold that Israel also supported Hamas in a way prior to this war (Qatari money, work permits, etc), so maybe the lede should have a more general statement about the relationship. Alaexis_¿question? 19:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, Israel continued to facilitate funding of Hamas (with Qatari money) until 2021, long after they had designated them a terrorist organisation in 1989. However it could be argued that this was for humanitarian purposes, since Hamas was the de jure government of Gaza at the time.

The early funding on the other hand, was with the explicit intent of strengthening the organisation in order to divide the Palestinians (between Fatah and Hamas), and because they believed Hamas would torpedo any peace negotiations.

I do believe sources give quite some weight to this. For example, the UPI article states "Funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel, according to U.S. intelligence officials.", making it sound like Israel was a significant source of funds, on par with the oil-producing states.

The article goes on to say "But with the triumph of the Khomeini revolution in Iran, with the birth of Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorism in Lebanon, Hamas began to gain strength in Gaza and then in the West Bank, relying on terror to resist the Israeli occupation.

Israel was certainly funding the group at that time. One US intelligence source who asked not to be named, said that not only was Hamas being funded as a "counterweight" to the PLO, Israeli aid had a more devious purpose: to help identify and channel towards Israeli agents Hamas members who were dangerous terrorists." Jmerhar (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead section - Hamas "governs parts of the Israeli-occupied gaza strip" since 07

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)

As a straightforward edit request I suggest removing "Israeli-occupied" from the sentence.

That's because the sentence in its current form communicates to the reader that Israeli forces have been present in Gaza since 2007, which is false. EvgenyBen (talk) 19:12, 26 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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2024

The article "Hamas" contains scant references to the long term support Israel has provided for Hamas. Wikipedia has an entry, "Israeli support for Hamas" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas> which I think should be included under the "See also" heading in the Hamas article. ColdBay (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Bunnypranav (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

commented out source / unsourced / synthesis

Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 08:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@User:Ben Azura please look more carefully before your roll back, and please undo that roll back if you see this before other changes. If the commented-out source was relevant, it seems to have become detached from what it applied to? If it's supposed to support Al Qassam targeting civilians then it needs to be verified to check it actually says that. It contained a quote about the reverse situation, the quote was about the IDF targeting Palestinian civilians (and Hamas being accused of using this to their own advantage). Dupret, Baudouin; Lynch, Michael; Berard, Tim (2015). Law at Work: Studies in Legal Ethnomethods. Oxford University Press. p. 279. ISBN 9780190210243. "[It has been alleged that] Hamas cynically abuses its own civilian population and their suffering for propaganda purposes.' The source wasn't used anywhere else, so presumably the quote related to its only use? That doesn't support any of the text preceding it: Hamas has attacked Israeli civilians, including using suicide bombings, as well as launching rockets at Israeli cities. On 2023 October 7, Hamas launched an attack against Israel, marking an escalation in the longstanding conflict. During this assault, Hamas fighters killed 1,139 people and took approximately 250 Israeli civilians and soldiers as hostages. 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. In 2018, a motion at the United Nations to condemn Hamas was rejected.[m][96][97] But even if an unquoted part of the source mentions Al Qassam targeting Israeli civilians, that is not what I removed. I removed, "due to its militant activities and attacks on civilian targets", from: 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.{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.{{cn| reason = "due to" is synth }}{cn| reason = "due to" is synth }} As I said in the reason for the cite needed, we can't say the terrorist designation is due to them targeting civilians, when we only have cites to support that they target civilians, that's WP:synth. We don't have to put the citation in the intro, but it doesn't seem to be covered anywhere below? and I didn't remove any of the text directly about them targeting civilians, this was all still there: Hamas has attacked Israeli civilians, including using suicide bombings, as well as launching rockets at Israeli cities. On 2023 October 7, Hamas launched an attack against Israel, marking an escalation in the longstanding conflict. During this assault, Hamas fighters killed 1,139 people and took approximately 250 Israeli civilians and soldiers as hostages.. FourPi (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC) This makes sense, @Ben Azura, can you provide a more detailed explanation here? I don't understand your edit summary. Alaexis¿question? 08:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC) I reverted with an edit summary because it was a good faith edit. Even though finding sources that Hamas is designated a terrorist organization because it attacks civilians is completely trivial it is more difficult to find unambigious sourcing for the circumstances surrounding the designation in 1987, and we could quibble about "targets" . Many say the attacks are indiscriminate. Removing only the word "targets" is all that is needed to fix this. This series of edits did not stop with removing the word "targets" or adding a synth tag. They also removed the paragraph about terrorist designation from the lede. I don't think there would be a consensus to remove this from the lede. The commented-out source is relevant to the subject of the paragraph overall, which is the terrorist designation. The text should be updated and expanded. One high quality source we could add is https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-road-to-october-7-hamas-long-game-clarified/ Consider this quote from the conclusion of the West Point CTC article: Looking back at the Hamas governance project in Gaza, it is clear the group remained committed to engaging in terrorist activity, and indeed it prioritized militancy over other activities at the expense of the Gaza Strip’s civilian population. These changes were not improvements in my view but I won't contest it if someone else finds these changes to be of value and restores them. Ben Azura (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Change in Lead

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.

