Talk:Hamas/Archive 20

Hamas approved a 540-million-dollar government budget for 2010 with up to 90% coming from "undisclosed" foreign aid, which includes funding from Iran and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood according to western intelligence agencies.[1] Due to the Gaza blockade, Hamas still faces a financial crisis. With a bureaucracy of around 30,000 staff, the organisation is growing faster than can be handled, with salaries being delayed or prioritised for the lowest paid. To fund its budget, Hamas has raised new taxes on businesses and imposed a 14.5% tax on luxury goods smuggled through the tunnels. Gaza businessmen have accused Hamas of profiting from the blockade and using these taxes to buy large tracts of land and private buildings for public facilities in competition to established businesses.^[1][2][3]

In August 2011, the U.S State Department threatened to cut 100 million dollars in aid it sends to the Gaza Strip if Hamas continues to insist upon auditing American foreign aid organizations after Hamas suspended operations of the International Medical Corps following the group's refusal to submit to an on-site audit. Most foreign charities submit their own audits to the Interior Ministry in Ramallah. Charities must be audited by law, possibly to ensure money is not diverted for political or intelligence-gathering purposes but as the U.S. government forbids direct contact with Hamas, the action prompted Washington to issue the threat via a third party. Aid provided by American and other foreign groups goes to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, where most of the 1.6 million residents are refugees.^[4][5]

A U.S. official based in the region said "USAID-funded partner organizations operating in Gaza are forced by Hamas's actions to suspend their assistance work. (They) were put on hold effective August 12."

A day after the U.S. announced it was suspending financial aid to Gaza, Hamas officials said they had reached an agreement with the United States that would allow USAID to continue operations.[8]

In August 2011, the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip imposed new travel restrictions on Palestinians active in non-governmental organizations by requiring them to provide details of the trip to the ministry in what the Palestinian NGO Network regards as another Hamas attempt to control and hamper them. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights condemned the new laws. Tharut al Bic, head of the interior ministry's NGO department, stated, "the new instructions are intended to make it easier for travellers to better organize their trip and to preserve order." Hamas requires sick people wishing to leave the Gaza Strip to submit applications and meet various conditions, in addition to restrictions Israel imposes on Palestinians leaving Gaza.^[9]

In 2014 Fatah accused Hamas of stealing a total of $700 million from aid directed at Gaza Strip reconstruction and civilian casualties of the conflict. In the beginning of October Hamas soldiers raided one of the branches of Bank of Palestine and seized $750'000 in cash. A number of Fatah activists also accused Fatah leadership of organized theft of aid resources.^[10]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone who is allowed to edit in ARBPIA area restore this image? Thanks--Watchlonly (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Does anybody opposses adding this image? It seems appropriate since it was a Hamas suicide attack in the 1990s, and the section talks about Hamas bombings in the 1990s. The image is in free domain. I don't think it's controversial.--Watchlonly (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

See the section immediately above. At least one editor has objected to it so it is outside the boundaries of an edit request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That ad hominem attack is not an argument. The reason why the image I added was removed is because I'm not allowed to edit in ARBPIA topics per 500/30. There's no objection to the image itself.--Watchlonly (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems odd to put in a picture of an attack, the Dizengoff Street bus bombing , that is not even mentioned in the article. Nor am I enamoured of anything emanating from the IDF spokesperson. I would put in relevant material plus wikilink about the attack in it's proper context and since the picture is in the other article already, I think we do not need it again in this one.Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. Very few specific attacks are mentioned, namely the first suicide attack by Hamas and the deadliest in 2002. This is not a list. I simply put an iconic image for this section dealing with the 1990s, which doesn't have a single image, when suicide attacks with massive casualties in Israeli cities led Hamas to fame. There's plenty of space. But if you want to add a text on the Dizengoff bombing, go ahead. I still think an image is needed for that section.--Watchlonly (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Everything has a context and this is no different. These early suicide attacks followed the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. Up until then, Hamas had not attacked civilian targets in Israel. If I were to adopt your logic, I should perhaps insist on a picture from that event as proximate cause.Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Though it is correct that Hamas's terrorism has a context in terms of Israeli actions, it is not correct to state that up to Goldstein's slaughtering rampage 'Hamas had not attacked civilian targets'. Its turn towards terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians began in December 1991, always of course within the context of what Israel was doing in the suppression of the Intifada (i.e. state terrorism, as defined by Rabin).Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It says that in the article. It also says it in the Patriarch's article. "According to Matti Steinberg, then Shin Bet head's advisor on Palestinian affairs, Hamas had until then refrained from attacking civilian targets inside Israel, and the change in this policy was a result of Goldstein's massacre.Akiva Eldar (3 November 2008). "Evacuate Jewish Hebron". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 4 March 2014. Retrieved 24 February 2014.. Are these two sources wrong?Selfstudier (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the operative word there is 'in Israel' as opposed to Hamas attacks on settlers. The problem is that there are two branches of technical literature on Hamas. One, Levitt, for example, is an statist Israelocentric analysis purely of Hamas's resort to terrorism interpreted as a threat to that state. The 'These- guys-are-obsessive-Islamic-fanatics-killing-'us',' in short. The fact that all of this occurs within the ambit of a long-enduring and violently repressive and possessive occupation is marginalized. The other branch, perhaps more extensive, concentrates on Hamas as a political and social organization, ideological and yet pragmatic, and analyses the whys of its policy choices, such as resort to terrorism, within the context of its relations to Israel, a nation which occupies, strangles, kills and maims Palestinians. One can't really write the article unless one is aware of this source bifurcation between scholars who are politically wedded to the assumptions underpinning U.S-Israeli geopolitical interests and ideology of the securitized state, and others who are primarily concerned with ascertaining the sociological and historical grounding for Hamas as an institutional phenomenon. The proper way to balance this source divergence is to scrupulously list the major incidents (and statistics) concerning episodes of Hamas terrorism, while setting forth the context for adopting from time to time such a strategy, per sources, in which the decisions and their motivations as responses to Israeli practices emerge. Zionism, as with all brand of nationalism, essentially means learning to press the panic button when one of 'us' is affected and go on a verbal rampage of outrage at inhumanity, but reading past identical incidents if the affected group is the enemy. Encyclopedias mustn't do that. We embed everything within its historical context. Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure the source is correct. There were plenty of attacks by Hamas against Israeli civilians before Baruch Goldstein's attack. For example, the Mehola Junction bombing. Nevertheless, it's a pretty pathetic excuse not to include an iconic suicide attack in the 1990s inside a section dealing with Hamas suicide attacks in the 1990s!--Watchlonly (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Stop kibitzing. We write according to sources, not personal suspicions about sources' ostensible veracity. Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact one has to use such precise wording lest a reader infers that Hamas was non-violent prior to 1994 is telling (see Killing of Avi Sasportas and Ilan Saadon, Abduction and killing of Nissim Toledano, Mehola Junction bombing). Either way it's not much of a justification to exclude that image. François Robere (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The reader is being asked to infer that Hamas is in its essence a terrorist group. Israel has never had a year since 1967 in which it has not adopted extreme policiee of terrorization of an occupied people, deportation without trial, political assassinations. The story to be told here is not in images: there are hundreds of shocking images of maimed or killed children after the usual Israeli bombings, but articles aren't written with that tabloid garishness. You can get that anywhere. Articles must approach this neutrally. Any idiot can google up images to make their point. It takes some minimum of concentration to sit down and read any one of the 30 books, or hundred scholarly articles that tell you the whole context. Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you are not paying attention, Mehola is WB, not Israel and the other other two are military not civilian. So the two sources are holding up so far and in any case we need proper sources to overturn them. So far, it is not a question of precise language but more like you reap what you sow and in this case, Israeli actions led to Hamas violence. If I put my mind to it, I could probably take that analogy further back in time. This does not mean I approve of their actions any more than I approve of the Israeli actions.Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

In any case, I repeat myself: Why would you exclude the picture of an iconic suicide attack in the 1990s inside a section (without images) that deals with Hamas suicide attacks in the 1990s? The alleged justification for Hamas to carry out those attacks has nothing to do with our discussion.--Watchlonly (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who walks straight into an encyclopedic project, and of 6,000,000 editable articles, runs straight to this to suggest plastering it with a photo of a terrorist incident, as one could do with the Israel side, when the article already has them, is not here for constructive purposes. Prove you can edit elsewhere. Creating a forum for this, and harping on, repeating yourself is wasting people's time. This is a workplace not a social medium for mass or self-distraction.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources give the justification so it's not "alleged", other than by you. As you say, you are repeating yourself, which is rather pointless. Your attempt to further slant this already slanted article speaks volumes for your motivation. You have two editors who have given you multiple reasons for non-inclusion whether you agree with them or not. If you met the requirements you could start an RFC on the question, perhaps you could persuade another editor to do it for you.Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Clearly both of you are not here to discuss anything, so I'll stop wasting my time. I'm not allowed to restore the perfectly appropriate image per 500/30 rule, therefore I can only hope for another editor with good faith to restore it for me. I can't do anything else.--Watchlonly (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If we are not here to discuss anything, what have we been doing? Writing commentary for fun? You do have another option, get 500 edits worth of WP experience under your belt and your options will improve.Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Both of you have made excuses for Hamas terror attacks. Neither of you have answered my specific question. Anyway, I'm done here.--Watchlonly (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. François Robere (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

