Talk:Hamas/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

incitement to genocide

First off, the New Yorker piece, in a paper talking about Amos Oz and Rashid Khalidi, says the following:

If you take an interest in the war in Gaza, you should read the Hamas charter, but Oz sums up its biggest idea handily enough: “It says that the Prophet commands every Muslim to kill every Jew, everywhere in the world.” If Khalidi has a problem with this, he keeps it to himself. While Oz has no problem saying that Israel’s violent occupation is unjust to Palestinians and endangers its own people, Khalidi refuses to acknowledge that Hamas exists to end Israel’s existence and thrives on Palestinian wretchedness. In the heat of his moral condemnation of Israel—and of America for supporting Israel against Hamas—the hardest line that he will allow himself against Gaza’s categorically genocidal leadership is that “we may not like” it. What would he lose to say that we must not?

That says Hamas has a genocidal leadership, which a. attributes that to Oz, and b. actually says Hamas has a genocidal leadership. But the piece, which yes is in the News Desk, but the News Desk of the New Yorker is mostly analysis, is thoroughly opinion. Second, Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic, a former IDF soldier and emphatic pro-Israel voice is being used as a "some commentators" in an article on an enemy of Israel. Imagine my saying "Israel has been considered by some commentators to be engaged in genocide" and citing an Iranian president. Thats absurd. nableezy - 07:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Unless multiple human rights bodies have made the "incitement to genocide" charge, or a case to the same effect has been filed in an international court, it's fairly vacuous chatter one way or another. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention the undue MEMRI material (MBFC says "Overall, we rate MEMRI a Questionable source based on the promotion of Israeli propaganda, poor sourcing, and a few failed fact checks." plus the "translations" are over 10 years old anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Media Bias Fact Check isn't considered reliable on Wikipedia from what I remember. XeCyranium (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The New Yorker doesn’t attribute it to Oz, it’s in the New Yorker’s own voice. Both the Atlantic and the New Yorker are highly reliable sources Drsmoo (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The New Yorker is clearly opinion, it is making an argument throughout, and further isnt even focused on Hamas but on a spat between two other academics. And it says "but Oz sums up its biggest idea handily enough" then proceeds. And as far as the Atlantic, the idea that a former IDF soldier who is among the most pro-Israel commentators in America should be used for a factual statement on an enemy of Israel is asinine. nableezy - 15:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It is the New Yorker’s voice. And if we’re going to remove all reliable sources that have an opinion we won’t have any sources. Otherwise it’s just WP:IJDLI Drsmoo (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, incitement to genocide is a technical, legally defined term not mentioned in the New Yorker piece ... Is it in the Atlantic one? Because otherwise this language is WP:SYNTH . Iskandar323 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Described as genocidal would be fine Drsmoo (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

No, using opinion pieces that do not reflect widely held views is a violation of WP:UNDUE, and using somebody who has repeatedly stated his emphatic pro-Israel position, along with serving in its military, for a claim about an enemy of Israel is likewise UNDUE (and silly). nableezy - 16:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Um excuse me TimothyBlue, you have the BRD wrong here. There was bold edit, I reverted it, and you are re-reverting it. Per WP:ONUS, the onus for consensus is for inclusion. Kindly self-revert. nableezy - 16:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Your edit summary is also non-sensical, each of the policies and essays you give as reasons are opposed to your restoration. nableezy - 16:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Content is well sourced and uses NPOV wording to describe a widely held view. If there are other views, they can be included as well as long as they do not provide FALSEBALANCE.  // Timothy :: talk  17:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not widely held, it is a couple of opinions that is undue here. nableezy - 17:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It is widely held Drsmoo (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If that were true youd be able to get sources besides obvious opinion pieces and highly biased authors. nableezy - 18:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion Whenever opinions are presented, their degree of acceptance should be mentioned. Furthermore, saying ""some commentators" is a clear violation of WP:WEASEL. And opinions expressed in articles in the New Yorker are not necessarily the opinions of the publication. It's a magazine after all that prints articles by people with various opinions. TFD (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  What exactly are you voting over? The analysis itself or those particular sources? Drsmoo (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I amended my post. TFD (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Countries listed for terrorism designation

The list of countries that do or do not consider Hamas a terrorist group listed in the lead seem a little arbitrary. Could we come up with some sort of standard for which countries' stances to mention, and document that in a hidden comment? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

How dare you not define it as a terror organization?

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.

---

You should be ashamed. Fucking idiots. Rotems119 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, many people like myself think it's a resistance organization. Wikipedia needs a neutral stance. Militant is neutral. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:99E:FEA5:8AE0:C84 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Well many countries rightfully see it as the terrorist organization that it is, like ISIS. In fact, they’re broadcasting videos of their members killing hostages like ISIS did. Hamas is a terrorist group by objective standards, they attacked a concert and murdered civilians to advance their cause. That’s the definition of terrorism. 2600:4041:78DE:3C00:3C1D:E840:4A26:D700 (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

What about the Wikimedia article for ISIS which states that it is a terrorist group? “Terrorist” is not only neutral but more importantly it is accurate, in both cases. 2600:4041:78DE:3C00:3C1D:E840:4A26:D700 (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2023 (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.

Khaled Mashaal stepped down in 2017

for the section in the header reading "Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashaal are based in Qatar."

according to his wikipedia page, Khaled Mashaal stepped down in 2017 after reaching his term limit RedAuburn (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks. Fixed. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Add acronym for PNA where it is first used

In the first paragraph, the reference to Palestinian National Authority should include the acronym used later in the article, i.e. "It also holds a majority in the parliament of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA)." -Ethan (talk) • 2023-10-08 19:47 (UTC) 19:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Andumé (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

In "Finances and Funding", paragraph 4:

Change "began cut its funding by cracking down on Islamic charities" to "began to cut its funding by cracking down on Islamic charities" Duckduckgoop (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023 (2)

Under "Terrorist designation":

Change "Japan and New Zealand," to "Japan and New Zealand" Duckduckgoop (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Repetitive wording on ongoing Hamas conflict

The word “operation” is used repetitively:

”Hamas launched a major operation against Israel, considered one of the largest operations against Israel…” Travis2626 (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

More recent polling data for Palestinian views on Hamas

There is an old link in the article showing that 50%+ of Palestinians believe that Hamas is the most deserving party of representing the Palestinian people, but a new poll was released in September showing support for Hamas is only about 30% (see Section 3 of link). The poll was conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research which is the same body cited by the AP in the Hamas article. Can someone with clearance please update the first sentence of the third paragraph to reflect this? Wschreyer (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Wschreyer: Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia thanks! I just double-checked and for some reason it looks like your edit was already taken down? I confirmed it appeared in the article shortly after your reply. Wschreyer (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia nevermind it's back up. Wschreyer (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2023 (2)

Change: "Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh is based in Qatar." To "Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh is based in Qatar."

(Remove the "S" in leaders. Only one leader described in this sentence. ) Uhhhum (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikilink waqf where it is first used

The second use of "waqf" is wikilinked. The first is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.46.48 (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This was fixed at some point. Thanks for pointing it out! Pedantical (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas Website

The Hamas website is not working for me. I need someone else to try on something that is not microsoft edge and see if it works. If it does not then maybe consider removing it 2604:3D09:AF84:5900:5F4:B596:782B:FB2C (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

History of Hamas edit war

The history section of this article is linking to History of Hamas, but there's an edit war going in the History of Hamas article and the history article is not protected unlike this one. Nakonana (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, now the article is protected. That was quick. Thanks and sorry for bringing it up on this talk page instead of the other, but I don't know how to initiate a protection request and thought I'd likely get the necessary attention here to make it happen. Nakonana (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nakonana: In future, the place to ask for protection is WP:RFPP. I suspect that there will be no shortage of articles that will need protection in the near-future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2023

Please mention in the first paragraph that HAMAS is a terror organisation!!!! It has been recognised as one by the UN and there really is no other way to describe an organisation that kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered hundreds of innocent civilians, including children. Please be on the right side of history here. They are no different from ISIS. 93.173.94.73 (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the discussions above on this topic. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Terror organisation is missing from description

WP:NOTFORUM TarnishedPathtalk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why isn’t Hamas described as a terror organisation? In the very first lines. This is not a movement to free Palestin. They use citizens as a humen shield. They are being described all over the modern world as a terror organisation, Wikipedia, it’s time. 2A0D:6FC0:BAC:6300:8DA2:B6D2:E32E:A578 (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Please see the discussions above on this topic, and offer reliable sources to demonstrate that the preponderance of reliable sources use that terminology. See MOS:TERRORIST. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2023 (3)

Hamas wasn’t solely responsible for the “massacre”, people were possibly caught in crossfire (IDF & Hamas), and Yes possibly, cause neither truths were confirmed and there’s no need to lean towards Criminals (Isreal); some previously confirmed deaths in the “peace” festival, were later falsified - wikipedia is citing unconfirmed, Biased information. no massacre has occurred on the hands of Hamas, yet a gruesome massacre - a confirmed, ongoing GENOCIDE is being committed against Actual Innocent civilians, not SETTLERS, not foreigners who Chose to live in a FOREIGN Land, not criminals who lived in luxury while the people of land have been suffering endlessly.

