Talk:Hamas

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hamas. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hamas at the Reference desk.

The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" should be avoided or used with care. Editors discussing the use of these terms are advised to familiarize themselves with the guideline, and discuss objections at the relevant talkpage, not here. If you feel this article represents an exception, then that discussion properly belongs here.

Welcome!

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Relevant WikiProjects, Historial Stats, and Usage Info

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam: Islam and Controversy / Sunni Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force. This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force. Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration Military history: Middle East / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Post-Cold War task force Organizations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Palestine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance). Template:Vital article Hamas is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. Article milestones Date Process Result March 1, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 6 times. The weeks in which this happened: July 13 to 19, 2014 (17th) July 20 to 26, 2014 (10th) July 27 to August 2, 2014 (6th) August 3 to 9, 2014 (23rd) May 9 to 15, 2021 (5th) May 16 to 22, 2021 (7th) Text and/or other creative content from Hamas was copied or moved into Criticism of Hamas with this edit on March 25, 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. The contents of the International positions on the nature of Hamas page were merged into Hamas on October 21, 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. Section sizes Section size for Hamas (58 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 25,297 25,297 Etymology 532 532 History 12,487 12,487 Policies towards Israel and Palestine 3,226 63,328 Truce proposals 5,140 5,140 Recognition of Israel 5,622 5,622 Allegations of antisemitism 10,219 10,219 Evolution of positions 32 39,121 1988–1992 (first charter) 1,940 1,940 1992–2005 1,235 1,235 2006–2007: 1967 borders and a truce 7,249 7,249 2008–2016 10,172 10,172 2017– 6 Oct. 2023 (new charter) 4,170 4,170 7 Oct. 2023–present 6,974 6,974 Comments from non-Hamas-members 7,349 7,349 Religious policy 24 15,292 Gaza Strip 8,140 8,140 In the West Bank 3,072 3,072 Erdoğan's Turkey as a role model 4,056 4,056 Charter and policy documents 36 12,714 1988 charter 8,166 8,166 2017 document of principles 4,512 4,512 Organization 18 35,914 Leadership and structure 2,644 4,868 Shura Council and Political Bureau 2,224 2,224 Finances and funding 12,843 12,843 Social services wing 5,033 5,033 Media 128 8,928 Al-Aqsa TV 4,722 4,722 Al-Fateh magazine 1,514 1,514 Social media 2,564 2,564 Internal security 1,353 4,224 Civilian crisis management 2,871 2,871 Qassam Brigades (military wing) 7,082 7,082 Gaza forces, October 2023 1,105 1,105 Symbols 4,704 4,704 Violence 1,691 43,071 Attacks on civilians 16,657 16,657 Rocket attacks on Israel 4,780 4,780 Guerrilla warfare 1,685 1,685 Extrajudicial killings of rivals 10,141 10,141 Terrorist designation 8,117 8,117 Criticism 3,793 3,793 Electoral performance 28 488 Legislative Council 460 460 Support 12 6,916 Israeli policy towards Hamas 2,707 2,707 Public support 4,197 4,197 Foreign relations 9,928 19,773 Qatar and Turkey 9,845 9,845 See also 287 287 Notes 26 26 References 33 17,177 Sources 16 17,144 Books 14,013 14,013 Journal articles 1,683 1,683 Other 1,432 1,432 External links 3,638 3,638 Total 273,624 273,624