What you are responding to here is obscure. One cannot include images to prove a point (Hamas is violent: which in any case is stupid. No one denies that Hamas has a history of recourse to violence). Image use on an article must always meet criteria of neutrality and balance. The only valid argument here would be that the images existing do not sufficiently document Hamas's use of violence (just as I indicated re the parallel IDF page), in proportion to what else it does.Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't my point, but it is a true one. François Robere (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

There are 5 images related to Hamas weaponry or attacks, half of the 10, the rest being a photo of a leader, a logo, a demonstration in Bethelehem. This is hugely disproportionate, in favour of the POV you are all pushing. By the way that huge garbage dump of Rocket Attacks on Israel shouldn't be there. . It is not Hamas-specific and includes all groups, many hostile to Hamas. Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

François, I actually agree with Nishidani that the rocket template should be removed, but not for POV reasons. If you take a look the template clutters the article because it's too wide for some reason, which makes the text squished. Why not removing the template and restoring the image I added as compensation? Seriously, the pretexts for keeping it out are becoming ridiculous. Section deals with Hamas attacks in the 1990s, specially suicide bombings, which did happen and made Hamas famous in this conflict. If that offends you, maybe it's because REALITY and facts are "POV", not the article reporting the events.--Watchlonly (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence in the humongous thread of any awareness of the realities and facts in a dozen lengthy books sources we could use, but haven't so far to any significant extent. All we have is a few editors plugging away at the word terrorist. Why is it that 99& of I/P editors come to a page to push an image, or quarrel over a sentence, in a long article that requires significant changes. No familiarity with the literature, no concern to copyedit, no attempt to update the topic, nothing, zilch, zero. Just a hammering on Hamas=terrorism one liner/or a dozen images. I suggest several of you actually read, not Wikipedia, but two or three of the several important books about the organization and its history. If you do, you will see that the cluttered patchwork we have is grossly defective, and this can't be emended by a lazy but persistent attempt to limit all discussion to a few words about terrorism. Those who do so are not here for encyclopedic ends, but to spin a national known POV.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't mention the word terrorist. I'm talking about an appropriate image for a 1994 Hamas attack inside a section without images dealing with Hamas attacks in the 1990s. If it makes you feel better, let's call it 'Hamas freedom fighting operation' or something.--Watchlonly (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You said you were done? Guess not. +1 edit, albeit a useless one, on your way to 500.Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The difference is that we make excuses for both sides. Get it? Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of making 'excuses'(which sounds ruseful). Pascal put himself in the tetragrammaton's boots with his apophthegm: 'Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner.' Well, sublunary intelligence at its best is not in the habit of making presidential pardons. It sticks to the first part of the formula - striving to grasp all that is relevant to, that illuminates, why man has recourse to violence, in this case Israel and Hamas, and leaves it to the rocket-polishers in the war rooms, or the jeering tabloid-jolted or socialmedia-drenched crowds to crow over the questions of justice, or of vengeance, the latter of which is in any case slightly blasphemous, since vengeance is a divine, not a human, prerogative in the moronic theology that underwrites our JudaeoChristianIslamic nook of the anthropocenic wood. No one who writes a list of incidental things, and leaves it at that, gets a guernsey. Prizes are awarded to those who take the observed phenomena in all of their bizarre diversity, and work out a theorem to explain the internal logic, making the ostensibly aleatory concatenations of mere sequence cohere. So an editor on this humbler scale must choose: dab and tweak factoids, splash photos, and this has some value) or coordinate them into a narrative that makes sense. Having said that, in the assurance it will not be grasped let alone pardoned . . .Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Although the 2017 revision of the charter is mentioned, most of the article is written as if it doesn't exist. This needs bulk corrective work. The official text is here. Zero^talk 03:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Please explain what kind of things you think should be revised. And, most importantly, if the revision is only on paper, but de facto the organization goes on doing what it did, then I sincerely doubt we need to change much. This is only a first, intuitive, reply, and I eagerly await yours. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No need, there are editors familiar with the situation and we will simply edit it in as necessary. Your right to revert will not be affected.Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

All three of the items presented in the section "Hamas Charter" have been removed and not replaced by similar things. The official position now is "Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine." It is obvious that the change has to be described in the article, though the content of the previous charter should be described too. Zero^talk 09:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Zero, for being a bit more reasonable here than Selfstudier. I agree with you completely, and see that my concerns might turn out to be unjustified. Debresser (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The article listed as a level-5 vital article has two overlapping section s on the 1988 Charter

• (1) Hamas Charter (1988) (Main article: Hamas Covenant) (38 sources)
• (2) [Hamas Charter] (main =Hamas Covenant) 5 sources

This is pure reduplication (1,318 words 8,368 characters, i.e.almost half of the text of the main article which has 2,737 words 17,392 characters) I don't know any parallel for this abuse.

If one wants a class5 article, one should observe the rules stringently. The two sections should be merged, the juicy 1988 quotes paraphrased (per secondary sources) here and the quotes shifted to the main article.(b) the 2017 amendment be included, all in one section:The Hamas Charter, 1988-2017. I.e. In mid 2017 Hamas altered its charter, affirming that

“its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.” Patrick Wintour, 'Hamas presents new charter accepting a Palestine based on 1967 borders,' The Guardian 1 May 2017 Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

an opinion article can not be used as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.120.129.22 (talk • contribs)

Not true, and it's not an opinion article anyway. Zero^talk 09:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier what are you talking about in your claim "this is not a forum." This is a talk page. It literally is a forum. My point has everything to do with the section in which it was made, as Nishidani was referencing the Hamas Covenant section about Zionists and Jews. And so I will write what you crossed-out again: There was an article put out by JPost today, citing PMW, demonstrating how Hamas and PA propaganda incite hatred against JEWS, not just Zionists, and justify the murder of Jewish civilians. Perhaps Selfstudier has an agenda as a lot of his edits seem to centre around Israel/Palestine. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:FORUM. You are a new editor and have a total of 14 edits to your name, all on talk pages and mainly about the Holocaust so I will forgive your lack of knowledge of how WP works on this occasion. If you want an edit made to the article, file an edit request. There is otherwise nothing to discuss here.Selfstudier (talk

) 09:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The "In Israel and the Palestinian Territories" is only about Palestinian opinion. I see nothing about Israel in it. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser:The merge instructions said to copy over the relevant material unedited so as to preserve attribution and edit it if necessary, afterwards. I have started on doing that, the table first, I haven't got as far as this section yet, but feel free to have at it if you disagree with something.Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This section would need something about the Israeli point of view, preferably. Or, in a worst case scenario, if nothing can be added about Israeli opinion, the words "Israel and" should be removed. It can wait till you get to it, I guess. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I jigged it a bit to meet the principal objection. The opinions of Arab Israelis are mentioned, I imagine the pollsters see little point in asking Jewish Israelis what they think of Hamas. Still, I will have a look about and see if there is anything,Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere:, there is no consensus to add the image, you alone cannot force it through by simply saying that you don't need a consensus and just because it's outside 24 hours doesn't mean it isn't edit warring. I strongly suggest you self revert at this point and start an RFC if you want to establish a consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. It's been explained that NPOV bars editors from stacking the page with one-sided images. They must be added proportionately to illustrate the topic, not drawing readers to focus on just one aspect. Secondly there is no consensus: the objections were just talked past. And thirdly, tagging waqf down the page, as you did, means you read that one section - the famous Charter - and found it perplexing, and asked for an explanation. The explanation occurs twice with links earlier. One should only edit a page if you read it closely from top to bottom, otherwise one will fuck up tagging pointlessly. It would help if at least one of the blows ins here troubled themselves to actually read up on the topic for once, instead of focusing on juicy bits.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:DUE, anyway). As for the tag - you may have misread {{explain}}. That template is meant to benefit the reader, not the editor. Have you been using it differently? François Robere (talk

) 21:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You're grabbing policy by the wrong handle. We had 5 pic of Hamas in militant mode, and another 4 nondescript images of logos etc. Adding a fifth and then implying, yes this is even more unbalanced, so the burden is on you to correct the imbalance I am creating is crap editing. The burden is on editors who violate NPOV to rein themselves in from plugging even more POV material, not for others to 'balance' their bullshit with counterbullshit. That is called edit-warring, which is what you are doing here, esp given that you show no signs of knowing anything about the topic. Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:IDONTLIKEIT (see here

).