Wikipedia shouldn’t show Any bias, instead show COMPLETE truth, without demonizing the people of the land, the Palestinians.

lastly, inaccurate translation from Arabic to English - showing Clear, shameful bias, probably written by the hands of Zionists.

no link included, cause neither did the current page include any links. blood is on your hands. Ddanaa (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish a consensus before making an edit request. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas's name

WP:NOTFORUM TarnishedPathtalk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
>In Hebrew, there is a similar-sounding word, ḥāmās (חמס) connoting "violence", It does not "connote" violence it "means" violence or theft. This is purely an opinion/conjecture. Please remove: >a phonetic resemblance that possibly helped further Israeli negative perceptions of the movement. As the source says, "...abetted perhaps by its very name..." 74.64.100.6 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)  Removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas being Attacked by US

Apparently, the US is preparing a attack. 2601:603:4940:2D50:58C1:E0F0:21F9:FFB2 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is a terror organization, like ISIS and Boko Haram, and should be described as such like them

ISIS and Boko Haram are both described as the terror groups they are in Wikipedia. Hamas' stated objectives and policies, and actions, show that it is a terror group as well. Wikipedia shouldn't resist accurately describing them as such simply because their main target group is the target of well-established and very active hate ideology and campaigns. Rsol55a (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see the prior discussions on this topic above, as well as MOS:TERRORIST. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Algeria, a allied of Hamas ?

The attributed source simply speaks of the siege of Gaza creating a humanitarian crisis; there is no mention of "Hamas" at any point in the Foreign Ministry's communiqué. Tarek lb (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Terror organization

Hamas being a terrorist organization should be mentioned in the first paragraph. 2A06:C701:4355:4F00:E861:C720:5DE1:B1F6 (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see MOS:TERRORIST as well as the prior discussions on this topic above. The article already states which nations designate Hamas or parts of it terror organizations. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2023

Hamas, a terrorist group,

(add the word "terrorist" 108.48.89.53 (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see MOS:TERRORIST and the discussions above. Tollens (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2023

Isreal is not allies of HAmas Kajazp (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Vandalism removed. -Lemonaka‎ 11:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

“Militiant”

This should be changed to "militant". TahaGhassemi (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@TahaGhassemi:  Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"Overview"

By what right does the overview, a secondary mini lede, exist? Should be removed and the entire article's prose reduced, seems over-explanatory at several points, including, for example, while discussing the history of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas Website

The Hamas website is not working for me. I need someone else to try on something that is not microsoft edge and see if it works. If it does not then maybe consider removing it 2604:3D09:AF84:5900:5F4:B596:782B:FB2C (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Al-Fateh magazine

This section is not supported by sufficiently reliable sources to clearly substantiate either the direct link of this publication to Hamas or its other claims. The only sources present are highly partisan ones. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

The article mentions a military campaign that Hamas waged against Israel on October 7th, making it sound like normal military battles between two countries while what Hamas did is not a normal military campaign but they infiltrated a music festival and murdered and kidnapped hundreds of unarmed youngsters and then infiltrated homes and did the same to babies, elderly and others. That is not a military campaign but a massacre and Wikipedia should update otherwise Wikipedia is supporting terrorism 2A12:A9C0:F4:0:0:0:0:1002 (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Where are the sources? 37.39.187.158 (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. Read the editreq "specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it" and then supply RS to back up the request. Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Rollback

What's the consenus on this rollback? I don't think the edit summary "reverted unexplained edits" is particularly reasonable, given that most edits they were reverting had clearly explained rationales in edit summaries. The main change appears to be the restoration of the criticism section, which @Iskandar323: had largely moved to a separate article, which I do not have a strong opinion about. I don't think the reversion of the lead section to the old version was an improvement. I don't really feel I can edit the lead because that might be construed as a violation of the 1RR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The edits remove notable information about the organization for apparently no reason, @Hemiauchenia:.

Compare the original version here to the revised one here.

The original:

is a Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist and militant organization in Palestine.

becomes:

is an Islamic political and military organization that currently governs the Gaza Strip, one of the two Palestinian territories, the other being the West Bank.

Similar problematic changes occur throughout. The article's quality gets significantly downgraded. KlayCax (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This honestly doesn't seem that problematic of a change to me (though I don't have a strong opinion about either version) "fundamentalism" is pretty vague, and their ideology is better explained further down in the lead. To be honest, looking through most of the changes you reverted they seemed to have improved the article rather than degraded it, or to have at least not really detracted from it. Your rollback also removed notable information about the organization for apparently no reason, like the mention of the massacres during the recent conflict at Hamas#Attacks_on_civilians, and the recent polling numbers of the organisation among Palestinians [1]. Ultimately, this article is probably going to be heavily edited for the duration of this war, and you aren't going to be able to mass-rollback to your preferred version everytime that somebody makes an edit that you don't like. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't mean to come across as hostile. @Hemiauchenia:. I hope you didn't interpret the rollback that way. It was primary focused on the wording of the lead — not the body — although I also feel that some of the information retained by @Iskandar323: should be maintained within the article. That's all. Sunni Islamic fundamentalist is what Hamas is described as in the academic literature.

"Islamic" has been used - like Unitarianism or sede Catholicism within "Christianity" - to describe a whole variety of widely varying beliefs. That's why I have a strong preference for the first version. Would you be okay with "Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist" or something similar being restored into the article? It feels to me like a dramatic loss of information to simply label the organization as simply such. KlayCax (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions about the opening sentence, I'm personally fine with either version, though I see that you were rollbacked again, which means that you can't revert again without being over the 1RR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

A basic summary has been left in the criticism section alongside the link, but anyone is free to expand that summary from the page on the child article. However, the split was very much explained and its reasons obvious, and in fact, the page is arguably still too long (at 95kB readable prose) and in need of further trimming - though simple cuts to the already split history section may be the easiest route for this. Given that we have now already been presented with the irony of a combination of a revert summary citing inadequate explanation and edits with no edit summary, as highlighted in the summary of the revert of the revert, I would highly recommend pre-emptive dialogue on talk as a more collegiate route for any further discussion of recent changes moving forward. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Between the two lead statements, past and present, the second clearly provides more core information, and Hamas' governance of the Gaza Strip is clearly core information that should be in the first sentence per MOS:LEAD, so I would say it's an improvement. This fact is basically central to everything that is going on now, and the reason why the collective punishment of Gaza is being rhetorically justified. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Using Sources that Postdate Terrorist Designation

The sentence: "However, the group's usage of human shields, methods of hostage taking, and history of violence against non-combatants, including massacres of civilian populations, has led to many Western countries and allied nations designating it as a terrorist organization" uses sources that postdate the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. The current conflict should be kept separate from previous conflicts that caused the terrorist designation. Gurgle528 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why the chronology matters here. It's not about when the source was published, but about the contents of the source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the publish date, I'm referring to the date of the events in the sources. The date of the events in the source (Oct 2023) postdate the designation as a terrorist organization by 10-20+ years. Gurgle528 (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gurgle528: Do you have any better sources in mind then? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I think the sentence needs to be changed as it's not accurate. The US DNI does not mention any of the above events happening in the 90s when the US designated it as an FTO. The UK designation, updated in 2021, does not make any mention of anything I listed in the first message either. Canada's listing only mentions suicide bombings and was in 2002. Are you able to find any sources justifying the sentence? Gurgle528 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

So why don't we replace the above sentence with what the sources do mention: "The group's attacks against Israel, including large-scale bombings against civilian targets and small arms attacks, lead Western nations to ..."VR _talk 02:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I’d also mention the rocket attacks as it was a major reason as well Gurgle528 (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Do any sources from the 1990s say that, or do any current sources say that rocket attacks in the 1990s (did they even happen back then?) is why Hamas was designated as terrorist? VR _talk 15:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You’re right, I misread the US source. It’s “since the 1990s” not “in the 1990s”. I think the sentence you provided is fine Gurgle528 (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

2018 UN resolution

Does anyone know where to find the full text of the failed 2018 UN general assembly resolution regarding Hamas rocket attacks? It's unclear to me about whether it specifically mentions the word "terrorist/terrorism". Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is it: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1654199?ln=en

The document mentions "acts of terror" but according to the UN Press, Nikki Haley introduced it as one of the "ugliest cases of terrorism in the world": https://press.un.org/en/2018/ga12101.doc.htm Gurgle528 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist designation table