I have closed the rfc above and uncommented the line in the infobox per the consensus. However, now we have antiïmperialism listed in the infobox but not the body text. As such, it will need to be written in to the body at an appropriate spot as soon as possible. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I do hope the body text will contain some of the sources I listed. It would be weird to include sources from 2021 and earlier while excluding ones in 2023 that are in line with WP:RSP and cited everywhere else in Wikipedia like CNN, The Atlantic, and El Pais. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see this discussion was about "anti-imperialist" - but is used in the article to justify also anti colonial. If that is what people want to discuss, may I suggest opening a separate discussion. I don't see any consensus on anti colonial. Tal Galili (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this seems to be an issue. Also from understanding of RFC, anti-Imperialist is only for infobox. If one wishes to add it to lead then full scope of characteristics ought to be added no? Homerethegreat (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste - given that there is a decision to move anti-imperialist" into the lead section from the info box, does it not also stand to reason to include "Antisemitism", as mentioned in the info box? Tal Galili (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"is often used as a synonym for imperialism"[6] But we can open a separate thread if you feel the consensus for anti-imperialist doesn't justify anti-colonial. And I believe antisemitic is already included in the lead?VR _talk 14:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if it's a synonym, why do we need it there as well? Tal Galili (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Colonial and Anti-Imperialist are different things. We must be very careful in our wording since there is the potential to seriously mislead readers. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But do you at least agree there is consensus that anti-imperialism is undisputed part of Hamas ideology? I'm not asking if you personally disagree with this, I'm asking for you to acknowledge that such a consensus exists among users in general. VR _talk 20:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Talgalili: Just to mention that we are not going to "move" anything from infobox to lead. As for the inclusion of colonial phrase, is there any substantiated objection against its inclusion? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein - I think that there are two narratives about Hamas, but only one of them seems clear to me in the first paragraph of the lead. The first narrative is that it's a political militant group, with anti colonial anti imperialist ideologies, something that would lean into the Freedom Fighters narrative. The other is antisemitic, authoritarian, dictatorial, terrorists. Given that this article is in dispute, I suspect making sure that there is as little "wiki voice" in it, while there is as much exposure to both views is the best way moving forward. Does that make sense? Tal Galili (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, the antisemitic 'narration' is already in the lead 3rd paragraph, in an attributed manner. The question is why 'anti-imperialism' is not featured there despite being inserted in the infobox thanks to the consensus built on the talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Curry7524 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mosbug1 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, Hamas denied that there was an agreement between the Resh P and their sons to stop the violence. This is in contrast to writing. Source: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-203224/

"Talks between representatives of the Palestinian Authority and the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, in Cairo ended without agreement. According to a joint statement issued by the negotiators, Hamas would not urge supporters to boycott the election and would not do anything that would embarrass the Palestinian Authority. PLO officials interpreted that part of the communique as an indirect commitment against violence, while Hamas insisted no such pledge was given. (The New York Times, Reuter, AFP)"

This revert is hopelessly POV, I changed this a while back so as not to treat the past as if it were current and now it is reverted back in doing exactly that.

Editors opinions invited as to the appropriateness of this material in this location and worded as is? Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current formulation is good and provides historical context without which the reader cannot understand what Hamas is. I am open to other formulations, but I think the original treaty need to be mentioned in the lead. Dovidroth (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how overemphasizing a single political document from the late 80s does help readers understand anything. It certainly helps paint a picture, but I don't think that picture has anything to do with helping readers understand. The old charter is barely referenced by Hamas; they have said over the years to ignore it; and in 2017 they expressly overwrote it, presumably in response to the massive over-fixation on the moribund charter released amid the South Lebanon conflict. Politics evolve. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current formulation as mentioned above is a reflection of Hamas' ideological ideas and history. Indeed the charter was Hamas' charter for 85% of its history. Indeed it is well backed that Hamas seeks the establishment of a state that reflects Sunni Islamic law. Furthermore, rhetoric and Hamas actions continues to reflect anti-Semitic tropes. Indeed Hamas' intentions has been documented and spoken of extensively. Since this remains an important aspect of Hamas' ideology. It remains relevant to maintain it in the Lead. We should attempt to reflect the truth, especially in light of the danger of accidentally misinforming the reader. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lit review might be in order, as we ought to lean much more into the weighting scholarship gives to the documents. You could be right (or not), but it’s WP:OR without a look at how the scholarship weighs the two. Yr Enw (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the original founding charter of Hamas in the lead section of its Wikipedia page is both due and relevant. This charter, a critical document for understanding the group's historical and ideological origins, is essential for providing a comprehensive and timeless view of Hamas, avoiding the negative implications of WP:RECENTISM.