Hamas is responsible to dozens, if not hundreds of terrorist attacks; having images of three of them here is not excessive. François Robere (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Policy says, if there is no consensus for an edit (which you admit) the new material doesn't go in. You just admitted this, so it goes out.Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary. Consensus is

not only about numbers, which is why I made a point of addressing the lack of rationale. François Robere (talk

) 00:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Tongue-in-cheek of course, because it was I who reminded you above that consensus is

not only about numbers. You have provided no rationale for br eaking NPOV by adding more of the same. That Hamas has engaged in terror attacks is undisputed. In this it is identical to the IDF, which systematically deploys terror and bombs known civilian targets (9 in 2006 cf. Marwahin). There is not a trace of this on the IDF page.Nishidani (talk

) 10:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Slow edit war is what you are doing (here it is ARBPIA reportable as well). The ONUS is on you for the inclusion of disputed material and it doesn't matter that the material is a verified picture, that is merely necessary for inclusion but not sufficient because you need consensus and you don't have it.Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

There are already two photos of aftermaths of bus bombings. A third bus bombing photo doesn't add anything. On Provisional Irish Republican Army there is a single bombing aftermath photo and on Israel Defense Forces not a single one. I agree that it would be nice with more photos in the article, but three bus bombing photos is excessive. ImTheIP (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that two photos of bombings in two consecutive sections is too much. I'd keep this one (1994) and remove the second (2003), as I think this one is better. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Imo, a photo of the Netanya bombing would be a good addition though. ImTheIP (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

As the guy who added that image in the first place, I agree with Debresser's proposal for three reasons: 1) Unlike the 1994 bombing, it's not clear Hamas was behind the 2003 bombing shown in article, although they perpetrated plenty of suicide attacks during the Second Intifada. 2) The 2003 picture is repeated in many other articles. 3) The Dizengoff Street bus bombing was an iconic Hamas attack in Israel, one of the first big ones, while the 2003 picture is not. So if there are people uncomfortable with having too many pictures showing Hamas attacks, I'm fine with deleting only the 2003 picture, although it would be helpful to have an image for the section dealing with the Second Intifada (maybe a picture of Hamas fighters instead of an attack?). I think this is a reasonable proposal.--Watchlonly (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:ASPERSIONS is also a thing, you know. François Robere (talk

) 00:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Just so we are clear about this:

Revert 1

Revert 2

and you made Revert 1 following Nishidani's initial removal and another editor rejecting the request to add the image for lack of consensus and Revert 2 while simply ignoring multiple objections on the talk page so not only is it slow edit warring it is tendentious editing to boot. I am still waiting for a self revert.Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"Revert 1" was the first time I inserted that image, which makes "Revert 2" my first (and thus far only) revert of someone undoing my own edit. So no, no "edit warring" here, slow or otherwise. Thanks for clarifying. François Robere (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It is irrelevant that it is the first time you made it, it is you adding back in a previous and recent removal ie a revert. And your editing is in general terms tendentious with respect to this image.Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Say, does the fact that Nishidani added back content that he knows is controversial and has been removed in the past constitute "tendentious editing" or "slow edit warring"? François Robere (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to go through and minutely control every source in this 615+noted page which has all sorts of issues and problems. Tendentiousness is shown by having a bee in one's bonnet, endless harping, not by someone who is endeavouring to get the facts verified and noted down in their completeness, including Hamas's talibanization period of hostility to Christians and lots of other neglected stuff. Every time I touch the article to fix these outstanding problems, I find a sudden bevy of editors who get hysterical about 1% of the text, its biblical writ re Hamas=terrorism. This is outlandishly puerile. Wait, exercise patience, and then fix whatever once the hard overhaul is done. What's the problem? Leads become clear when we have the body of the article duly documented, allowing for lead summary. To try to doctor the lead while ignoring the general sections is taking things by the wrong end of the stick. Give my regards to Icewhiz Nishidani (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

No idea, if you think so, take it up with him, I'm talking about your behavior not anyone else's.Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: Thanks for your edit, but the words "either in whole or in part" should be removed from lede since the US, EU and Israel consider the entire Hamas a terrorist organization, not just "part of it", as I explained below. Thanks.--Watchlonly (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. François Robere (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Why was the paragraph starting "The Israeli government funded Hamas in the early 1980s as part of a "divide and rule" strategy" removed? Debresser (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

That was me. :) I put it in a section about Hamas' history here: Hamas#Origins I think "Finances and funding" should be about how Hamas is funded today - not 40 years ago. I think a lot more content should be moved to the history section. ImTheIP (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. It was rewritten extensively. That is why I didn't recognize it as the same text. Thanks for the explanation. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani recently added in lede all the seven countries that refuse to label Hamas as a terrorist organization (previously there were only the most important four), but didn't expand the list of countries that do consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization, which causes a problem of undue weight and NPOV. Per consistency, we should add to lede Canada, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Jordan, Paraguay and Venezuela (Guaidó government) among those countries that consider, in whole or in part, Hamas a terrorist organization. Or... even better, we could restore lede as it was before: "Israel, the United States and the European Union classify Hamas, either in whole or in part, as a terrorist organization while Iran, Russia, China and Turkey do not." In addition, we should remove the phrase "either in whole or in part" since the US, EU and Israel consider the entire Hamas a terrorist organization and they don't distinguish between the political and armed wings (unlike many other countries that I just listed).--Watchlonly (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I share some concerns about

WP:DUE here. --Calthinus (talk

) 16:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

As I stated before, mentioning Switzerland and Norway - which have been neutral in world affairs for >500 and >100 years, respectively - is hardly notable enough for the lead. I'm not sure what Brazil has to do with the Middle East.

As an aside, Nishidani is well aware that this content is and has been disputed for some time (four years, by their admission). Adding this now is questionable. François Robere (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Watchonly. As your name suggests, you have never done the work to qualify to edit here, and so making suggestions for others to act on, or voting, comes close to

WP:Meatpuppetry

(We should here, we should there, etc) So off and do your homework, and by all means get back here then. I will note that your careless language gives your POV away:

countries that refuse to label Hamas as a terrorist organization

They haven't refused, they are not negationists before the truth. They have independent evaluations. There judgments may be as politically driven as those of the EU, Israel and the US, as Charrett's book shows (read it, before editing)

My original edit noted that (a) there are countries/blocs that call it terrorist (b) countries that do not (c) countries that are neutral. Edit warriors refuse to accept this clear distinction which would break down into 4/4/3.

Robere. You are going far too often for the revert gun. Try and address the talk page before shooting, and use policy-valid arguments, which you haven't done so far.Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so let's add to lede all the dozens of countries that classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, not just three or four (what about Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, UK, etc?). We trim both sides or none. You can't have it both ways. I might not be an experienced editor, but I'm not the only one who has noticed what you did here (against previous consensus, apparently).--Watchlonly (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said, desist from trying to get people to make proxy edits for you. I'm the only one who has noticed you still have 409 edits to make before editing legitimately here. Anyone could easily balance the EU conglomerate decision by noting that the

UN General Assembly refused to accept the US motion to define Hamas as a terroirist organization. I haven't. Kindly go away, and earn your right to edit here, rather than manipulate the article by proxy pressure.Nishidani (talk

) 17:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Non-qualified editors may request edits and contribute non-disruptively on talk pages. While one may argue about what is or is not disruptive I think we are now pretty close to that line.Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, please desist from telling others what to. You are not the owner of Wikipedia and you are not in a position of telling others what to do. Second, you are misleading him, since he has the right to request other for editing. So please stop misleading people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED0:5902:E500:8920:7365:ACB5:466F (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Instead of discussing the editor, however justified that may be, perhaps somebody care to answer his legitimate point regarding Nishidani's edit? Four editors see