This table has several issues, but the principle issue is that it seemingly contains a lot of information that has nothing to do with its designation (as a terrorist group or otherwise). I have removed a series of vacuous entries that simply repeat the results of a UN resolution vote on a terrorist designation for Hamas - this material was vacuous because not designating any group as terrorist in nature is the default position of all countries, and also voting against such a motion could mean a number of things not necessarily specific to the group, including general objections to the language, wording or premise of a resolution. Other odd information includes details about, e.g., the Taliban supplying weapons to Hamas - this is presumably intended to imply a degree of alliance, but it is actually unrelated directly to their designation of the group - so is this a table about the group's designation, or a more general table about its friends and foes? That's just one example. There is also the issue of the lack of any key to explain the colour-coding system, forcing readers to deduce the schema by first reading the table. This either needs expounding with a key that actually explains what the table's criteria are, or the table needs splitting into clearer individual tables for actual designations, supporters, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't have any issues if the table is just removed, or trimmed to only include countries designating it a terrorist organisation. It's already covered at List of designated terrorist groups regardless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I was not in fact aware of that list, but yes, that is definitely an infinitely more condensed and clear form of presentation of the actually pertinent information on the subject. I suppose the 'non-designation' material could potentially be moved to the support section or converted into some prose about 'relations'. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

The current page removed the following, which provided important context:

In 1973, Yassin founded the social-religious charity al-Mujama al-Islamiya (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mujama_al-Islamiya) ("Islamic center") in Gaza as an offshoot to the Muslim Brotherhood.[161][162] The Israeli authorities encouraged Yassin's charity to expand as they saw it as a useful counterbalance to the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization).[144][163][164][165] Yitzhak Segev, who was the Israeli military governor of Gaza at the time, recalled that they even funded his charity: "The Israeli government gave me a budget, and the military government gives to the mosques".[166] Israel's religious affairs official in Gaza, Avner Cohen (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avner_Cohen), later regretfully concluded that Hamas was created by Israel. He claimed to have warne d his superiors not to back the Islamists. Israel's early support to Hamas came from its desire to alienate its secular rival, the Palestine Liberation Organization. [167]

Why was this removed? Please restore. 2603:7000:37F0:6C00:8CCB:DABC:16D7:D467 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

wanted to bump this up. Can someone with editing rights put this back in? Why was it removed? 2603:7000:37F0:6C00:8417:1785:79E6:3FBE (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence is in the Hamas#Origins section. The rest was removed by KlayCax in this edit. GoingBatty (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Almost every single change in that edit makes a complete mess. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Clearly consensus against restore. -Lemonaka‎ 11:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

2017 statement on Israel

An editor tried to place in the article this sentence in lead:

In 2017, Hamas agreed to a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, but continued to not recognize Israel.

Whether it actually does this is disputed. Several commentators have argued that this is merely a case of word games.

In fact, the new document differs little from its predecessor. Much like the original, the new document asserts Hamas’s long-standing goal of establishing a sovereign, Islamist Palestinian state that extends, according to Article 2, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and from the Lebanese border to the Israeli city of Eilat—in other words, through the entirety of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. And it is similarly unequivocal about “the right of return” of all Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the 1948 and 1967 wars (Article 12)—which is portrayed as “a natural right, both individual and collective,” divinely ordained and “inalienable.” That right, therefore “cannot be dispensed with by any party, whether Palestinian, Arab or international,” thus again rendering negotiations or efforts to achieve any kind of political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians irrelevant, void, or both. Article 27 forcefully reinforces this point: “There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.”

This is a clear WP: NPOV and WP: Weight issue. KlayCax (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you are violating WP:DUE by removing such a widely discussed aspect of Hamas from the lead. As per WP:NPOV, all significant viewpoints must be included, and below I provide 16 sources that state in 2017 Hamas accepted the 1967 borders.

10 news sources that indicate Hamas accepted the 1967 borders

• NBC News[2]: "For decades, Hamas called for the destruction of Israel. In 2017, 30 years after its founding, the group issued a new charter that appeared to stop short of that goal. The document, known as the Hamas 2017 charter, was the first time the group had shown a willingness to accept a Palestinian state that would fall within the borders that existed in 1967, consisting of the West Bank, Gaza and all of Jerusalem."
• Al-Jazeera[3]: "Hamas has presented a new political document that accepts the formation of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, without recognising the statehood of Israel".
• The Independent[4]: "However, since 2017, Hamas has said it accepts a Palestinian state shaped around the borders of 1967, which existed prior to the war in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip..."
• The Guardian [5]: "n the biggest concession, the new document states that Hamas “considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of 4 June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus”. By implication, the document accepts that there will be another state entity outside these borders, even if it does not mention Israel."
• Reuters[6] "Palestinian Islamist group Hamas supports the establishment of a transitional Palestinian state along the borders from 1967, its leader Khaled Meshaal said on Monday."
• RAND corporation[7]: "The major takeaway is that Hamas is open, at least in principle, to accepting the 1967 borders of a Palestinian state..."
• Wall Street Journal[8]: "Hamas is dedicated to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. It has signaled it is willing to accept a two-state solution based on borders that existed before 1967, but in recent years friction with Israel has steadily grown."
• PBS[9]: In what observers called an attempt to moderate its image, Hamas presented a new document [PDF] in 2017 that accepted an interim Palestinian state along the “Green Line” border established before the Six-Day War but that still refused to recognize Israel.
• India Today[10]: "The organization's 1988 charter called for the establishment of an Islamic state in Palestine, covering the entirety of what is now Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. However, a 2017 policy document suggests a more nuanced stance, acknowledging the possibility of an interim Palestinian state based on 1967 borders."
• Deutsche Welle[11]:"In a new charter announced earlier this year, Hamas dropped its wording of "destroying" Israel and said it would recognize a Palestinian state within the borders created by the 1967 Arab-Israeli war."

Besides the above, there are 6 scholarly sources that also say this, and these constitute the highest quality of sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP:

6 scholarly sources that say Hamas accepted the 1967 borders

• The book The Foreign Policy of Hamas was written by Leila Seurat, a researcher at the prestigious School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences. In it she writes,

Khaled Mesh’al describes the Document of General Principles and Policies published on 1 May 2017 as a new political benchmark for Hamas. Although the recognition of 1967 borders goes back to the Cairo Agreement and the Prisoners Document, respectively, signed in 2005 and 2006 and is an integral part of all intra-

Palestinian agreements signed since then (2007, 2011, 2012, 2014), this document introduces for the first time the recognition as an integral part of the Islamic resistance’s programme, and not simply as a programme shared by the set of

Palestinian political players. page 61-62

Indeed, since 2006, Hamas has unceasingly highlighted its acceptance of the 1967 borders, as well as accords signed by the PLO and Israel. This position has been an integral part of reconciliation agreements between Hamas and Fatah since 2005: the Cairo Agreement in 2005, the Prisoners’ Document in 2006, the Mecca Agreement in 2007 and finally the Cairo and Doha Agreements in 2011 and 2012. Yet these compromises linked to the strict framework of reconciliation agreements between Palestinians had never been displayed as an integral part of Hamas strategy. From 2017 on, Hamas would endorse them as its own political stands and not as simple concessions to Fatah. page 18-19

• Maria Koinova. Diaspora Entrepreneurs and Contested States. Oxford University Press. p. 150.. Author is Professor of International Relations, University of Warwick.

The 2017 Hamas charter accepted a Palestinian state with 1967 borders, but still without recognizing Israel.

• Mohammed Ayoob. The Many Faces of Political Islam, Second Edition. University of Michigan Press. p. 133.

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

• Bjorn Brenner. Gaza Under Hamas. I. B. Tauris. p. 206. Author was a lecturer at Swedish Defence University.

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

• Asaf Siniver (ed.). Routledge Companion to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

The year 2017 saw another significant development inside Hamas...the accept of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, which Hamas hoped would improve its relations with the West.

• Jonathan Zartman. "Conflict in the Modern Middle East:An Encyclopedia of Civil War, Revolutions, and Regime Change". ABC-CLIO. p. 230. Zartman is associate professor at Air Command and Staff College.

Hamas updated its charter in early 2017, accepting the idea of a negotiated two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, implicitly recognizing Israel's right to exist.

So removing this from the lead is wrong. VR _talk 01:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Other academic sources are also skeptical of the statement, however. Stating it unqualified in the lead is heavily problematic. KlayCax (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

If you have post-2017 academic sources please provide them below. I'm open to compromise on the wording, but I don't want it be a case of WP:FALSEBALANCE.VR _talk 02:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I added a more qualified statement "Many scholars reported that Hamas' 2017 charter accepted a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders".VR _talk 04:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

You should state that Hamas is an extreme terror group that supports burning of living civilians, children, beheading of them, raping and kidnapping them. Calling them a liberation front or militants is like calling the Nazi Party “The Hippie Peace and Love Society”.