Here is how I see it:

• Providing basic details on the founding charter in the lead section is particularly important for understanding the evolution of Hamas ideology from its original, openly antisemitic stance to a position more focused on anti-Zionism. In line with WP:LEDE, the lead section should provide a concise overview of the article's topic. This includes identifying the topic, establishing context, explaining why the topic is notable, and summarizing important points, including prominent controversies.
• Furthermore, the current length of the lead section does not exceed the rule of thumb. This version stands as a comprehensive overview of Hamas, including its foundation, objectives, and notable shifts in policy and ideology, without being excessively detailed or lengthy.
• Based on a quick lit review that I performed, prior to 2017, all sources (naturally) talk about the original charter, while after 2017, most sources appear to discuss both the new and the original charter, highlighting the difference. ^[1][2]
• One example for how scholarly works on Hamas frame the topic can be seen in this quote

  The main source of Ḥamās’ philosophy can be seen in the Ḥamās Covenant which was published by Aḥmad Yāsīn on 18 August 1988 (Hamas Covenant 1988). The principles of the charter emphasise that ideologically this is an Islamic revivalist movement with a militant dimension. The two main pillars of Ḥamās ideology are: Palestinian nationalism and Arab Islamism (Gleis and Berti 2012: 134–143). In May 2017, Ḥamās published “A Document of General Principles and Policies” emphasising the nationalistic character of the movement (Hamas 2017). According to Ḥamās, the Jews do not have a right to any portion of Palestinian land.

  ^[2]

Marokwitz (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above assertion "the Jews do not have a right to any portion of Palestinian land" (presumbly referring to the entire land from river to the sea) is contradicted by most scholarly sources that have studied Hamas in depth. See the sources below.

• I reverted this major change to the lead. This major change was never discussed and completely changed the long-standing lead for which there is some consensus. It also misrepresents what the sources say. If you want to make such a major change, please discuss on talk first.VR _talk 03:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following my reading of the literature, I'd like to make a proposal for a shorter, more neutral version of the text in dispute that keeps the most important elements. Hope that this is accepted:

The main pillars of Hamas ideology are Palestinian nationalism and Arab Islamism.^[1] The 1988 founding charter of Hamas, published by Aḥmad Yasin, frames its ideology as a struggle against Jews and calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in the area that is today Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. In 2017, Hamas updated its charter to support a transitional Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, without recognizing Israel. The long-term goal of Hamas is disputed: some view Hamas's offer of a truce based on the 1967 borders as consistent with a two-state solution, while others believe Hamas retains the long-term objective to establish one state in former Mandatory Palestine. While the original covenant is often criticized as antisemitic, referencing a hadith which states that the Day of Judgment would not come until Muslims fight and kill the Jews, the 2017 charter removed the antisemitic language, clarifying that Hamas's struggle is with Zionists, not Jews.

Marokwitz (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with this compromise. Dovidroth (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above version for two reasons:

1. is that the topic of the hadith is so nuanced it can't be covered in the lead. The hadith you refer to predates the existence of Hamas by more than a thousand years. The discussion belongs in the body and would be off-topic for the lead.

2. You completely omitted the Hamas agreements on the 1967 borders with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007.VR _talk 03:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also what exactly is "Arab Islamism"? There is no mention of that anywhere in the body, and the lead should not be introducing novel concepts that are not covered in the rest of the body.VR _talk 03:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: Would you be OK with While the original covenant was antisemitic, the 2017 charter . . .? --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"While the original covenant is often criticized as antisemitic, the 2017 charter removed the related components, clarifying that Hamas's struggle is with Zionists, not Jews." ? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I prefer Iskandars version. VR _talk 14:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out the first sentence.Marokwitz (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Thanks. --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to preserve chronological order. I omitted the Hamas agreements with Fatah since I assessed it as undue weight, after surveying the academic sources; I have no significant problem with putting it back if you think this is a crucial detail. Regarding Arab Islamism, you are right that the term is not used elsewhere , this sentence can be removed as it is not crucial for the proposal. Marokwitz (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, "Arab Islamism" should just be "Islamism." I didn't catch that. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a good compromise, as it appropriately balances the original charter, fundamental for understanding Hamas' ideology, with debates surrounding later actions and revisions.