3 editors says they see Undue issues (I exclude Watchonly, whose views on what should go in here constitute meatpuppetry. So far there is no clarification of what is undue about mentioning that three nations are neutral to the Manichaean terrorist/not-terrorist pitch several editors have historically favoured. My objection is that it's disingenuous to make up a divide between the good guys (us=Israel/EU(United States) and the bad guys (them =China, Iran, Russia, adversaries of the 'West'). That a third view exists is well documented, with many countries in the UN Assembly vote even abstaining (from memory 16). I don't know why the Manichaeans here insist that we should pass in silence the fact that many countries don't share one or the other view.Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani's central point if I understand him correctly is not this or that edit here and there but that the entire article needs work. Personally I could care less whether this or that country is mentioned specifically in the lead as long as there is no unsourced attempt to favor the views of any particular countries as somehow being more correct. There is now a table in the article which may well contain errors and maybe we could look at that first.Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any "good guys/bad guys" "West vs. non-West" here either way. If the reader sees that there, then that is not our fault -- people take in their own baggage to what they read. What I did see originally here was a longer list of countries that "don't" call Hamas a terrorist organization than those that do, which is not representative. Now we have "Brazil, Norway and Switzerland" are neutral. This is less bad but also weird. Norway and Switzerland (which is always neutral, it's, you know, Switzerland) aren't exactly relevant. Brazil more so.--Calthinus (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You really believe that a blunt juxtaposition (choosing among 147 countries) of (a) Israel, the US, the EU vs. (b) Russia, Iran, China, Turkey doesn't imply anything at all to the reader? It does, for (a) represents a core democratic Western majority opposed to (b) nations, all disliked, which are engaged in a geopolitical competition with the West. It is our fault if we create, by selecting who counts and repressing others as not counting, to produce an either/or impression. Both you and Robere state that Norway and Switzerland are negligible because they are historically neutral. I.e. you'explain' the reason why they are neutral and the reason is used to justify their exclusion as irrelevant. By the same token one could 'explain' why many countries accept the Israeli/US position, namely political pressure. Japan originally was neutral but after severe diplomatic pressure and threats were made, it fell in line with US policy (the details are in Penn's book), giving as its reason, not that Hamas was terroristic, but that it was 'hostile to Israel', and now is routinely cited in the literature as designating Hamas as terroristic (though it sequestered Hamas funds as part of a broader crackdown on the funding of terror). Political pressure to adopt Israel's position, as the relevant section should document (since books state the fact) has been crucial, and I don't think Wikipedia should lend itself to secondary operations to give a simplistic and misleading representation of the issue. If something as intrinsically threatening as terror finds major countries disagreeing, then there is an element of subjectivity in the various determinations, something that a declaration of neutrality underlines. We are talking about 3 names, hardly some major change, and one consonant with the facts. I see the desire to create a dualistic fiction as dumbing down an encyclopedia that should give the broad picture, with just three extra words. Why do three words upset people, when the distinction of neutrality is in the sources?Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani really this presupposes one particular understanding of international politics. In the past four years there has been plenty of US/EU disputes, various people who question the US' continued membership in the "alliance of the democratic world"... et cetera. This is all quite subjective. But it is also a simple matter of fact that it is the countries that in the Cold War were the traditional "Western alliance" (i.e. also Japan etc.) that includes a large plurality or majority of nations (plus some in Latin America -- or is this "the West" too?) that consider Hamas a terrorist org, and nations that have had many disputes with said alliance who believe otherwise. Trying to water this point down with the edge case examples of largely irrelevant Norway and perpetually neutral Switzerland is the actual definition of cherrypicking here, actually... --Calthinus (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you are interested in the 'international politicking' involved, then by all means read Charrett's book, which explains in great detail what occurred in 2006-2007 with EU decision-making regarding Hamas. In a decade of research she found that almost no one in Brussels thought the EU reaction strategically logical or justified. Privately almost everyone agreed it was a mess. The EU financed the elections, and, when Hamas won them, rather than come to terms with the new democratically validated electoral results, joined the US and Israel is adopting a policy of non-recognition of the winner, imposing strangulation policies while continuing to finance the loser, and imposing rigorous conditions on Hamas that had never been imposed on Fatah itself, which had, like Hamas, a notable record of recourse to terrorism. Out of this amply documented background, all editors appear to want to put down is that Hamas is recognized by us as 'terrorist'. People who read Wikipedia have vast exposure to this kind of tabloid reductionism: encyclopedias generally mark themselves off from the hysteria of the present by looking at the total record, which is less amenable to the comforts of simplistic prejudice. Doing that doesn't mean espousing, here, the case for Hamas. It means that holier-than-thou moralizing on the basis of a few selective items, while tidily hiding the complexities, is not going to lead us to grasp how history works. That can only be done if editors are willing to read broadly, rather than edit by cheaply googled snippets. Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention this addition in lede is completely absurd and has no consensus whatsoever (but God forbid someone inserts a picture that some people might not like, even it has everything to do with the text in article!). It was added unilaterally without discussion. It's not the UN General Assembly's function to classify terrorist organizations. It was a specific proposal by the US delegation to condemn Hamas activities that was rejected, nothing more. UN addition should be reverted as soon as possible. In the meantime, more countries that don't label Hamas as terrorist than those who do are represented in lede, which is the opposite of reality. Welcome to clown world.--Watchlonly (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of potential gaming of the Arbpia rule as instanced by your edits here. See here. Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the line has been crossed now, I don't mind discussing issues constructively with unqualified editors but I am not going to do that with an obviously partisan individual most of whose initial editing is here on this page.Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The UN bit has no place in the lead. François Robere (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, absolutely! In addition to being ridiculous and completely out of place, it was added unilaterally by one single editor without previous discussion, explanation or consensus whatsoever. If I could edit in article, that would be my first revert. Even Nishidani said he didn't want to go that far.--Watchlonly (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani personal attacks on talk page, POV pushing and imposing multiple highly controversial changes on lead again and again without consensus is against WIkipedia policy guidelines.Tritomex (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

These broad brush accusations are rather pointless, Tritomex. The page is an admitted mess, and requires a thorough overhaul. What I have been doing is to reformat the references, 615, to a standard template (b) check each reference to verify their accuracy (c) reduce where possible the sourcing from passing newsprint and articles by solid academic sourcing: in numerous cases, information sourced to a reference used but once, often to document a cliché, can be resourced to one or another of these basic scholarly studies. When you use a word like 'controversial' you should be careful. What may look 'controversial' on a talk page where a haphazard aggregate of editors dropping in may appear to give the impression there is a 'controversy' out there, doesn't always translate into evidence that the edits themselves are controversial in the relevant literature. Many things have been consistently edited out, despite very strong encyclopedic documentation, - the Vanity Fair piece by David Rose on the events of 2006-7 for example, where the background to what we call Hamas's sanguinary 'takeover' is contextualized in terms of a US/Israeli backed coup by a Fatah strongman to overturn the electoral result, has been thoroughly excised from the text.

So responsible editors have a choice: document the full record for Hamas, or cherrypick it to showcase the juicy bits while studiously erasing any trace of the complexities. Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

After considering the arguments presented above, I find myself persuaded by Calthinus's statement and oppose the recent addition of Brazil, Norway, and Switzerland to the lede. They can be included in the body of the article, along with the full list of countries that have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

That assumes a voting format. Calthinus never explained why the several sources, in mentioning the pro-terrorist/non-terrorist divide, also mention the neutral position, but that we should ignore what the secondary sources report in favour of the tabloid story. Perhaps you can give an explanation. What criteria govern editors exercising a right to suppress part of the known record? Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should ignore what the secondary sources report in favour of a tabloid story is at all a fair representation of what I was saying... --Calthinus (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

"The page is an admitted mess" The page has admitted to no such thing.

"That assumes a voting format" There are now 5 editors who oppose this change. Whatever the format, please undo your edit for now. However much you believe you did the right thing, your peers disagree with you, and you are kindly requested to respect that. Debresser (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it just the "Brazil, Norway and Switzerland" part the debate is about? If so, lets compromise; no text in the lead paragraph about what other governments think about Hamas. After all, the lead should describe Hamas - not what others think about Hamas. ImTheIP (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The question is more basic than that. I.e. to what extent are articles written according to what topically related RS report, as opposed to, what freedom can editors exercise in ignoring RS, or rather repressing material repeatedly noted in the relevant literature. On this, there is no doubt that Wikipedia rules frown on cherrypicking that distorts what RS are telling us. Here, no consideration is given to the principle: numbers are rallied, as with the recent procedures in the US Supreme Court, so as there, so on Wikipedia, key decisions are to be made by number stacking, not constitutional principles. Note that every time I ask editors to clarify why what scholars like Amossy, Brenner,Haspeslagh and Clemesha (I could add several more) find worthy of noting must not be duly mentioned here, the answer is, silence. Editors want to impose themselves on the topic, defying what scholars think noteworthy.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The UK does not list Hamas as a terrorist organization iirc, I will check. I suppose UK is not really in EU any more. Not sure about Canada.Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Needs a better source but this 2020 essay says UK and Canada only list the Brigades and the UK 2020 list of proscribed orgs seems to confirm it for the UK.Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, Canada does not distinguish the two arms so in effect lists both.Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Why not conduct an RfC?When positions seem predictable in an impasse, outside eyes can help.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering about it, the difficulty is that it isn't that clear yet (to me at least) what the RFC should say precisely.The usual thing is that the lead should summarize the body and it seems we are doing it ass backwards.Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Should the lead of this article include the fact that Norway, Switzerland and Brazil remain neutral with regard to the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization, as opposed to states which either view it as a terrorist group(Israel/US/EU) or do not consider it such (China, Turkey, Iran, Russia)? ' Something like that.Nishidani (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it for now. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Whatever. Of course, this argument about undue refers to the lead. There can be no objections to my putting the excised material in the relevant section below (which by the way you should have considered as an option. Destroying hard work by erasures rather than repositioning is a common wiki ndiscourtesy).Nishidani (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, I think that the table still needs work and the material that is there now is to my mind not really summarized correctly/adequately in the lead at the moment but I want to look at sources and improve the body before doing anything else in the lead. I think we could perhaps make a serious attempt to bring this article up to GA status..one step might be to get all the references out of the lead and into the body it is tiresome going back and forth trying to resolve the contradictions.Selfstudier (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