---

Please change “It has governed the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip since 2007.” to “It has governed the Gaza Strip since 2007.” as Israel has not occupied the Gaza Strip since 2005. Additionally, the source (Al Jezeera) is not acceptable for Israel-Palestine material on Wiki Wikipedia:Reliable sources 71.179.129.209 (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: One, you need to provide sources, two, you appear to have misread WP:RS/PS with regards to Wikipedia:ALJAZEERA. ⸺(Random)staplers 20:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is a source: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/shadow-of-israels-pullout-from-gaza-hangs-heavy-10-years-on-idUSKCN0QF1QQ/

That is extremely surprising that Al Jezeera is used for Israel-Palestine conflict and probably contributes to why Wikipedia has such a poor reputation. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of AJs reliability, Gaza is broadly recognised as still occupied by scholarly sources and by the UN. Yr Enw (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Please cite these “scholarly sources” as Gaza has not been occupied by Israel since 2005. If you are talking about the blockade that started in 2007 after Hamas took over the Gaza Strip (which many consider not an occupation, especially since it seemed to have little effect on what was smuggled into the Gaza Strip), the article lead is still incorrect. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/abs/status-of-gaza-as-occupied-territory-under-international-law/654DB8FE844ED96C47AAA3B213D438F0

https://academic.oup.com/jcsl/article-abstract/15/2/211/785186 Yr Enw (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The question was rhetorical as you made an “appeal to authority fallacy.” Many scholarly sources (and indeed the US, Uk, etc.) would characterize Hamas as a terrorist group as well, however (to my understanding) it is Wiki policy not to label groups as “terrorist” since the term is politically charged. Calling Gaza “Israeli-Occupied” is very much politically charged, just like the “scholarly sources” you cited. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Again, I can see your argument, but you really have to get into the habit of citing your sources, because contradictions between sources here, as I said below, is a problem.

Walking on eggshells. Contradictory sources. This is why most of us don't really want to edit ARBPIA (and probably contributes to its quality problems...) ⸺(Random)staplers 21:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for not including sources. I remember these events happening. Here is a source: https://www.axios.com/2023/10/21/gaza-strip-israel-hamas-war-demographics

I appreciate that this is a controversial topic and I should take more care when requesting changes. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

If you see citing sources as an Appeal to Authority fallacy, you don’t really belong on WP, because the basis of WP is using authoritative sourcing to determine verifiability of the information we put on here. Yr Enw (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

No, you are trying to push someone’s opinion as fact. Gaza is not physically occupied by Israel since 2005 and it is the opinion of many that it is occupied at all. The opinion of “scholars” is just that, an opinion. Trying to argue it deserves more weight because it comes from a “scholar” is the appeal to authority fallacy. The basis of WP is about determining credible sources (as some may be factually incorrect), not about which opinion is most compelling (and certainly not about which comes from the most esteemed “scholar”). 71.179.129.209 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• For the benefit of those reading this talk page, I'll point out that, aside from the four options I presented below for changing the phrasing, we still haven't talked about Wikilinks, let alone what citations to put in?
• No matter. I'm not willing to refocus the conversation again if no one is able to refocus themselves. It's a waste of volunteer time, especially for this contentious topic.⸺(Random)staplers 16:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Provide a literature review supporting your assertion then, if you don’t think those sources reflect the weight of scholarly opinion. Yr Enw (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Okay, that's uncalled for. We already heard you.

But in any case, I still haven't gotten a response to my four options to the edit request today, so I'm going to close and leave some advice for future editors. ⸺(Random)staplers 01:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• I read up some more, and I'm kinda shocked at what happened to the fifth prime minister... is it any wonder why no one wants to edit this?