The hadith mentioned is crucial for understanding the ideological foundations of Hamas, and the agreements with Fatah are not leadworthy. I agree with Orgullomoore, the term 'Arab Islamism' should be replaced with 'Islamism,' which is directly supported by the sources. Eladkarmel (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the scholarly sources above? I provided 17 which agree that Hamas accepted the 1967 borders. We must give WP:DUE weight. VR _talk 14:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the Farah agreements are crucial detail because of two reasons. First scholarly sources emphasize that 2017 wasn't the first time Hamas accepted the 1967 borders. Second Hamas Fatah conflict and conciliation are a significant series of events over the last 20 years. VR _talk 14:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this seems to follow NPOV as well. I also find its better written. Although I do find it a bit long. Following VR's comment on Arab Islamism, perhaps it ought to be described as Sunni Islamism or just Islamism? Otherwise well termed. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It gives too much weight to elements of the 1988 charter even though scholarship has started to give overwhelming weight to tracking the evolution of Hamas ideology. See the 17 scholalrly sources I provided above. VR _talk 14:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is exactly my point: Tracking the evolution of Hamas' ideology is important, and this is why the proposed version clearly states this evolution from the original charter to the new one. For this we need to talk about the foundational charter and updated charters and how they differ. This is crucial for understanding of Hamas. Marokwitz (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the version below does that, along with providing intermediate steps taken by Hamas in 2005, 2006 and 2007. VR _talk 02:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the hadith some insist on mentioning, scholars believe it is misunderstood and taken out of context. Professor David Cook writes^[2] this hadith "stands virtually alone" in classical Islamic sources and the "vast majority of classical Muslim apocalyptic literature is concerned with the power enemies facing Islam during the seventh to ninth centuries, namely the Byzantines and Turks. It was not concerned with Israel or the United States, neither of which existed yet and both of which were well beyond the range of imagination that produced the classical literature." Hussein Solomon and Arno Tausch (both professors at University of the Free State) point that even Salafis agree that this hadith is contradicted by "Whoever kills a non-Muslim living under Muslim ruler will not smell the fragrance of Paradise."^[3] The analysis of this hadith is beyond the scope of the lead of this article. I can provide more sources too that show this hadith doesn't mean what you think it means.VR _talk 15:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the relevant consideration would be what the writers of original charter thought it meant. But I do agree that it's too complicated to properly explain in a single sentence and should therefore be left for a different part of the article. --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This complicated offshoot topic is not fitting well in the lead. Even for other sections, it should be used with care. Mhhossein ^talk 21:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the lead already says

While initially seeking a state in all of Mandatory Palestine, Hamas began accepting the 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007.^[4] In 2017, Hamas released a new charter that supported a transitional Palestinian state within the 1967 borders without recognizing Israel.^[5][6][7][8] Hamas's repeated offers of a truce (for a period of 10–100 years^[9]) based on the 1967 borders are seen by many as being consistent with a two-state solution,^{[10][11][12][13]} while others state that Hamas retains the long-term objective of establishing one state in former Mandatory Palestine.^[14][15] While the 1988 charter of Hamas was widely described as antisemitic,^[16][17][18] Hamas's 2017 charter removed the antisemitic language and said Hamas's struggle was with Zionists not Jews.^{[19][20][21][22]}