I’m sure you won’t change a thing in the Wiki page.. but this antisemitism and terror is a thing IDF will stop soon. You can add that 2023 is the last year of Hamas. 2601:8D:8702:ECF0:544C:3B0:7D6E:C1A7 (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Reliable sources to support the change please. Seawolf35 (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair to the IP, I don't think that they need to be called "freedom fighters" in the lead, but I don't think the rest of the complaint has much validity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia I would rather not change it myself since this is very touchy right now. Seawolf35 (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas financed by Qatar with support of Netanyahu governments

Haaretz writes in a recent article "Why Did Netanyahu Want to Strengthen Hamas?": "Between 2012 and 2018, Netanyahu gave Qatar approval to transfer a cumulative sum of about a billion dollars to Gaza, at least half of which reached Hamas, including its military wing. According to the Jerusalem Post, in a private meeting with members of his Likud party on March 11, 2019, Netanyahu explained the reckless step as follows: The money transfer is part of the strategy to divide the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Anyone who opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support the transfer of the money from Qatar to Hamas. In that way, we will foil the establishment of a Palestinian state (as reported in former cabinet member Haim Ramon’s Hebrew-language book “Neged Haruach”, p. 417).". https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-needed-a-strong-hamas/0000018b-1e9f-d47b-a7fb-bfdfd8f30000 Former PM Ehud Olmert reports that "Hamas was financed with the assistance of Israel - for years - by hundreds of millions of Dollars that came from Qatar, with the assistance of the state of Israel, with the full knowledge and support of the Israeli government led by Netanyahu. Netanyahu when he took over in 2009, said that his primary responsibility and priority is to destroy Hamas. And throughout the period he was prime minister, he made every possible effort, in order to build Hamas rather than to destroy it. And in a certain way the expansion of Hamas and the strengthening of Hamas is largely also a result of this policy of Netanyahu." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uar3I_LUSyM&t=671s As this is absolutely crucial information regarding the organization of Hamas, I think the following should be added at the introduction of the article: "Hamas has been financed by Qatar with the knowledge and support of Netanyahu governments. Between 2012 and 2018 about a billion US-Dollars were approved by Netanyahu and at least half a billion reached Hamas, including its military wing." Haxtibel (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Archived Haaretz article, unrestricted access: https://archive.li/APxHn Mcljlm (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish a consensus before making an edit request. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2023 (2)

The first sentence is missing the word “terrorist”. Add it. There is no clearer example of a terrorist group than what Hamas has done. Other articles call similar groups terrorists as well. World governments and sources you deem reliable describe this evil group as such. The site is not censored, so stop censoring words.

• https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-words-one-week-on-from-the-start-of-hamas-terrorist-attacks
• https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-expands-warning-over-pro-hamas-content-social-media-2023-10-11/
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/11/it-was-a-pogrom-beeri-survivors-horrific-attack-hamas-terrorists
• https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-debating-whether-to-call-hamas-militants-or-terrorists-a-waste-of-time 2605:B100:100:F025:3D25:1EB3:5837:CE75 (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This article already states that the UK considers Hamas a terrorist group. Some of these pieces are a start(like the Guardian), but you will need to show a much broader preponderance of sources.

See other stuff exists with regards to other articles. Those could be wrong, or those may have a preponderance of sources calling them that.

If you are unable to set aside your valid passion for this topic, and approach it dispassionately, this may not be the best topic for you to edit in. Personally I do not disagree with you, but we have to approach this based on the sources. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Do not confuse censorship with editorial control and compliance with guidelines like MOS:TERRORIST. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish a consensus before making an edit request. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Indifference Or Support

[Edits](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&diff=prev&oldid=1179690317) appear to have made change regarding Israel's role in funding Hamas's predecessor. quotes such as "The Israeli government gave me a budget, and the military government gives to the mosques" have become statements such as "Israeli authorities in the 1970s and 1980s showed indifference". 82.43.219.108 (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Genocide

I'm removing from the lead that Hamas is committing genocide, especially as it seems to be stated without clear attribution, making it seem like a fact, when in fact it is an opinion. There is a clear legal definition of genocide, and that is a very high bar to meet. Just as we wouldn't put anything from Genocide against Palestinians in the lead of Israel, we wouldn't put anything from Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis into the lead of this article.VR _talk 04:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, it was inserted by a sockpuppet of a blocked user.VR _talk 05:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, feel free to revert any of their additions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"Oppressive" in wikivoice

This edit[12] is really problematic, because it inserts into lead:

Since then, it has ran Gaza as an oppressive one-party state.

Hamas may very well be oppressive, but we can't write that in wikivoice, and it has to be attributed.VR _talk 04:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, it was inserted by a sockpuppet of a blocked user.VR _talk 05:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2023

On the Hamas Wiki page, Turkey is listed as Allies with a source. I've checked the source and read the article, the source only mentions "Turkey supports Hamas, Erdogan supports Hamas" without any source is being cited to support that argument. I think the source is subjective and not based on falsifiable facts. I think this part should me removed. It looks like someone actually tried to fix this based on what I see as "partial" added next to Turkey to denote their "partial" allegiance. I think someone should do something with this. This is bad journalism. Gorkemer (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Melmann 23:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Melmann:, As far as I see, it was re-added with the same source again. Could you remove it? Yuant37 (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Anti semitism" in Hamas's ideologies needs editing

Anti-semitism is a form of racism, and Hamas used to emphasize anti-Semitism in the 1988 charter. However, Hamas now doesn't emphasize anti-Semitism after the 2017 charter was issued . And the the only people who deny the 2017 charter are the Zionists.. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral website, and keeping the "anti-Semitism" on "ideologies" doesn't help since it indirectly promotes Zionist views. I appreciate if you can either edit "anti-Semitism" to "anti-Semitism (denied)" or remove "anti-Semitism" from this article's ideologies section. 37.39.247.202 (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed it from the infobox, since it is indeed not established in the body that Hamas ideologically takes this position. There appears to be no assessment of the 2017 charter re: this at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It's assessed negatively here, for instance, and in any case even without that any changes made supposedly on the basis of the 2017 charter need to be based on secondary sources. We must rely on secondary sources to evaluate how meaningful the changes really are, or if they are simply a PR move or whitewash. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

By the way, that's western media, not OHCHR. Plus, the article that you mentioned cited the 1988 charter (The charter with anti-Semitic values), which was replaced by the 2017 charter (The charter without anti-Semitic values), so I don't think you read the full article. Also, even though I get the point, Wikipedia should be a neutral website, and the western world favors Zionism, so I'm pretty sure biases for Zionists exist in western media. As of the secondary sources, I really don't know, but, at the same time, reneging Wikipedia's promise of unbiased articles is not the solution either. Therefore, please either remove "anti-Semitism" from the infobox, or edit "anti-Semitism" into "anti-Semitism (officially denied)". 37.39.161.59 (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Crossroads, why haven't you responded? 37.39.161.59 (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I came here to say this as well. I have realized everything that this IP editor has said. The first source for "Ideology: […] Antisemitism" in the infobox is from a text written 25 years ago (1998), and the second source acknowledges that the revised 2017 charter (which can be seen in full here) makes a clear anti-Zionist stance, and does not fault anyone inside or outside of Israel for being Jewish. The charter sees Zionism as a colonial ideology that has displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and occupies what little territories they have left, and it stands against Zionism on this basis.

Those sources are of no force to make that claim. If there is reason to believe that Hamas is antisemitic, it should be cited. Crossroads said, "We must rely on secondary sources to evaluate how meaningful the changes really are, or if they are simply a PR move or whitewash.", and this is true. No such secondary sources have been cited to make the claim that Hamas is, in fact, antisemitic. Floralcreek (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas leaders in their speeches state anti-Semitic things. Hamas groups have committed acts of hatred, they have massacred Jews, carried out attacks against Jews, kidnapped Jews... These actions are typical of groups which are anti-Semitic.

Quotes by Hamas, Homerethegreat (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Calling Hamas a "terrorist" organization

Consensus for this has not been established in the discussions, yet someone changed the lead sentence to describe Hamas (as a matter of fact) as a terrorist organization. Clearly violation of MOS:TERRORIST. 128.189.114.118 (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Has this been reversed? I can't see any mention of the word in the lead Yr Enw (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, It indeed has been reverted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Jokes aside, Boko Haram is described as a terrorist organization without their sympathizers allowed to derail the obvious truth of the label (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram)

Other than this page having some very dedicated arabs/muslims, it's unclear to me how the label doesn't apply to HAMAS. They are an organization that deliberately targets civilians with the purpose of forcing a political outcome. They are recognized as a terrorist organization by most governments that care to comment on the matter.

I know you aren't going to change anything but I'm curious what is the stated justification for avoiding the label.

And if you're only going to answer once, please don't bother with the "some people say Israel is a terrorist country" trope. There is no evidence that the Israeli government deliberately targets civilians. 77.138.64.44 (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Boko Haram is orders of magnitude worse than Hamas. There is also no reasonable viewpoint which could argue Boko Haram is a resistance organization, whereas reasonable people can argue Hamas is a resistance argument against alleged apartheid. This is just not an appropriate comparison. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:241B:BEAA:C39C:1DD (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Both boko haram and hamas target civilians which make both terrorist organizations.

both sanitize their actions by couching them in the language of western social justice groups.

boko haram believe they are resisting Shia colonialism and oppression by the Nigerian government.

no one takes these claims seriously because both sides of the conflict are black and poor so social justice doesn’t have the tools to tell us who the “good guys” are.