• Anyways, let's refocus here. If you read the article, the politically charged term is used throughout. But this is about settlements, and... I assume you have evidence that it is not the case, right?⸺(Random)staplers 00:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  The settlements in Gaza were removed in 2005. There are still settlements in the West Bank (that is why it is commonly called “Occupied West Bank”) but not in Gaza. It is contentious to call Gaza “Occupied Gaza” since it is not occupied by Israel (although there is a blockade which some argue is an occupation, but of course that is not “agreed upon by scholars” and is rejected by many; and the blockade only started after Hamas was elected). I think it should at least say alleged occupation.

  https://www.axios.com/2023/10/21/gaza-strip-israel-hamas-war-demographics 71.179.129.209 (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Now, if you'll forgive me, there appears to be another sticking point. Let's pull up the UN document linked below, dated 5 September 2023: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n23/260/71/pdf/n2326071.pdf

  On page 18: V. Recurring escalations of hostilities in Gaza
  48. Israeli security forces have carried out repeated military incursions and aerial attacks in Gaza prior to and since Israel launched its disengage ment plan in 2005. Israeli security forces carried out at least five large-scale military operations (2006, 2008–2009, 2012, 2014 and 2021) through ground incursions and/or heavy artillery shelling and air-to-surface missile attacks in one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Israeli security forces have also conducted targeted air-strike campaigns with the objective of killing specific persons associated with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (including in 2012, 2019, 2022 and 2023). Violence has recurred periodically at the land and sea borders of Gaza, including during the 2018 Great March of Return protests along the perimeter fence.
  49. These incursions and attacks are directly linked to the larger context of the Israeli occupation and the blockade of Gaza. etc, etc.

  It appears the UN considers a military incursion to be an occupation.

  So, for the edit request, I'm counting four possible edits here:

  1. Keep the same: It has governed the Israeli-occupied Gaza strip since 2007, but update the inline citations.

  2. Initial request: It has governed the Gaza strip since 2007

  The next edits place emphasis on the UN's declaration (our source), and are preferable, IMO:

  3. It has governed the UN-declared[citation] occupied Gaza strip since 2007

  4. It has governed the UN-declared[citation] Israeli-occupied Gaza strip since 2007

  Any opinions?⸺(Random)staplers 03:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  In my opinion, it seems unnecessary (and therefore political) to add the qualifier since that is not what the article is about. It also doesn’t seem consistent since Hamas does not include the qualifier that it is a US-designated terrorist organization. It would also not be correct, as there would be a period of time where Hamas governed Gaza that was not “occupied” by Israel since the blockade started after Hamas’s takeover. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'll wait for other opinions to roll in, but... I have to wonder where this leaves this edit request. Maybe UN comments should be later added for consistency, later, I don't know. By all means, add your own edit request you think is best. ⸺(Random)staplers 05:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

---

 Question: I've looked at the inline citations, and these are the sources in dispute:

• https://books.google.com/books?id=Yfl0DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT22#v=onepage&q&f=false
• https://web.archive.org/web/20231008152411/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/8/what-is-the-group-hamas-a-simple-guide-tothe-palestinian-group
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/1/26/hamas-wins-huge-majority

Looking at the Al-Jazeera source, it looks like one of the references dates from when Al Jazeera English was new (founded in 2006), so presumably, the editorial controls might not have been entirely set up yet.

I'm not sure what role the book serves for the inline citation there...

As for the international perspective, while we can't cite it directly, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/gaza-israel-occupied-international-law/ provides helpful links to UN, EU, AU, and ICC reports.

Here's a pertinent report I found from the above link: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n23/260/71/pdf/n2326071.pdf

What's your opinion on these sources, IP? This isn't my main area of editing, so I'm relying on all of you to make the calls. ⸺(Random)staplers 18:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• For those who are unfamiliar with ARBPIA articles, contradictions between sources (even normally reliable sources, as seen above) are common, which is why this edit request is so protracted. Plus, the fact some of these sources are years old, plus concerns about sourcing being too close to a news outlet's founding (Al Jazeera English), etc.⸺(Random)staplers 18:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The Atlantic Council article seems like a reasonable summary, i.e. the majority of international opinion. There's at least a significant minority which says the occupation ended in 2005, e.g. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. I think this means we're in opinion territory, where WP:WIKIVOICE shouldn't be used. I also think this topic (the legal status of Gaza) shouldn't be shoehorned into the second sentence, where there's no room for nuance.

As an aside, @71.179.129.209: per WP:PIA rules, technically you shouldn't be commenting here besides edit requests, which are supposed to be uncontroversial. You should probably hold off on discussing this further until you're extended-confirmed. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

In case this helps: per one of the latest ICJ reports (page 30) for the purpose of determining whether a territory remains occupied under international law, the decisive criterion is not whether the occupying Power retains its physical military presence in the territory at all times but rather whether its authority “has been established and can be exercised” [...] the Court considers that Israel remained capable of exercising, and continued to exercise, certain key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip, including control of the land, sea and air borders, restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone, despite the withdrawal of its military presence in 2005. This conclusion was also welcomed by the OHCHR and mentioned by multiple RS like The Guardian, NYT and BBC. - Ïvana (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

Change chief of the Hamas Political Bureau presented a new Charter, in which to chief of the Hamas Political Bureau, presented a new Charter, in which Nasopanic (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 17:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2024

Change occupied Israeli territory of gaza strip to gaza strip 74.98.200.210 (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Gaza is an Israeli occupied territory