One thing at a time. The section on terrorist designation is rather stupid. We have each country sourced separately when one or two secondary sources will give you a list, and avoid the kind of excessive quantity of references on this page.Nishidani (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure but which one thing is the first thing? If we have all the refs in one place instead of different refs in two places to me that would be helpful.Selfstudier (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

For now, I will just move the references in the lead that relate to the international designation down to that section so that I can more easily review it.Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani You are right, I would have no objection to see this in a section, just not in the lead. Regarding my "destroying hard work", you can copy the text I removed from the edit history of the page. Just please remove the typos, particularly the forgotten spaces between words. Debresser (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Next time you revert me in your infinite care for spacing and Un due in leads, do the page the courtesy of retaining the excised material, which takes a great deal of time that can be crashed out in a second, and put it in the section you think relevant. I don't add irrelevancies to pages, and all that is never disputed is trhe location. That is collaborative editing, and signals that such revert is not POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I am really not in need of your recommendations. Nor do I necessarily agree with you that everything you add to an article should really be there. Please cool down. Debresser (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course not, but serial reverters who rarely, if ever add content, should briefly review mentally, when they press the undo tab, the fact that their participation is a matter of seconds, and what they wipe out, certainly here, is the result of hours, often days, sometimes weeks, and not infrequently months of careful reading over the whole topic. Of course, from experience, there are editors who are aware of it, and really get a major kick out of wrecking hard craftsmanship by a mere gleeful twitch of a finger. A sense of almost divine omnipotence in the face of those fragile babels of human endeavour. Present company excluded of course. Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(1) Hamas's military wing objected to the truce offer.^[1]

This is inappropriate to the lead, which must cover a general description of the various elements of the page. It clearly refers to one statement from a military commander in 2014, responding to a truce suggestion by Hamas's political bureau at that date. Highly contextualized in the Gaza War at that time. As the body of the text shows, hudna proposals have been made very frequently since 1995, without any documentation like this stating that the Izz-ad-Din Qassem Brigades disagree. The appropriate place for it, if it is considered important, would be the history section dealing with events of 2014. A specific item cannot serve as an overall generalization.Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• (2)Lankford, Adam (2014). "Précis of The Myth of Martyrdom: What Really Drives Suicide Bombers, Rampage Shooters, and Other Self-Destructive Killers". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 37 (4): 351–62.
  PMID 24826814
  .

I spent some considerable time reading this and the dozen papers mentioning it (listed just underneath the link). (a)It's not specific to Hamas (b) many scientific peers found it empirically thin (c) it's strongly contested in its field (d) in a multiply-referenced truism, this sort of marginal scientific speculation - just one theory about suicide bombers - is useless. (e) the content is no where evidenced in our article, which makes it just source-larding. Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(3)

A 2017 Palestinian Center for Public Opinion poll in the Palestinian territories revealed that Hamas's violence and rhetoric against Israelis are unpopular and that most Palestinians would rather Hamas "accept a permanent two-state solution based on the 1967 borders." ^[1]

There is no evidence in the origin al poll for this wiki spin.

The poll, commissioned from a certain Nabil Kukali in Beit Sahour and overseen by David Pollock, who works for the AIPAC supported pro-Israeli Washington Institute is just one of dozens and is meant to gauge Palestinian responses to Trump's initiatives in 2017. These 'results' are totally out of keeping with the same pollster results for 2020. Just two years earlier the same pollster found that 68% of Palestinians supported shooting rockets from Gaza in order to induce Israel to lift its blockade. I could cite numerous other polls by Kukali that give results that vary decidedly with this one.

Why pick, for the lead, one poll result over many others?

Pollock wrote:(a)Among West Bankers, 55% say Hamas should preserve a cease-fire with Israel; among Gazans, that figure rises to a remarkable 80%.

What does 'preserve a (which one) ceasefire' mean?

'violence and rhetoric against Israelis . unpopular'. Fails verification

Pollack wrote:(b)'responses to this provocative question: "Should Hamas stop calling for Israel's destruction, and instead accept a permanent two-state solution based on the 1967 borders?" In the West Bank, fully three-quarters say yes. The proportion in Gaza is a bit lower, but still a solid majority at 62%.'

I.e. no mention of rhetoric or violence against Israelis. No 'most'. And the question Pollock asked his Beit Sahour pollster to pose was admittedly provocative since (i) Hamas has for more than a decade dropped calling for the end of the state of Israel (not 'destruction') (ii) it accepts a form of the two-state solution.

In any case, that is not lead-worthy. The lead must deal with the overall reality of Hamas 1987-2020, not blips of specious data like this.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

In the lead Robere added

Despite a majority of nations voting in favor,

Even if the Wall Street Journal Wrote this, we know it is not factual from the data supplied on the vote by Deutsche Welle, which I cited in the previous section. 'the majority of nations' did not vote in favour. So that has to be removed.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not from the WSJ, it's from the UN press release:

Although a majority of UN Member States voted in favour of a General Assembly resolution put forward by the United States – condemning the activities of Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza – it failed to be adopted on Thursday at UN Headquarters in New York.^[1]

Please don't cast aspersions. François Robere (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Well the press release was wrong, and the WSJ's fact-checkers (having them is one reason we regard such media as RS) were sleeping - somnolence and a short memory seem to qualities indispensable for qualifying as a reporter these days. Since we know it is misleading we can't add unless we use some silly attribution -'according to a UN press release'. It is far simpler to cite the facts. Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

To avoid this kind of dispute I have added the actual voting figures for both resolutions. And I took out "Despite" and "easily" to avoid accusations of editorializing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(1) The detail shouldn't be in the lead of course, esp. since so much has been rubbed out from this section of the lead on the grounds of

WP:Undue. (2) The WSJ gives the vote as 87 votes in favor, 57 against and 33 = 177, a shortfall of 16 countries that refrained from voting. The precise figures are 'UN General Assembly rejects US resolution to condemn Hamas,' Deutsche Welle December 7 2018, which accounts for the behavior of all 193 nations. Refraining from voting, like abstention, is a political signal in politics (as even UN observer will tell you votes are bought and bargained over, which explains the last-minute flipping for a pro-terrorist designation that occurred with several countries) What the lead should state, given its concision, which the erasing editors insist on for other stuff, is, clearly, the fact, with the details below, or in a footnote, with DW as the source, since it gives a more precise breakdown.Nishidani (talk

) 17:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course, simple summary statements are the best thing for the lead. This is the point I was making previously, we should first complete an examination of the material and sources in the article body before making changes to the lead that reflect that. Now we will likely have pages and pages of argument about bits and pieces of the lead when we haven't got the article done properly. Needs must, I suppose.Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The UN bit has no place in the lede and should be removed. In addition to being ridiculous and completely out of place, it was added unilaterally by one single editor without previous discussion, explanation or consensus whatsoever. It's not the UN General Assembly's function to classify terrorist organizations. It was a specific proposal by the US delegation to condemn Hamas activities that was rejected, nothing more.--Watchlonly (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem is different: rejected proposal ≠ aquittal - too ambiguous a distinction for a lead section. Also, in previous discussions the editor went on and on about the intricate politics behind the classification of Hamas, a consideration which seems to have gone out the window when adding the UN, the most complex political entity on earth. François Robere (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

If the EU, a congeries of 27 nations (several with decidedly different views from the official approach) is accepted, then there is no rational reason to exclude the collective body of the world's (194+)nation-states. It's called parity/NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed there isn't, but rejected proposal ≠ aquittal. If it was a clear decision either way, then fine; but since it isn't, it's beyond the scope of the lead to explain. François Robere (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how familiar you are with wiki policies, but this is not a court of judgment. There was no judicial procedure in countries taking their respective positions, except in the case of the EU, the validity of whose determination was overturned by an EU court, so, there too, the decision remains political, not juridical. In any case, these are not wiki criteria for inclusion or exclusion.Nishidani (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 refers. The UN matters in these things. The lead is simply a statement of sourced fact, per WSJ "The U.N. General Assembly on Thursday rejected a U.S. resolution condemning Hamas as a terrorist organization". This was a notable event and widely reported. We go by sources not opinions. One can look at other material, for example, Sophie Haspeslagh (2013) “Listing terrorists”: the impact of proscription on third-party efforts to engage armed groups in peace processes – a practitioner's perspective, Critical Studies on Terrorism, 6:1, 189-208, DOI: 10.1080/17539153.2013.765706. I would say that this vote demonstrates that the situation is complex and not clear cut, if it were as straightforward as the US and Israel would like to assert, the vote would have passed easily, instead a competing resolution did pass easily calling for a resolution of the IP conflict. This latter point has nothing directly to do with the designation of Hamas and so is in the article body but not in the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Both your source and UN SCR 1373 have little to do with the vote we're discussing here.