Hamas and boko haram are qualitatively the same. 77.138.64.44 (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If you think Boko Haram is “WORSE” Then Hamas, I wish you to get kidnapped and tortured like the kids who were kidnapped and still not found at 7/10. I wish you would go through what they is going through, and then tell me Boko Haram is worse. Shame on you.

you don’t know nothing about Hamas. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:705F:EA3A:697F:44EE (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Tablet Magazine as unreliable source.

Tablet Magazine is clearly a partisan source which has been reporting unverified events over the past few days, for example quoting unnamed sources as evidence of mass rape in the Hamas attack on the music festival and claiming direct Iranian involvement, both claims that have not been corroborated by further sources. I think a wikipedia article should avoid making such weighty claims without there being forceful evidence to back them up. 2A00:23C4:79C7:B001:3D85:D6C5:7378:ACD2 (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if they are biased, this does not disqualify them per WP:BIAS. As to your examples, I'm not sure they tell us anything about the magazine's reliability. Can you show reliable sources which contradict these accounts? Alaexis_¿question? 19:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"Can you show reliable sources which contradict these accounts?"

In what world is this the standard for a claim? Regardless, The article's writer spoke to a person who claims to have watched a video in which no rape occurs, and no note of any indication rape has or will occur. This is the source of the claim that mass rape occurred. 2603:7080:3801:2C18:B935:7321:CA06:A565 (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I, too, read the Tablet article referred to, and did not find it to be a very convincing source for the claim (I have no familiarity with the magazine itself, no prejudice toward it one way or the other). Further, I thought it was an odd, jarring interjection at that point in the Wikipedia article; even if true, it seemed purposefully inflammatory. Seems like it belongs much later, if at all. 2601:183:201:E2D0:EC87:A39D:BE34:CEC (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:BIAS is not a Guideline. This is the official WP guideline concerning bias: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Tablet is an extremely biased pro-Israel source. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that mass rape, or any rape, of victims in Israel occurred. This statement and source should be deleted immediately. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Mashallah brother 77.138.64.44 (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I came here to report the same claim and its source. There is zero evidence that any victim in Israel has been raped. The Tablet source is at the very least, double hearsay. Person A conveyed they watched someone else’s video (Person B) (that does not show rape) and told Person C and they told the “reporter” at Tablet. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. That website is preposterous as a source, especially for such a serious claim placed in a prominent position in a contentious article. The magazine in question clearly has a strong pro-Israel bias and the blog entry itself provides zero evidence for its claims. 136.54.91.222 (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Same claim here also 67.11.15.25 (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point this discussion is moot as there are plenty of other media outlets that wrote that survivors said that women were raped (Marca The Times). We should be careful with wording here and not say that it happened in wikivoice, but rather that this is what survivors report. Alaexis_¿question? 07:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Archived - unrestricted access - version of Times article: https://archive.li/tTcE1. Mcljlm (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"survivors said that women were raped" Big surprise there. Wartime sexual violence is never rare in conflicts of every era, and is nearly synonymous with gang rape. Vae victis (woe to the vanquished), or "those defeated in battle are entirely at the mercy of their conquerors". Dimadick (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Since other sources been mentioned perhaps this section's title should be changed to Rape reports, or something similar. Mcljlm (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

https://forward.com/news/564318/sexual-assault-rape-proof-hamas-idf-israel-gaza/ "Biden, Netanyahu, celebrities and columnists have rushed to condemn rape. But the IDF does not yet have any evidence it happened" Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas should be defined as terror organization

WP:NOTFORUM TarnishedPathtalk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
They slaughtered thousands of children, babies, women, old people, holocaust survivors. Cut their heads, raped them. Hamas should be defined as a terror organization, nothing less than that. 85.250.40.182 (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. This article notes which nations recognize Hamas or parts of it as a terrorist organization. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC) What evidence do you need in order to call them a terror organization? Like Isis 85.250.40.182 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC) My personal view is not relevant. We go by the sources; as I said, this article already notes which nations have designated Hamas or parts of it as a terror organization. Other nations- rightly or wrongly- disagree or choose to say nothing. Until there is a broader consensus, that's what we do. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC) From the wsj “TEL AVIV—Written orders carried by Hamas fighters sent to attack Israeli towns and settlements last weekend contained the same chilling command: Kill as many people as possible.” (https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-orders-kill-as-many-people-as-possible-2a6abff8?mod=mhp) the definition of terrorism is targeting civilians with violence to achieve a political goal. If HAMAS doesn’t qualify after deliberately murdering and kidnapping women and children, we should probably just deprecate the term as archaic since it can only be applied to groups leftists don’t like 77.138.64.44 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC) There is no universal or legal definition of terrorism, because what is terrorism depends on the viewpoint. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This has nothing to do with "leftists". Personally I don't disagree with you, but for Wikipedia to use that word in Wikipedia's voice you would need to show that the preponderance of reliable sources use that word to describe Hamas. See MOS:TERRORIST. Also see this BBC article as to why they don't use the term(for similar reasons). 331dot (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC) There is a broader consensus. 2A0D:6FC0:BAC:6300:8DA2:B6D2:E32E:A578 (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Please demonstrate that. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Also see MOS:TERRORIST. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Where is the evidence for that? the claim of "Killing babies" was proven to be misinformations. And there aren't any live (video) footages for it as Gaza massacres have. MonCefSharp (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Mashallah my ESL brother. Much misinformations. 77.138.64.44 (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

Change the lead to mention the fact that they are a terrorist group. There is no reason for this not to be done. It was the long-standing descriptor used here with no problem until the Wikipedia admins took control of the page, removed the term to favour their own opinions, and automatically reject any mention of it. There is no evidence to suggest they are not a terrorist group. How much more terrorism do they need to commit? The bias on this site is so out of control and so blatant, it’s disgusting. You want reliable sources? Look them up. They are everywhere and use that exact term. 2605:B100:100:F025:3D25:1EB3:5837:CE75 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus for this change. It was the long-standing descriptor used here with no problem until the Wikipedia admins took control of the page is false, looking at the history of this article, it has never been long-standing to describe Hamas as a "terrorist" group in wikivoice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Support by Colombia's President Petro

Petro has rejected to denounce Hamas. Instead he has decided to call Israel a genocide state. Would this mean Petro in representation of Colombia supports Hamas; operation? Thanks

Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 00:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

Hello, Can you please remove the picture captioned "Pro-Palestinian protest in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 10 October 2023"? This person is being harassed and threatened by aggressors. Please take this picture down. Hakeemamircr (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This is probably a matter for Trust and Safety. In the meantime, this person should contact their local authorities. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF that this is a legitimate concern, I've removed this editorially for now and will follow up with the requester. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I've replied to a VRT ticket regarding this topic, that may or may not be from the requester above. Gave them the WP:911 information, as well as information about commonswiki. It appears this file has not been validated as to a free license yet, and I don't think it is editorially critical to this article right now so suggest we keep it down in respect of this request baring more information. This is not an oversight or administrative action. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI to @Tobby72:, this is re this file. Perhaps you could find a different illustration if needed here? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Strange word wrapping in Etymology section

At least on my iPhone XR (in Safari), there is a peculiarity in the word wrap of حركة المقاومة الإسلامية, whereby حركة appears at the end of one line, while the rest of the phrase appears at the beginning of the next lien. Obviously, حركة should appear at the end of the phrase, as Arabic is written in a right-to-left script. The misplacement of حركة is very confusing to the reader at first glance, since it appears in the context of an explanation that Hamas is an acronym, and the word is clearly out of order. Is this a common issue with mobile browser rendering of Arabic script? Is there any markup that will force the phrase to render appropriately across line wraps in any screen format? Nonstopdrivel (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

On further examination, it appears that this problem is not specific to iOS or Safari. I am able to replicate it in Chrome on Windows 11 by adjusting the width of the browser window. Nonstopdrivel (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

On still further examination, this problem is not limited to the article page. In Chrome on Windows 11, this section of the Talk page garbles the phrase حركة المقاومة الإسلامية across a word break, with حركة appearing as the second word of the phrase, immediately following المقاومة. Nonstopdrivel (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure this isn't just the expected behaviour for the somewhat knotty problem of line-breaking an RTL phrase embedded in an LTR paragraph? I would expect these browsers to have correctly implemented Unicode's bidirectional line-breaking algorithm. JCBradfield (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Flag

I have removed the flag image in the infobox as no reliable sources are cited identifying that green flag bearing the Shahada as the HAMAS flag. The description of the image in Commons says:

English: The en:Shahada in white calligraphy on a green background. Reported as the "Flag of Hamas" in flaggenlexikon.de . Uploaded 2007.

The Flags of the World website discussed the validity of this flag after it was displayed as an alleged "flag of Hamas" by Wikipedia in 2007.