It covers both the issue of the 1967 borders and antisemitism. It is also more concise than the proposal above, while covering more ground (such as the 2005, 2006 and 2007 agreements).VR _talk 03:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this version toned down the original treaty and aspirations upon which Hamas was founded, and according to many scholars maintains to this day. Therefore, I think the above proposed versions better reflect the situation. Dovidroth (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I provided 17 scholarly sources showing that the overwhelming amount of scholars believe Hamas ideology has evolved and is no longer the same as it was back in 1988. VR _talk 14:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1, sourcing settles this. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to this version - As I have shown above, in my survey of reliable sources I found they mention the old and new charter with roughly equal weight (or provide more weight to the original foundational charter of 1988), and placing much stronger emphasis on the 2017 charter is an issue with recentism as well as not inline with our due weight policy. Marokwitz (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your analysis of Bartal, are you referring to it, or is there another survey somewhere else? Alaexis_¿question? 21:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of sources I found are older than 2017, so they give weight only to the original covenant. The newer sources that I found, including a book by Dr. Niall Christie covering the Hamas covenant (cited above), as well as Bartal, both seem to talk about the old charter, the new charter, and how they differ. Marokwitz (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The older sources should be given less weight here per WP:AGEMATTERS. Pretending like older sources that predate later developments retain their authority is silly. We arent writing an article in 2015. nableezy - 23:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that older sources should be given equal weight. Not at all. I'm saying that the academic sources covering Hamas after 20072017 seem to talk about the old charter and the new charter, in chronological order, and explain how the new charter is different, and this is what I think we should do in the lead - as shown in my 'New proposal' above. Marokwitz (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant 2017, right? --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Markowitz, I cited 17 scholarly sources and you have thus far only cited 2. VR _talk 02:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. How many of those 17 scholarly sources don't talk about the 1988 charter? My main problem is giving vastly undue weight to the Hamas foundational charter in your version. Marokwitz (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my reading, all of those sources emphasize that Hamas's views have evolved and place greater emphasis on its later views. VR _talk 22:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seurat (2022) at pp. 16-19 contains a pretty thorough post-2017 analysis of the evolution of Hamas's stance in 1988, 1990s, 2005-2012, and 2017 - present. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's one of the sources I cited! I think comprehensive sources like Seurat should be preferred over sources that mention Hamas ideology in passing. Another detailed description is contained in Tareq Baconi's Hamas Contained, published by Stanford University Press. VR _talk 02:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How would you summarize the evolution of Hamas's ideology in one paragraph? This is what we should include in the lead. "While initially seeking a state in all of Mandatory Palestine" is vastly under-weighting the ideology of Hamas for its first ~20 years. Marokwitz (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The ideology for the vast majority of the history of the organization cannot be summarized in half a sentence and needs to be given more weight. Dovidroth (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh scholarly sources should be preferred when judging what to include and how to frame the group's history. Also, I am not fan of adding historical details from old sources per WP:AGEMATTERS (which should be enough for the current discussion). Mhhossein ^talk 21:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite lack of consensus above, some users have edit-warred in the following version:

The foundational charter of Hamas, published in 1988, articulated its ideology as a struggle against Jews, calling for the destruction of Israel to establish an Islamic Palestinian state in its place. In later years, specifically during agreements with Fatah between 2005 and 2007, Hamas began acquiescing to the 1967 borders as an interim solution. This shift was further solidified in 2017 Hamas released a new document described as accepting the concept of a transitional Palestinian state within the 1967 borders as consistent with the two-state solution, without recognition of Israel.^[1][7] The new charter specified that Hamas's conflict was with the Zionists, not Jews as a whole, removing the previous antisemitic language. Despite these changes and Hamas's proposals for truces^[23] lasting between 10 to 100 years,^[24] many observers believe that Hamas's ultimate goal remains the establishment of a single state in the area of former Mandatory Palestine.^{[25][26][15][27][28]}

There are several problems here:

• It gives more weight to the older charter than the newer one. As Marokwitz acknowledged, the post-2017 sources give significant space to the newer charter and how it differs from older one, and as nableezy pointed out, we need to be mindful of WP:AGEMATTERS.
  • I provided 17 scholarly sources that found this shift to be significant. See #17scholarlysources
• The version says " In later years, specifically during agreements with Fatah between 2005 and 2007, Hamas began acquiescing to the 1967 borders as an interim solution", but I don't think the source says "interim". Speaking of which, why was the citation removed?
• The following sentence doesn't seem to make sense and seems to have dangling qualifiers "This shift was further solidified in 2017 Hamas released a new document described as accepting the concept of a transitional Palestinian state within the 1967 borders as consistent with the two-state solution, without recognition of Israel."
  • Described by who?
  • And what did they describe: that Hamas accepted the 1967 borders or that these borders are consistent with a two state solution?
  • Also the word "transitional" doesn't appear in either of the two citations at the end of that sentence.
  • "many observers believe that Hamas's ultimate goal remains the establishment of a single state in the area of former Mandatory Palestine". Most of the citations that follow that sentence don't actually say that.
• "Despite...Hamas's proposals for truces[21] lasting between 10 to 100 years,[22] many observers believe that Hamas's ultimate goal remains the establishment of a single state in the area of former Mandatory Palestine." This looks like WP:SYNTH. How many sources say that Hamas's 10-100 year truce proposal implies the establishment of a single state? Those that say that typically point to other pieces of evidence, not this one.