The

WP:DUE

; but that isn't the case.

I completely agree that this vote demonstrates that the situation is complex and not clear cut (as are UN politics in general), but since the lead is not the place to elaborate on complex issues, it does not belong there. To paraphrase Nishidani: The error is that of definitional essentialism, describing a complex political [moment] with adjectives as though these caught the essence of this or that [vote]. Such a simplification in the lead would be manipulatively strategic, not objective, and... [would] mirror the rhetoric of powerbrokers, and break NPOV. François Robere (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Bring some sources to back up your opinions and we could discuss further. You have provided no, zero, policy reasons why this concise, properly sourced, notable and relevant fact should not be in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. We have a disruptive kibitzer here vying to get proxy edits done. The criteria used both in the earlier vote, and now here, are not policy based. Wikipedia does not allow editors to consistently repress well sourced information and cherrypick only one part of a narrative, particularly on a 5th level vital article like this.Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Boys and girls, I just cited

WP:NOTNEWS - get some later sources that show "enduring notability" (ie importance from an historical perspective), and then we can discuss whether it's enough for the lead. François Robere (talk

) 21:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It's biased to report the position of the U.S. and its allies without mentioning that their resolution failed at the UN. TFD (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree if such failure actually implied that the idea is rejected by a majority of countries, but it doesn't (see "rejected proposal ≠ aquittal" above). Case in point? This very vote, which failed despite a majority of delegates voting in favor.[1] François Robere (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Either you don't know how the UN Assembly functions or you are spreading disinformation. In either case you should strike that out. I.e .

• The UN Assembly is constituted of 193 nations.
• 87 votes in favor (several changing their votes at the last minute in favour)
• 58 against
• 32 abstentions
• 16 countries did not vote.
• Total =193

The yea vote therefore was seconded by 45.08 of the membership, less than half (not 'a majority of delegates'). Since abstentions are counted as not voting, 48 countries refrained from making a judgment, i.e. like Norway, Switzerland, and Brazil they remain neutral on the issue. In the UN a resolution that receives a majority vote becomes part of international law. The failure to get this into international law (the US consistently has opposed using international law with regard to the I/P, but tried to make a unique exception here) means that the designation remains political and partisan, not legally objective.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The source I cited - the UN news office - explicitly states that a majority of UN Member States voted in favour.[2] If you can't be bothered to check the links, you shouldn't be casting aspersions. François Robere (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

How about a compromise; nothing in the lead about other countries labeling of Hamas? There is some wiki policy or something that says that subjects should be described before they are criticized. The designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization is of course veiled criticism. I think it would be great if someone spent time redrafting the whole lead. ImTheIP (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Every single organization in the world accused of terrorism has this designation in lede and Hamas should be no exception. Every controversial topic in Wikipedia has criticism in lede assuming it is an integral part of article's body. There's no need to whitewash an organization that has been accused of terrorism against civilians by dozens of countries (and they don't deny it). The UN part, however, is completely undue.--Watchlonly (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

When, if, the body has been completely gone over and fixed up, then the lead should be looked at to see if it properly reflects the body, this is the usual method for the better articles. I do think this article should be brought up to GA standard and we are on the way at the moment. Arguments now should not be about what is in the lead, absent manifest error, but instead about what is in the body because the lead ultimately is going to reflect that.Selfstudier (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I really do think we should only include countries or organizations that are involved in the issue, specifically the US, the EU, Russia, Arab nations, Turkey and Iran. We could include the UN's GA (or any of its other organs) if they actually adopt a resolution. François Robere (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with Watchlonly that the labeling of Hamas as a terrorist organization is lead material par excellence. I also agree with him that the UN is not, in this case. And I think that a list of countries who have not designated Hamas as a terrorist organization, is not something that should be in the article at all. Not having designated an organization as such or the other is not notable (unless it would be a notable exception for whatever reason). Debresser (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And I think that a list of countries who have not designated Hamas as a terrorist organization, is not something that should be in the article at all.

You are entitled to your view, but you should try to analyse what your remarks mean. They mean that operatively you are in favour of (a) eliminating mention of Russia, China, Turkey and Iran from the lead, leaving only mention of states that designate Hamas to be terrorist (this egregiously violates

WP:CENSORSHIP. We are supposed to go by RS. not invent personal reasons for suppressing significant information from an encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk

) 14:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This section is really only about the UN mention in the lead or at least that's how it was started and is titled. If you want to argue about this point in particular, it will have to be an RFC because at the moment only yourself and François Robere are actively against it (unqualified editors cannot participate in an RFC) and your objections appear rather light on policy grounds. In the alternative, an RFC that reopens the entire question along the lines of your comment is also possible. I have already said I will not myself initiate an RFC for the reasons I gave previously.Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Some one should do it. I can't because I don't know how they are done (templates etc). There is too much mechanical voting here, none of it based on individually reasoned opinions or policy or knowledge of the topic.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest the following RfC text. Anyone can tinker or offer their own, to ensure neutral wording

In the Hamas article, the lead mentions 3 nations and one supranational block(the EU consisting of 27 nations) designating the organization as 'terrorist'. It mentions 4 nations holding the opposite view. It also notes the UN Assembly (193 nations) in voting on a terrorist designation resolution failed to gain a majority in favour. Should this paragraph (a) allow mention of countries that are neutral, such as Norway, Switzerland and Brazil (a third position) (b) retain mention of the UN Assembly vote?Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, I would support that RfC. I do not see what is the criteria for excluding countries from the lead, if we are to include a sentence about it. Davide King (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, as I explained below, in the meantime the UN part has to go until there's consensus for its inclusion. But even leaving that aside, the lede is still incorrect regarding the countries. It says "classify Hamas, either in whole or in part..." when the three countries mentioned plus the EU consider the entire organization terrorist, not only its military wing. And I would also add Canada among the countries that classify the whole organization terrorist. If we want to keep the phrase "classify Hamas, either in whole or in part..." we should include countries that only label Hamas' military wing as terrorist, such as Australia, New Zealand, Paraguay, the UK and maybe Saudi Arabia.--Watchlonly (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Watchlonly, if we include that in the lead, I agree we should add to the list both countries that only label Hamas' military wing as terrorist and countries such as Brazil, Norway and Switzerland that do not, whether they do not think it should be classified as such or if they have a history of neutrality; this should not be used an an excuse to remove the fact it is not classified as such by countries like Switzerland. Perhaps we may separate the countries that recognise Hamas as a terrorist organisation from those that recognise only its military wing, or not the whole organisation as such, hence removing the either in whole or in part wording and structure the sentence to represent the three 'blocs' (whole organisation terrorist, in part/military wing only, no terrorist organisation). Davide King (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, I agree with your compromise. Let's add the three main positions in lede: countries that consider the whole organization as terrorist, countries that label only its military wing and countries that reject such a classification entirely, including neutral ones like Brazil and Switzerland.--Watchlonly (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Hamas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This addition in lede was added unilaterally without discussion by a single user. It's not the UN General Assembly's function to classify terrorist organizations. It was a specific proposal by the US delegation to condemn Hamas activities that was rejected, nothing more. Per

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, The current lead is full of falls information. First in the body of the article Egypt is sourced as a country that designated Hamas as terrorist organization. Yet the lead claims the opposite. Than, the source for Brazil is outdated as the current government changed its stands on the issue. [3] while the claim for Norway is simply without any source. Considering the UNDUE non biding resolution of UNGA, it did not rejected Hamas designation as terrorist organization. While the resolution was supported by the plurality of countries, it failed short of required majority. However, this was not a resolution on whether Hamas was or wasn't a terrorist group, but a specific USA proposed resolution on Hamas activities.Tritomex (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