According to a 2006 comment:

"The military branch of Hamas has a different flag, green with Shahada on it. Maybe that's why there is a confusion about the Hamas flag. One is white with Hamas emblem on it, and the military branch's flag is green with a shahada? At least, the green flag is there at all protests and demonstrations." (Valentin Poposki, 03 Mar 2006)

Use of this flag was reported as early as 2001:

"Hamas' flag is green (Muslim colour) with Arabic words in white. I saw this flag several times at Hamas demonstrations and at generic anti-Israel events in Palestine. Hamas emblem is here." (Santiago Tazón, 20 Dec 2001)

While this flag has apparently been spotted in Hamas demonstrations since at least 2001, it cannot be identified as "the flag of Hamas". It has rather been carried by Hamas supporters as symbolizing Islam or Islamism, not as an emblem of Hamas as an organization.

"It would be wrong to name the flag as the Hamas flag. Such flags, with the Sha'ada in white on green or black, are used by other Islamic groups and are not unique to Hamas. Therefore it is not the 'Hamas flag' but rather a flag used also by the Hamas." (Dov Gutterman, 29 Mar 2003)

Moreover, the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence National Counterterrorism Center actually identifies a very different flag as the HAMAS flag. Mox La Push (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

A few sources 12 (and probably many more, this was checked in 2 seconds) count it as Hamas flag. Maybe this is relevant? Bar Harel (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The first source (the NPR article on OPB) has two photos of flags that are or resemble the green flag with the Shahada in white calligraphy (hereafter the "Shahadah flag"). The caption of the first photo with flags says: "A Hamas flag, top, and a Palestinian flag fly ..." The other caption says: "Masked members of Hamas hold Islamic flags ..." In neither case is it totally clear that the flag in the photo is the same as the flag here nor is the subject of the article about the flag. Moreover, in one caption it is described as a "Hamas flag" while in the other it is described as an "Islamic" flag.

The second source (i24News) appears to feature the flag in question, i.e. the Shahadah flag, but, again, the article isn't about the flag per se but about a controversy surrounding a depiction, by Hillel Roman, of the Shahadah on a black background.

It seems that what happened here is that a Wikipedia Commons editor designated the Shahadah flag as the flag of Hamas without any reliable sourcing in September 2007 and lazy journalists just accepted and repeated it. Mox La Push (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

P.S. The late Dov Gutterman was an Israeli attorney and a vexillologist (see here for his monograph on "Sub-national flags of Israel"). On the Flags Of The World site he is quoted as saying in 2003: "It would be wrong to name the flag as the Hamas flag. Such flags, with the Sha'ada in white on green or black, are used by other Islamic groups and are not unique to Hamas. Therefore it is not the 'Hamas flag' but rather a flag used also by the Hamas." It seems to me he is correct. Mox La Push (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Classification by the Organization of American States

From a purely technical point of view, I kindly ask for someone with clearance to remove the OAS from the list of countries/organizations that have classified Hamas as a terrorist organization.

From the sources pointed in the article, one can see that such “classification” was actually just a statement from the Secretary-General of the Organization to the press. There is no official document from the Secretariat establishing this.

In fact, the reason for this is that the Secretary-General can’t actually do that. Such formal declaration has to come not from the Secretary-General, but from the General Assembly, through a Resolution, since that’s the organ responsible for any decisions regarding the policy of the Organization and its relations with other states, per article 54.a and 112.h of the Charter of the OAS.

Imagine that Antonio Guterres gave a statement today condemning Hamas and saying that it’s a terrorist organization, would that be enough to edit the article in order for it to display that the UN classifies Hamas as such? I firmly believe it wouldn’t, since the General Assembly has never managed to pass a Resolution on it. To keep things coherent, the same standard should be applied to the OAS’ position.

All in all, I’d deeply appreciate if anyone allowed to edit removes OAS from the list on the grounds I exposed. Thanks very much! Hookko27 (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Well observed. Yes, the source is merely a call by the Secretary-General for the designation, not proof that such a designation was ever made. The other source then just conveniently omitted this. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This has recently been added back, I'm at my 1RR for today, so would someone else consider removing it? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like that got taken care of at some point. I’ll archive this thread. Thanks! Pedantical (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2023

Remove Algeria from the list of state allies, because the used reference is not suitable. In fact, the reference used is a press release from the Algerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, in which a condemnation of the bombings on Gaza is cited, but Hamas was absolutely not mentioned. Mehdi9931 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done — thanks @Mehdi9931!

Reviewed the source (translated) and it didn’t not appear to support Algeria being in that list, just as you noted.

– Pedantical (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Can some please put on "(denied)" on "antisemitism"?

Here's the source "Hamas does not fight and resist the Israelis because they are Jews, but because they are occupiers. Hamas has no problem with anyone because of their religion, race, sect or idea; its key contradiction, however, is with the occupiers and aggressors." https://hamas.ps/en/page/5/About-Hamas#:~:text=Hamas%20does%20not%20fight%20and%20resist%20the%20Israelis%20because%20they%20are%20Jews%2C%20but%20because%20they%20are%20occupiers.%20Hamas%20has%20no%20problem%20with%20anyone%20because%20of%20their%20religion%2C%20race%2C%20sect%20or%20idea%3B%20its%20key%20contradiction%2C%20however%2C%20is%20with%20the%20occupiers%20and%20aggressors. 37.39.247.202 (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the Statements to an international audience section. Alaexis_¿question? 19:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the Hamas protests in Australia chanting " gas the jews" shows otherwise 71.236.151.125 (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Those protests are organized and carried out by Australians. You don't have to go halfway around the world to prove Hamas is antisemite, this article is being locked because of what actual members of Hamas had done. Martheencp (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Stupid chants at protests in an entirely different country are completely irrelevant to the positions of the actual group; per their latest official charter in 2017, their positions are not Antisemitic in nature and it doesn't belong on the page under "ideology" when they outright deny it as their ideology. Any commentary on "Antisemitism" would belong in discussion of their origin and 1988 charter and cite the lines in it, much the same way we don't put "segregation" in the article for the US Democratic party's current ideology regardless of what they supported in the 50s. Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism is part of Islam, with Islamic hatred for Jews being akin to Nazism. In their scriptures they instruct the reader to hate Jews, that they are killers of prophets, that they are all the same, and even prophesize of Muslims killing all Jews in a war. Hamas is no different. FrozenBags (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

wheres the source for that exactly? 62.198.134.91 (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Refer to article 7, 11 and 15 FrozenBags (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

(Adding this for posterity and archiving topic)

– Pedantical (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is a terror organization

As stated in the article, most of the Western governments: including the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, and many others declared that Hamas is a terror organization.

Saturday's massacre, in which hundreds of innocent unarmed civilians were murdered and kidnapped, including toddlers, proves that Hamas is a terror organization. This must be written in black on white in the article's introduction - Hamas is a terror organization.

Many horrifying videos of the massacre were published by Hamas. Meaning they were proud of murdering all of those innocent human beings. They published the videos because they thought that there was public support for such acts. Not willing to mention loud and clear that Hamas is a terror organization public support for Hamas that encourages them to keep murdering innocent lives.

We must not look around but state as clearly as possible: Hamas is a terror organization. Do it. This is the human thing to do. Yonathan33 (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Western countries are supporters of Israel. They are not unbiased. Hamas certainly uses uncouth tactics, but so does the IDF. 128.189.114.118 (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Provisional Irish Republican Army article offers, in my opinion, persuasive precedent for how we should use the term. It discusses who designated it, and the fact news orgs routinely referred to the PIRA as "terrorist" while maintaining a neutral point of view by avoiding using the label in the narrative voice. Yr Enw (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

As described in MOS:TERRORIST. Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It was now published that in the Kfar Aza massacre, 40 bodies of children were found, some of them were beheaded. You can't, by any means, even try to justify this horrific attack. Hamas is a terror group. Most western countries declared Hamas as a terror organizition, and they are not "biased", they say the truth. Countries that praise Hamas and refuse to call it terror group are usually dictatorships that murder their own people. There is no way that an orgnaization that did all of those horrors will not be label as terroist. The article should start "Hamas is a terror orgnization" because this is the truth. Yonathan33 (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobody in this section has justified it. You've got to detach labelling something terrorism from thinking something is bad. They are not the same. Yr Enw (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims". Murdering hundreds of innocent civilians in the name of Islam is terrorism. Hamas is a terror orgnization. Yonathan33 (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Murdering hundreds of innocent civilians in the name of Israeli self-defence could also, then, be called terrorism? It's intentional violence and fear to achieve political aims. And see how we've got nowhere? There's little point continuing this discussion because the content of the wiki article isn't about our opinions or feelings, it's about presenting what people are saying. And, before I am accused of it, in no way do I think the recent actions of Hamas are in any way justified or acceptable. Yr Enw (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yr Enw, Israel doesn't murder innocent civilians. Collateral damage is not murder. It's a regrettable yet often unavoidable byproduct of conducting a functional miliary operation, particularly when an adversary embeds itself among civilians to deliberately use them as human shields. That's quite different from infiltrating a residential home that has no military value and cutting the head off of infant in its crib. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I do have to question though. We already have hundreds of reliable sources worldwide forming a consensus, and thousands of images and videos showing them executing children and kidnapping people. At what point do we label an organization a terror organization? According to you Yr Enw, it is never, which is against the guidelines in MOS:TERRORIST. I think it is finally time to make the shift. Bar Harel (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The point at which we label them a terror organization is the point at which the term "terror organization" becomes a neutral descriptor and not simply a term used for its persuasive or emotional rhetorical effect. The term has a troublingly vague definition in my opinion, but a definition nonetheless.