VR _talk 17:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely, and I reverted the edit-warred in lead. nableezy - 17:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the citations provifed dont make the controversial claim israel is or was allied with Hamas. Either provide better citations or remove it. 46.121.146.123 (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the sources and you're right. Of course, Israel supported Hamas, or at least looked the other way in the 1980s, but if our sources do not call them allies the proper place to describe their relationship is the article body. Alaexis_¿question? 18:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is straightforward to find sourcing re the Israel Hamas relationship, Israel was never an ally but it has suited Israel to keep Palestinians separated, at least until the recent events. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it [8]. Whoever puts it back should explain why Israel's refraining from opposing it or using it as a way of dividing and conquering the Palestinians is the same as being a state ally. --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skitash previously removed Israel from the list of state allies in the infobox with the edit summary This took place before Hamas existed. It belongs in Muhama al-Islamiya. (20:28, 17 November 2023). It was re-added by MaliMail without any edit summary (20:46, 19 November 2023). --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dovidroth removed it with the edit summary Unsupported. Too big of a stretch. There's no indication Hamas was Israel's ally back then, even if they got some help to counter Fatah. See also WP:EXCEPTIONAL (05:02, 23 October 2023). MaliMail re-added it with the edit summary it is supported on the source (13:27, 23 October 2023). @MaliMail, you need to stop edit-warring. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is its original inception in the infobox by, no shocker, MaliMail: [9] (23:03, 21 October 2023) (no edit summary). --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does the Washington post article say? I can only read the headline that "Israel helped create Hamas". VR _talk 00:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The archived link has the full text. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the other countries be reviewed in the same way as a similar argument could be going by the sources cited for Afghanistan and Venezuela Hamas allies?--Imran786 (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worth checking all of them. There is a big difference between supporting someone and being their ally. Alaexis_¿question? 07:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in the article "to sabotage a two-state solution by confining the Palestinian Authority to the West Bank and weakening it, and to demonstrate to the Israeli public and western governments that Israel has no partner for peace." is not well cited and should be edited. The citation provided states that the argument is an accusation by critics of netanyahu ^[29] and references an opinion piece ^[30]. The main article should clearly state this is an accusation and an opinion piece rather than stating it as fact. L V Stefanescu (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dovidroth recently edit-warred[10][11] in some content into the lead. There was an ongoing discussion on what content to have relating to Hamas's various political positions at Talk:Hamas#Edit_warring. But the content Dovidroth added was never proposed before. Per WP:ONUS, you need consensus to include content. Keep in mind that we do indeed have consensus that "Hamas accepts the 1967 borders, and the 1967 borders are seen as consistent with a "two-state solution" should be in the lead. (See Talk:Hamas/Archive_23#RFC:_Should_Hamas_be_described_as_accepting_the_1967_Israeli_borders_in_the_lead?) But how should Hamas's past antisemitism should be included in the lead is subject to discussion before inclusion. I think further discussion on the exact wording should keep happening at Talk:Hamas#Edit_warring, and we should keep the consensus version for now until its clear consensus changes.VR _talk 15:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC option that got the most votes was "Hamas is predominately described as accepting the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders, post 2017. Early viewpoints are significantly trimmed from the article." Now there is only one sentence in the lede on the pre-2017 views, which is in line with the RfC outcome. Alaexis_¿question? 23:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things. First, the early points are given a lot of weight currently in the lead even though, as you said above, the option that got most votes called for them to "significantly trimmed from the article". Second, later discussion, showed that there was consensus for including "the 1967 borders are seen as consistent with a "two-state solution" (unless you disagree with the closure, in which case we would take this to WP:AN or start a new RfC). But the current lead, which was edit-warred in, clearly has no consensus, as discussion here and in Talk:Hamas#Edit_warring shows.VR _talk 00:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any need to describe Hamas as a "fundamentalist" organization in the first sentence given that we already describe it as an "Islamist" organization. Doing so is redundant. What meaning does "fundamentalist" carry that "Islamist" doesn't already cover? VR _talk 14:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Fundamentalist is one of those ambiguous terms that add more confusion than value. Islamist is a much more specific phenomenon and the abundance of sources on Hamas use it, so it's fine. Yr Enw (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What term would you use to describe the ideology of the group? Homerethegreat (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamist. nableezy - 16:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following lots of conflicting edits as well as issues introduced following KlayClax, a user who was just recently banned for 1 month. I've restored a stable version (with changes to well accommodate RFCs).