An Egyptian court designated Hamas terrorist but a higher court overturned that decision, that's why the listing is in green and so it agrees with the lead. Norway is now sourced and added to the table so that is also dealt with (merely because there is an EU position does not prevent individual EU countries from having their own position as is the case with Norway and was with the UK prior to its leaving the EU). Your comment on Brazil is incorrect, the source is referring to Hizbollah not to Hamas. Ditto the Arab League, they declared Hizbollah terrorist afaik, if you have a source saying different we can add it to the table. In the matter of the UN, RS reports (and Nikki Haley) described the vote as being a decision on whether to designate Hamas as terrorist, we go by the sources not by unsourced opinions. If you have a source for Argentina listing, please provide it.Selfstudier (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Tritomex, the simple solution is fixing or updating sources while reflecting changes such as for Brazil. Egypt was green as "[i]n June 2015 Egypt's appeals court overturned a prior ruling that listed Hamas as a terrorist organization", so what are you talking about? Several countries are missing and should be added to the table. You mentioned Argentina and the Arab League but it is also missing Syria, which is mentioned alongside "[m]any other states, including Russia, China, [...], Turkey and Iran consider the (armed) struggle waged by Hamas to be legitimate." The current lead merely reflects what is in the body. Brazil's change needs to be added, although the source you gave only stated that "Brazil will declare Hezbollah a terrorist group soon", did that actually happen? Funny you said "Argentina, the Arab League that designated Hamas as terrorist org. are simply omitted" when my main issue was exactly that only a few countries were listed and Norway and Switzerland were omitted, giving the simplicistic impression that the West labels it a terrorist organisation and the autocratic East does not. Davide King (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Noted only now, as correctly mentioned by Selfstudier, that you confused Hezbollah for Hamas. Davide King (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

That, Tritomex, is also confusing. One doesn't by definition speak to organizations one regards as 'terrorist' and for several years Egypt, despite its court's finding, has been the key conduit between Hamas and the West, and Israel. The situation there is complex, with the harshness that followed al-Sisi's coup watered down notably in the last three years (because Hamas and Egypt have a number of core shared interests, geopolitical, strategic and economic). The same go for Brazil. Bolsonaro has been considering overturning Lulu's position by branding Hamas a terrorist entity for over a year, but to date, still refrains from doing so.

Could some consideration be extended to the fact Selfstudier and I have been pressing, i.e. until the overhaul is substantially completed, might editors desist in warring over the least problematical sentence or two in the lead, since leads must reflect the text and are the last things to get caught up in a battle that only wastes a lot of constructive editorial time in the body of the article? We should await the outcome of the RfC where editors without any horse in this race can provide us with some refreshing, independent input on that lead.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King The source regarding Brazil, mentions specifically Hamas alongside Hezbollah, so does this source [4]. I immediately removed parts of my comments that were inserted by mistake, so they do not need reflections. What should be tackled is a question on Norway position, as the claim that Norway rejects Hamas designation as terrorist organization is not in the source given.Tritomex (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Then the question is still the same; did Brazil actually act on its words? Is there any source that Norway supports the designation? "In 2006, Norway explicitly distanced itself from the EU proscription regime, claiming that it was causing problems for its role as a 'neutral facilitator.'" This, in my view, verifies that Norway rejected the EU adoption of the 'terrorist' label. Davide King (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The 14 years old source, doesn't even mention Hamas by its name, it tackles Norway historic role in failed peace initiatives. If you want Norway included in the list of countries that oppose Hamas designation as terrorist organization, than you have to source it and not ask for the sources that shows the contrary (for exclusion).Tritomex (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The source Haspeslagh was published 4 years ago. Really Tritimex, read the article and at least some of the 600 sources in there. Just seeing something one dislikes, googling for an objection and then dragging out flippant opinions on the talkpage is wasting your own time and ours.Nishidani (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And Haspeslagh says "In the case of Hamas, it is also important to note that certain countries, such as Norway,Russia, Turkey and Switzerland have chosen not to list the group." Selfstudier (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the UN procedure is any more than it is what the U.S. and EU process is. We don't mention for example that in the U.S. groups are added to the list by the executive rather than the legislature, hence there is no vote at all. By mentioning only the U.S. and EU decisions, we falsely present unanimity in classifying Hamas as a terrorist group. I note also that there are no expert opinions provided, which again skews the neutrality of the lead. The U.S. definition of a terrorist group is overly broad, since it defines any group that uses terrorism as a terrorist group. But it excludes groups that are allies. TFD (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I have looked into this a bit This source from May 2019 says "Jordanian sources have revealed that the Kingdom refused a request from the General Secretariat of the Arab League in late March to ban Hamas and list it as a terrorist organisation." Now this is not really much better than the marginal sourcing for Saudi Arabia but it does raise a flag. Banning Hamas is not quite the same thing as adding it to a terrorism list. So again, any sourcing or info on this that anyone has would be helpful.Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Despite my general impression that press reports are generally not worth a nob of goat's shit, that's a fine piece of analysis. Hamas is really the Palestinian expression of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been well entrenched within Jordan, and plays a significant role in Jordanian politics and elections (though technically according to the court of Cassation it has been operated illegally there since 1953- a verdict that in no way altered its standing). The Jordanian branch in turn has close links with Hamas, and via them Jordan itself has a pipeline to Hamas. The monarchy has to play an extremely complicated geopolitical game there, and rarely commits itself to proscriptions of the kind other nations (more in the US's backpocket) do. I haven't yet read more than chapter 1, but there is just out a very good study of the MB in Jordan, that appears also to touch on Hamas. I.e.Joas Wagemakers, The Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan,

ISBN 978-1-108-83965-5 It is interesting because, in part, it tests the inclusion model=moderation/exclusion model = extremism which is so much a part of theoretical discussions about Hamas. While Wagemakers has some criticisms of it, it does appear that including the MBrotherhood has proven functional for Jordan, as many suspect it would have been in I/P area had the gungho ideological policy fanatics of the US/Israel axis not had the deciding vote on everything that happens there. Nishidani (talk

) 21:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Although I was able to verify that the Muslim Brotherhood is on their list, I so far cannot locate a source to confirm that Hamas is on it. I am almost sure that it is not despite statements that Saudi officials might make when US officials are around. At the moment the source we are relying on is attributing as follows "comments made by a source close to Saudi decision-makers that the royal decree, which placed the Muslim Brotherhood on the list of terrorist groups, also encompasses its branches in other countries — including Hamas in Palestine." We can't really rely on that as evidence for a listing (Hamas is not a "branch" for a start), has anyone come across a source or know categorically whether Hamas is on the Saudi list? Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I based my edit on what the table said. "Banned the Muslim Brotherhood in 2014 and branded it a terrorist organization. While Hamas is not specifically listed, a non-official Saudi source stated that the decision also encompasses its branches in other countries, including Hamas." I agree with your reasoning, but this should be better reflected in the table.

That's fine, I suspect the Saudis are trying to have their cake and eat it at the same time. They know there are difficulties with listing Hamas but otoh they want to play nice with the US. I agree with your general point that the article and the lead should be in synch.Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't use notoriously poorly documented or dated wiki sections for evidence, esp. as the whole article is undergoing an overhaul. The general problem in this rush to screw a 'terrorist' label as the dominant descriptor here is that it overlooks that nations can change their assessments over the several decades of Hamas's institutional life, and the Saudi case should be left out for that reason. It backed and financed Hamas firmly throughout the early decades, capped by its brokering the NUG in 2006-7 (quickly torpedoed by the West) and kept up this policy until Hamas expressed support for the Arab Spring. That was a turning-point for Saudi Arabia which started making life hard for Hamas from that time onwards. The complicating factor was Iran - to stop financing it gave Iran more leverage, hence collateral damage for SA, which wanted to keep Hamas, a fellow Sunni actor, out of the Shiite sphere. If one states 'Saudi Arabia' this or that, the descriptor will be relevant to today, but not reflect the long history where that country had strong ties with Hamas. Of course, with Salman in Trump's pocket, Hamas's Saudi days are over, whatever their proscription list will say or not say, therefore it is best left out.Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree with both. But could this be clarified in the table about Saudi Arabia? The country's flip flopping should be highlighted and contextualised, if we are going to discuss this thing and have a table too. Davide King (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The table was only recently merged here and I was slowly going through it when war broke out :) Now there are more eyes on the thing, maybe can get along a little quicker.Selfstudier (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I found an 2020 article from same source as was given in 2015 and this suggests that Hamas is not listed. Better sourcing would be good. I cannot locate any reference at all to only the military wing being listed so I have changed the color to green until a source definitively establishing that Hamas is listed is found.Selfstudier (talk)

Selfstudier, thank you. Could you please also sumarise that "Saudi Arabia supplied half of the Hamas budget of $50 million in the early 2000s,[98] but, under U.S. pressure, began cut its funding by cracking down on Islamic charities and private donor transfers to Hamas in 2004,[99] which by 2006 drastically reduced the flow of money from that area. Iran and Syria, in the aftermath of Hamas's 2006 electoral victory, stepped in to fill the shortfall.[100][101] Saudi funding, negotiated with third parties like Egypt, remained supportive of Hamas as a Sunni group but chose to provide more assistance to the PNA." A summary of this should probably be added in discussing Saudi Arabia's position in the table, per Nishidani's comment above. Davide King (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I will do that, give me a little time.Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Lest anyone think I have forgotten I am still working on a summary, it is not just about funding. The complexities over time probably ought to be dealt with in the body first, I might do that, let me see where I get to with it.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@