To use the Russo-Ukrainian war as an analogy: We've seen disturbing, brutal, and almost definitely illegal tactics being used by Russia. They've been labeled "atrocities" and increasingly more public figures are describing Russia's aggression as "genocide."

Now, with that said, imagine if the Wikipedia page for Russia described a "terror organization." What exactly would that accomplish? 2603:7081:1603:A300:909A:E3A9:FF32:C558 (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources indicating Russia as a terror organization? Because I see plenty indicating Hamas is, together with countries one after the other designating it as such. Bar Harel (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is a TERROR oragnization, as stated by some western governments. Please refer to their terror attack in Israel in 7th October 2023. 2A02:14F:177:8A7C:C16D:22E8:172C:C451 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023 (2)

2001:16A4:14:FFAF:B583:5EFD:B6F8:478D (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove anti-semitisim Anti-israel (colonial state) is not anti semitism .dangerous mistake

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

–Pedantical (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023 (2)

Hamas is as terrorist group. 2605:59C8:40ED:8700:559:AFE0:667F:ACD6 (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

(adding for posterity; topic can be archived to clean up Talk Page) Pedantical (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced. See MOS:TERRORIST Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

According to the guidelines it requires reliable sources. There are plenty. I'm here since 2008 already, and it's the first time I've been actively frustrated with Wikipedia, especially after viewing those disturbing images from reliable sources myself. Bar Harel (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Bharel If there are "plenty", please offer them. This article already states which nations consider Hamas to be a terror organization. Much like the BBC, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter(even today the Irish government doesn't term the IRA terrorists), so the preponderance of sources do not use the word terrorism- you would need to show that they do in order to use that word in Wikipedia's voice Personally I don't disagree with you- but that's Wikipedia policy. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

“Freedom fighter”. This site is laughable. Doesn’t even follow its own rules. If you don’t want to call them terrorists, find sources that state they aren’t. You can’t. 2605:B100:100:F025:3D25:1EB3:5837:CE75 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not how this works, you need to find sources that affirmatively state your claim. You're right, there are no sources to prove a negative. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If I'll add a huge number of sources, will that help? I doubt it. There are plenty of arabic media sources that don't designate ISIS a terrorist group, while they run around beheading people, so ISIS should not be viewed as a terrorist group either. Even UN Delegates called it a terrorist attack. I see calls over here that the civilians were "collateral damage". Of course, no sources cite the civilians as collateral, because Hamas actively states that it wishes to kill as many civilians as possible, calling upon everyone around who has a gun, an axe or a truck to kill as many as they can. Bar Harel (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't describe Al Qaeda as a terrorist group in wikivoice in the lead either, despite them arguably being the archetypal thing that the term "terrorist group/organisation" is applied to. I don't see any complaints about this on that page's talkpage. We should avoid describing new religious groups as "cults" in wikivoice no matter how "culty" they may be, and the same applies to jihadist groups as well, no matter how much their actions fit the definition of terrorism. Descriptions of organisations as terrorist should always be attributed to parties making them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I know, I'm a contributor for the last 15 years. The question is then, how can we have a List of Islamist terrorist attacks? By adding things to that list, we refer unequivocally to terrorism. Upon the decision to include or not include events in that list, we actively make a stance.

A large portion of the resistance is not due to "wikivoice", but rather to political stance, such as viewing the murder of Israeli civilians as "collateral damage" or falsely claiming that it is not backed by RS. But even if it would have been only wikivoice, I might have agreed if we didn't refer to other groups as terrorist (and we do describe Boko Haram or ISIS as an islamic terrorist group right in the lead).

We treat different groups as terrorists or not, we do make a stance, which is why that argument is so hard for me to take.

Even MOS:TERRORIST states "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". It is widely used by RSs, and I see that the majority of the resistance in this talk page is due to "the preponderance of sources do not use the word terrorism", which is simply not true. User: Levivich added plenty of RS in the respective talk page as well.

If we do not wish to make a stance, we should remove the designation from ISIS, Boko Haram, and plenty of other organizations. According to them, ISIS are freedom fighters. What's the difference? Bar Harel (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Are ISIS and Boko Haram supported by major world countries like Qatar and Turkey? Like it or not, Hamas has considerable international political support that other "terrorist organisations" do not. I'm not opposed to saying that Hamas has committed terrorist attacks (I think that this is a legitimate description of some of their actions) in wikivoice, only to describing them explicitly as a terrorist organisation in wikivoice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, Bharel. But we don't make the facts, we just report on them. No country (as far as I know) has resisted considering ISIS as terrorists. Even the Taliban in Afghanistan consider them terrorist. Put differently, ISIS is so terrorist, that even (designated) terrorists consider them terrorists. Hamas is a different story, as you can tell by Hamas#Terrorist_designation. VR _talk 03:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia @Vice regent, I never expected us to make up facts my friends, I'm here for years. I just tend to believe there is a problem with the policy, that is being actively used for political reasons.

What you're stating is a completely different statement. The argument is not about "unsourced" as written above, because it is sourced. It is not about "the preponderance of sources" which is also not true. It is not even about whether wikivoice avoids designating factions as terrorists, because it does in different articles. According to what you state now, the designation for terrorism or not, is if they have a large political backer (i.e. country), somewhere in the world.

It is once again a very problematic view, considering state-sponsored terrorism. Allegedly, if one faction supports the terrorism, no article referred by that one, should include terrorism in the opening paragraph. Besides, it is not the policy stated by WP:TERRORIST, as that one only requires reliable sources (which we have enough of). If that requires change, a vote should be put up accordingly.

I have no problem removing the word terrorist from all of Wikipedia's articles, my problem is when I feel that the rules are bent for political favor, and after having my colleagues butchered, and a relative kidnapped, is extremely frustrating. It generates inherit bias.

Moreover, I've seen Al-Jazeera used extensively, and dozens of other users claiming Israeli media is an unreliable source. For some reason, Hamas affiliates (that endorse Hamas actions in massacring civilian population) are more reliable. How on earth are these reliable? Bar Harel (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but when did Al-Jazeera "endorse" "massacring civilian population"? VR _talk 04:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Didn't say that Al-Jazeera endorse, I said that Hamas and its affiliates do. Gaza's government is Hamas, and their news, passed through Al-Jazeera is written as gospel. Moreover the Qatari government, owner of Al-Jazeera, is a major funder of Hamas, giving it the endorsement to massacre civilian population. Bar Harel (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand your anger towards Hamas, given the personal pain they have caused you, but I don't think the rules are being bent here, its just that the current usage of the "terrorist organisation" description in wikivoice is inconsistent, and generally avoided. Aside from Al Qaeda, the Provisional Irish Republican Army and ETA (separatist group), which are just as responsible for willful killings of civilians as Hamas is (including both bombings and executions), aren't called terrorist organisations in wikivoice either. I disagree with describing Hamas as freedom fighters and have removed this from the lead before, because I think it is undue. I agree that the Israel-Palestine conflict is an area where Al Jazeera is likely to be biased (This also goes for much of the Israeli Press), but again, provided that one is cognisant of this bias, I think that like Israeli news sources, Al Jazeera is perfectly usable in this topic area. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

So let's promote consistency.

Do we designate those organizations as terrorist? If not, why? There are plenty of reliable sources, and that's the requirement according to WP:TERRORIST.

Otherwise, let's change the policy. Right now we have inconsistencies, which can be (and according to the amount of threads in this talk page is) mistaken as a political influence or opinion within Wikipedia.

An inconsistency within highly contentious topics has vast implications inside the encyclopedia and beyond. Bar Harel (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The place to seek a change like that would be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch (where WP:TERRORIST leads), as discussions on talkpages of individual organisations are not going to result in a widespread consensus about the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Add Freedom fighters to the first paragraph

Hamas is classified as a freedom fighting organization by many news media. So this should be added to the first paragraph that "Hamas is a Sunni political freedom fighting group." 100.6.168.58 (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Source? Given how many talkpage commenters have been demanding us to call it a terrorist organisation in wikivoice instead, I think it's unlikely that you're going to get any kind of consensus for this to be included. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It would be interesting to learn from reliable sources how Hamas defines "freedom". Cullen328 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Thanks!