Please discuss here the issues prior to causing more conflicts and further causing further issues. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with KlayClax. You didn't revert to a stable version of the lead, rather something that been edit-warred in by you (and others). VR _talk 15:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the content, furthermore if possible please explain were there is consensus for such statements as Anti-Imperialism and Hamas rejecting Settler Colonialism (Indeed the notion that Israel is a settler colonialist state is by the broadest terms very fringe and has no consensus). Furthermore, restored version was stable for about a week at least. And also discussed and worked on. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC ended with clear consensus for mentioning "anti-imperialism" in the infoxbox.

As for settler colonialism, is this what you're referring to: "Hamas is widely popular in Palestinian society due to its anti-Israeli stance and for its rejection of Israeli settler colonialism in Palestine." VR _talk 16:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've hidden it for now, as there is discussion at Talk:Hamas#Post-rfc_work. VR _talk 16:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was about "anti-imperialism" in the infoxbox (along with Antisemitism, anti-Zionism, Islamism, etc.). It did not include any discussion about the lead, and we do not have consensus for that. Dovidroth (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i agree. Tal Galili (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were two RfCs. One about the infobox and one about the lead. The consensus version of the lead is what is what was at the end of the RfC on the lead. Any changes made afterwards need consensus (and so far they don't). VR _talk 19:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just restored the stabler version. Let's start discussing changes from here. Agmonsnir (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, this RfC ended 13 November. At that time, the lead looked like this. The part on Hamas ideology (in the third paragraph) most resembles Talk:Hamas#Current_version. By contrast, the version you reverted to was first introduced on Dec 5 and has been subjected to reverts back and forth[12][13][14][15][16].VR _talk 16:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was definitely not a stable version, and I reverted back to the actually stable version. Challenged changes require consensus, not edit-warring. nableezy - 16:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Agmonsnir: what on earth makes you make this revert[17] changed to a version that "was stable for quite some time"? What dates was that stable for? Where was the consensus for this? I've already pointed above to the version at the time the RfC was closed. Nableezy restored back to the stable version.VR _talk 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy - This edit not only added content without consensus, but you violated 1RR, as I have written to you on your talk page. Dovidroth (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right I was off by an hour, self reverted. But no, the changes made are what have been violations of consensus in which users push through wide ranging and POV changes to the lead without discussion or consensus. But I self reverted for now. nableezy - 17:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following was added which caused controversy and destabilized:

Before the war, Israel secretly furthered the growth of Hamas, seeing it as a mechanism of preventing an independent Palestine.

This a current topic under discussion with multiple voices in different directions. Thus implying in the lead without full scope violates NPOV as well as may seriously mislead reader.

and for its rejection of Israeli settler colonialism in Palestine.

Also very problematic, I don't think there is need for me to explain why this is controversial.

Furthermore terms in opening paragraph added were: anti-colonialist and anti-Imperialist despite RFC being only on anti-Imperialism in infobox.

Furthermore, Hamas having called for Israel's destruction was removed which according to some experts it still desires.

Furthermore this was removed: for acts of terror did not pass the required majority regarding UN vote.

I will note current version also doesn't hold human rights groups to accuse it of war crimes, and which I think is also important, however for stability's sake I restored the prior version. I hope I went over most of the points.

I will also note that revisions done to stable version included variations to comply with RFCs (two state solution and anti Imperialism in infobox).