@ImTheIP: I'm aware of the MOS guidelines, which is why I referenced one of them in my edit summary. DUPLINK is often more applicable to concepts, than it is to people. Especially when referencing persons who aren't directly related to the primary subject, or even ancillary to the primary subject, exceptions apply, almost to the point of IAR. The thing to avoid is overlinking. But if the linked person hasn't been referred to repeatedly throughout an article, and especially if only rarely mentioned, it's helpful to our readers to be reminded of who they are, on rare occasion. Especially in a section where *who they are* is directly relevant. In my experience, when to do this is usually determined by rough consensus, but obviously, common sense applies. You don't want to link them in every section. Likewise with the surname, for which I think an exception exists here: since it is linked, it's better not to pipe it, which one would necessarily have to do if repeating the interwiki link. Honestly, that guideline seems to be more about not constantly repeating someone's given name when they're being referred to repeatedly throughout the article. Basically, it's assumed you now know who that person is, by that point. The example given in the MOS is Bill Clinton, with a bit of context. If it's been describing things that Bill Clinton did, and you've just mentioned Hillary Rodham prior, you can simply say "Clinton met Rodham when..." I also think at its core it really has more in common with the other guidelines on honorifics (as in: it's unencyclopedic to constantly repeat someone's title or salutation in the same entry). Apologies for the dense reply--- I recently found out pings don't work if you start a new paragraph. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

DUPLINK is often more applicable to concepts, than it is to people. I cannot find that stated in the MOS and I disagree. Duplicate links increases clutter and makes the page both harder to read and edit. I'm honestly not sure what your argument is since the guidelines are explicit. If we refer to Abbas ten times in an article, we don't write "Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ... Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ... Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ..." because that just causes clutter. Instead, we wrote "Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ... Abbas ... Abbas ..." Similarly for Yassin: "Hamas co-founder and spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin ... Yassin ... Yassin ..." ImTheIP (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not stated directly. As I recall though, all of the examples used to illustrate it throughout the MOS are always either concepts or organizations. Not people. Further, these are guidelines, which I generally adhere to rather closely, myself. But they aren't policies, and as it says within those guidelines, exceptions always apply (linked to

WP:IAR

).

This isn't some hill I'm going to die on, however. I just think it's just good practice to apply common sense when linking and piping, more than anything. As far as your example.... Please. You know very well that's not what this was proposing, nor would that be the result. I'm hoping that was mostly tongue-in-cheek, even if you were being didactic.

I was surprised, however, to see that this kind of was actually the case in the article already. Sheikh, used as an honorific (not as a descriptor or in a quote), was used repeatedly throughout the article. Likewise, nearly every Palestinian figure mentioned had their full name written, usually preceded by an honorific when applicable. This isn't surprising in an article dealing with this part of the world (it's actually part of why WP:HONORIFICS exists), but maybe it should be scaled down a bit; every esteemed leader can be called a "sheikh". I've only trimmed a bit of it, as most of these were first mentions, and it can technically be applied there. I've left other examples of given name and surname in the article, but removed at least one of those which were in the same section. I'm sure I've missed others, as I only glanced through. I fully agree that the full name of any person doesn't need to be repeated in any subsection. Once is enough. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that links could be in the lead, repeated once in the article and in any infobox but don't hold me to that.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You're correct. The MOS states that such interwiki links can be repeated in infoboxes, references (and explanatory footnotes), the lead, and first usages in the article body. Again, it illustrates this using concepts (like geometry), events, etc. Not people. I'm relying more on the general practice I've found when editing in an analogous subject area, American Politics. Links to bios are occasionally repeated in long articles, but not often. Likewise, with given names. And obviously, given names are regularly used if people share the same surname (such as "Trump"), except in the same sentence, (occasionally) the same paragraph, or (less rarely) the same section. Unfortunately, the MOS doesn't seem to address any of this, so it probably needs to be clarified with some sort of discussion (and/or RfCs) on the MOS talk pages at some point. Like I said before, I'm just applying my own common sense here. The mileage and opinions of others might vary. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Same here. That's why I started the discussion on this talk page rather than on your user page's talk page - to hear others opinions. Wrt people, I think it is logical and consistent to "introduce" them once in the article body and then refer to them by surname. Otherwise it gets repetitive and you risk introducing confusing inconsistency. For example, if Mashal is at one place referred to as "Hamas leader Khaled Mashal" and in another as "Hamas' politburo chairman Khaled Mashal," the reader might not get that it is the same person. ImTheIP (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP:, in essence, I generally agree with you. With everything you've said. I'll admit that at least part of my reasoning for proposing this is cultural bias; not mine, but what I perceive to be that of our general readership. The majority of English speakers globally, whether native speakers or acquired speakers, are somewhat unlikely to be used to reading Arabic (or any Semitic) surnames on a regular basis. Even more so for Americans, who make up the majority of our unregistered user base. And I suspect that toponymic or patronymic surnames would be even less easily recognizable. I realise that this isn't a policy-based reason whatsoever, and I'll own that. But for lesser known figures in international politics that readers might not be familiar with before reading this article, I think it might be helpful to occasionally repeat the name to aid in recognition. It's silly, but once again, it's a suggestion from common sense. I definitely don't think we need to re-link or provide a given name in the same paragraph or even section, especially for a short article. Once again, this is something that's woefully unaddressed in our MOS, but probably should be. It's not a big deal overall, as I said, and it ultimately comes down to personal preferences. If anyone else wants to weigh in on this either way, I'll consider that a weak consensus. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

There seems no good reason to exclude the UN from the table so I have added it in. This has nothing to do with whether the UN position should be mentioned in the lead, subject of the ongoing RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The source that doesn't even mention Hamas [5] You should find a source that clearly says what you want it to say. Its clearly

WP:OR and the source doesn't support this --Shrike (talk

) 13:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why should it mentions Hamas when it is about "designated terrorist groups and targeted sanctions" and Hamas is not considered as such by the source? Is not that proof Hamas is not considered as such? Why would we need a source to say "Hamas is not considered such and such" when not listing it as part of the list already proves that (at least until they are actually added; we would need additional comments or a note saying, "We have excluded Hamas from this but in truth we consider it a 'terrorist organisation', even though we have not listed it for whatever reason.")? Is that not enough and why? Do we need every country that does not list Hamas to explicitly come out and say, "Hey, Hamas is not on our list for a reason." I do not see those doing the list adding a note, "Oh wait, by the way, such and such who are not on list, are not such and such." Original research may just as easily applies to dismiss countries such as Norway and Switzerland, assuming that they do not designate Hamas because they are neutral, not because they legitimately think they are not such and such. The fact they have labelled al-Qaeda and ISIS, among others, as terrorist groups but not Hamas disproves that they have not labelled Hamas 'terrorist' just because of their history of neutrality. Davide King (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The source should say explicitly that Hamas is not in the list. If it was

WP:RS.Norway source explicitly says that Hamas in the list. --Shrike (talk

) 14:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The Sacred Nuns of Narna are also not in the list, I'll see if I can find a source specifying that. I don't know why you are referring to Norway in this section but in any case the the Norway source says "Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Japan classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, while Norway, Iran, Russia, Turkey, and Arab nations do not." I trust that refutation is clear enough for you.Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is Danon (ex Israeli UN ambassador) in June of last year "...The UN should declare Hamas a terrorist organization and not recognize its affiliates in any international forum...." It seems reasonable to assume that he is calling for that because the UN doesn't classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. I think we have now had enough of inventing reasons for denying the patently obvious.Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Please fix the phrasing. As noted in my comment on the RfC, the resolution is not actually about "designating" Hamas anything. François Robere (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Fix the phrasing of what? We can't tamper with the lead atm because that is subject of an ongoing rfc and if you mean the UN entry in the table, you may do that yourself, probative or contradictory as long as it is properly sourced. You have already done it once as far as I can see.Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Fix the phrasing of what This section is about the table or the lead? François Robere (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

When you work it out, be sure to put it in your diary so as not to forget.Selfstudier (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, don't make yourself enemies when you don't need to. Keep it

WP:AGF, if you can. François Robere (talk

) 12:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You already made one unfounded AGF accusation against me, which I chose not to report. Doubling down on your own incivility won't improve your look at all.Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Will you both please stop the unjustified bickering. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This is one of those rare circumstances where I actually agree with Debresser. Guys, take a breather and try not to personalize this dispute so much. I realize this is touchy subject matter in general, and that this subject area tends to annoy everyone working in it, but it might help to not even refer to anyone personally, and just talk about the content. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)