– Pedantical (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Dar al-Islam "a domain rightfully and permanently ruled by Muslims"

This page fails to reference a key concept for understanding Hamas - namely, the extreme, radical interpretation of the religious concept of Dar al-Islam, to mean that any country once under Muslim rule, is religiously prohibited from having a Jewish government, anywhere, i.e., from the Jordan until the Mediterranean sea.

This information helps to inform the readers evaluation of the 'terrorist' designation, as Hamas is not seen as a 'resistor', in distinction from the Taliban and ISIS, but is seen as informed by a common religious attitude. Moreover, this information helps to understand Hamas charter, the previous one and its current 2017 charter, which both deny any right for a Jewish government anywhere - inside or outside the 1967 borders. The concept of Dar al-Islam is discussed in the wikipedia page, "Religious anti-Zionism".

In this article, I recommend replacing,

"In May 2017, Hamas unveiled a rewritten charter, in an attempt to moderate its image. It maintains the longstanding goal of an Islamist Palestinian state covering all of the area of today's Israel, West Bank, and Gaza Strip, and that the State of Israel is illegal and illegitimate. It now states that Hamas is anti-Zionist"

with

In May 2017, Hamas unveiled a rewritten charter, in an attempt to moderate its image. It maintains the longstanding goal of an Islamist Palestinian state covering all of the area of today's Israel, West Bank, and Gaza Strip, and that the State of Israel is illegal and illegitimate, as per the islamist view of Dar al-Islam, shared by Hamas, ISIS and the Taliban. It now states that Hamas is anti-Zionist.

Where the phrase "anti-Zionism" links to the wikipedia page for religious anti-zionism. joe joe 07:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph M. Steinberger (talk • contribs)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2023

Re-adding anti-communism back to infobox ideologies https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas&diff=prev&oldid=1180045138 Scendgo (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Edit requests aren't a means to give old content disputes another shot through the wringer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Plural needed

"that many scholar believed" should be "scholars", I think Kohl Gill (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

Hamas have no presence in the westbank. They may have some sympathy amongst the indigenous population, very understandable and obvious in the current situation but that’s not the same as having presence or influence.

It’s factual that Israel tactically flip flop their narrative in referencing between the armed resistance and the political entity to suit the agenda they are trying to push. Deliberately creating a confusion and misinformation surrounding the situation as a whole. That must be avoided here on wiki.

Wiki must strictly stick to the facts with no divination based on opinion no matter how well intentioned.

Wiki must be unbiased and neutral in all situations for as you say it’s referenced by millions of people millions of times per day

I know this edit is a new addition to the wiki page I propose the complete removal of the referencing the westbank as per below ⬇️

“political and military organization governing the Gaza Strip of the Palestinian territories.[58] Headquartered in Gaza City, “ CuCullhan (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@CuCullhan: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2023

Change this line in the opening paragraph: "is a Sunni Islamist political and military organization governing the Gaza Strip"

by adding the following word "de-facto":

"is a Sunni Islamist political and military organization de-facto governing the Gaza Strip"

This is because legally (de jure), the governing party is the Palestinian Authority

Xland44 (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The currently wording is fine - it says Hamas does the governing and (the wording) doesn't make any claims about de-jure statue. This seems controversial enough it would need consensus to implement. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2023 (2)

In the column on the right of the page, please change the chairman of Hamas into Yahya Sinwar (and hyperlink it to the wikipedia page with the same name.) Thank you! BIGRATHER (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 Question: :@BIGRATHER, could you assist with a source for the change? I’m looking at the current chairman’s page and it shows he is the current chairman still.

Likewise, Yahya Sinwar also does not show as the current chairperson, rather the current “Hamas Chief in the Gaza Strip”

Thanks,

– Pedantical (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Deactivating request pending response to the above comments. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Citation for most recent Hamas attack

The source cited for the most recent Hamas attack (an AP news article) makes no mention of a massacre, only the kidnapping of hostages. If whoever wrote this wants to include evidence of a massacre of innocent civilians, they will need to add new reliable sources please. There needs to be rigour on this given that Israel’s govt has retracted certain claims about the violence (e.g. beheaded babies). 184.64.192.108 (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Mainstream sources do not doubt that Hamas massacred civilians, including children during the initial offensive, there are plenty of sources at Kfar Aza massacre that could probably be used, among others. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

Mistake
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Add Sudan and Tunisia to the allies box (probably allegedly), and in the case of Sudan, who ceased its support for Hamas since 2019, Sudan should probably be listed as "X Year" (the year Sudan was an ally of Hamas)"-2019, present, allegedly" Source TheLibyanGuy (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)  Not done Duplicate request. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Oh sorry, my bad, my internet disconnected for a second, but initially I thought the replied was submitted. Either way can you complete the request?Probably respond to the one up above. TheLibyanGuy (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Name

While its true that Hamas is the acronym of the Arabic phrase "حرکة المقاومة الاسلامیة (حماس)" (Harakat al-Muqawamat al-Islamiyah), I think it can't be ruled out that they intentionally named their group so that it looks like Hamaas. Aminabzz (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Source? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Radical Sunni Islamist

The lead currently says that Hamas is a "Sunni Islamist" militant group, but someone added "radical Sunni Islamist" militant group. Firstly, what's the difference and what's the definition of "radical" in this context?

Secondly are there a lot of sources that say Hamas meets that particular definition?VR _talk 19:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas comparison to ISIS

Hamas has been compared to the Islamic State, known as ISIS or Daesh. This comparison has been done following recent massacres in southern Israel (2023). The comparison has been done not only by Israel but also by US and European leadership. Therefore, since it seems that this comparison has been repeatedly deleted on this page, I'm raising this issue. One must assume that at least 1 sentence in the Lead on this topic is obliged considering the scope of Hamas actions and the severity of the actions and comparison.

I suggest the following sentence: "Following its actions in 2023, Hamas has been compared to ISIS by multiple world leaders and experts."

Sources:

Experts, Leading News on foreign policy...

Foreign Affairs:How Israel Can Win,Washington Post: Only the U.S. can be an effective broker in the Gaza conflict:, Begin-Sadat Institute of Strategic Studies: The Islamic State of Hamas, Haaretz: Is Hamas Really Like ISIS? Experts Explain

World Leaders

Barron's: In Israel, Italy FM Compares Hamas To ISIS, Nazis, US Secretary of Defence, US President

Homerethegreat (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Politicians views are worthless for things like this (actually most things). Experts can be cited with attribution, note that there are two sides to that in the Haaretz article. I seriously doubt that this is leadworthy, in the article body maybe. Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I still think the large "Comparison to ISIS" section added to the criticism section was undue given the removal of the rest of the section, which is why I removed it. I agree that there is no need to include the comparison in the lead. Like the insistent request that we describe Hamas as "terrorist" , the only reason to include the comparison in the lead is to tell the reader Hamas is bad/evil, which is not particularly encyclopedic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Those comparisons certainly justify a mention in the article. If not in the lead, then in the body of the article for sure. Though, given the broad comparisons by worldwide leaders, I'd suggest it is leadworthy. Tomer T (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that maybe one or several sentences in the body somewhere would suffice (but not under its own heading or in the "criticism" section), but I don't think we really need to make detailed comparisons to ISIS specifically, because otherwise why not make comparisons to other Islamist jihadist group like Al-Qaeda? I don't disagree with the assertion that Hamas is a jihadist group, this is extensively covered by RS [13], but I think we should let Hamas actions, like their historic suicide bombings and recent massacres of civillians during the current conflict, speak for themselves. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not jihadist; it's nationalist Islamist, which is what quite a few of those RS blurbs will tell you. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Opinions of politicians are not worthless as you say, since the purposed change directly says that this is the opinion of world leaders. World leaders (usually politicians) did made those claims- therefore it is reasonable to add such a sentence to the article.

Omri2424 (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to add, that I support adding a sentence or a paragraph to the article, about the above comparisons between ISIS and Hamas by world leaders and experts. About the location for this information, I currently don't have a strong opinion where it should be presented.

Omri2424 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

ISIS is active in multiple countries, Hamas is not. ISIS is Pan-Islamist, Hamas is not. Hamas has historic ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS to the Baath party. there are many differences. correct? then it would need more than one sentence to explain. Maybe Israeli officials mean ISIS has influenced Hamas in a negative path?

should we add this? And are we able to cite it? (please not "hamas is ISIS")Ben Azura (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The Zionist state has been widely compared to Nazi Germany and apartheid-era South Africa by various political activists and academics as well. See the pages "Israel and apartheid" and "Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany". Yet none of these comparisons are currently mentioned in the body or lede of the page "Israel".

The recent attempts made by Zionists to compare Hamas to ISIS are part of their war-propaganda. Majority of the world disagree with the Israeli claims and the hysterical opinions of overtly biased pro-Zionist politicians in the West are worthless. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Your cynic words hysterical and worthless prove you are deeply biased against Israel and your allegations are false. TaBaZzz (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's keep personal commentary out of this. Selfstudier (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

NPOV please. TaBaZzz (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel says Hamas ‘is ISIS.’ But it’s not. Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)