I hope this covered the recent changes which sparked the problems and caused NPOV issues since 14 December when KlayCax edited and then large changes to a relatively stable version ensued. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that something has consensus in the infobox but you are going to challenge that consensus for inclusion in the lead is one of the most WP:WIKILAWYEResque objections I have ever seen. You really going to make us have an RFC to determine consensus for inclusion for what summarizes the article (the lead) after an RFC determined consensus for inclusion in what summarizes the article (the infobox). Sheesh. nableezy - 20:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - these are parallel summary elements of the page - very pedantic. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Homerethegreat: the most stable version is from December 5[18]. Are you ok to revert back to that version and then we apply changes on a consensus basis? VR _talk 20:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There having been no evidence of any consensus for these changes since the stable version I have restored the original version now. Im not a fan of people abusing WP:QUO to try to retain their challenged version through no consensus, you need consensus for the change. nableezy - 03:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note an RFC has been opened below and it seems to be adressing the contended issues from what I see. So I think its best we move to the RFC and consider this discussion closed. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Nableezy has reverted to the last stable version[19], I hope that neither you nor others will try to edit-war in a disputed version of the lead that is currently at RfC.VR _talk 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few edits. restored contested content that was outlined above as contested and added in this recent week was restored. Please note that it is not the stable version. Specifically this: Before the war, Israel secretly furthered the growth of Hamas, seeing it as a mechanism of preventing an independent Palestine. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it[20].VR _talk 11:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a break from engagement with this article for a while. Now, I am trying to understand the key issues under debate in the introduction and am starting a discussion on each, hoping to reach an agreed-upon solution. Let me know if I missed something important. Marokwitz (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How should the evolution of Hamas ideology be described in the lead? And should we mention Israel secretly furthering the growth of Hamas?06:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Before the war, Israel secretly furthered the growth of Hamas, seeing it as a mechanism of preventing an independent Palestine

- should this sentence be included in the lead ? Yes or No? Marokwitz (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No this sentence is highly debatable and contentious and seems unestablished. Also per logical sense one would expect to see full scope of issue in order to avoid NPOV. At its current form this sentence should not be included. I think this issue is best explained and built upon in the body itself. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point out where you have discussed this issue before as required by WP:RFCBEFORE?VR _talk 22:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No per Homerethegreat. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No - Highly disputed and including it would violate NPOV. Dovidroth (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People are asserting that it is highly disputed but they lack any sources disputing it. Times of Israel, CNN, NYTimes, France24 and countless more sources report going back for years that Netanyahu facilitated cash payments to Hamas for what he said was the reason of keeping the Palestinians divided. What sources dispute this? You can’t just say this is disputed, you have to provide sources that dispute this. As there is literally no sources provided that this is in dispute the above votes should be given exactly zero weight as personal and unsubstantiated opinion. nableezy - 13:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following:

Politco: [21] Accused of furthering the growth of Hamas, Netanyahu denies. More sources on matter, [22][23], [24] "Israeli sources responded by pointing out that successive governments had facilitated the transfer of money to Gaza for humanitarian reasons”. It seems the money transfer may have been to aid in terms of humanitarian aid (some say the money was taken by Hamas for themselves), others say Hamas was kept up in a power balance move between PA and Hamas, others deny this, others say this was done in a different context and others deny. Either how, what is clear is that there is a clear dispute in the matter and assuredly should not be mentioned in lead especially since the current version violates NPOV. Since the matter is very unclear, should be present but in body, not in lead. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And why is it "secretly"? Money transfers were known for years. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense, there is literally nothing in the sources that suggests this is in dispute except by Netanyahu, who is obviously not a reliable source. This article isnt a product of the Prime Minister's office, we base our articles on reliable sources. Your sources just say that Netanyahu "claims" that this did not happen, but they dont actually dispute it themselves. nableezy - 14:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sources from whence we attribute Its Netanyahu vs Netanyahu's opponents. Also Times of Israel article cited is an Op Ed, so that can't be cited for attribution. This is obviously disputed and should be in the body and its current form is unfitting and unencyclopedic and does not follow NPOV. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But nableezy pointed out Netanyahu himself defended such a policy[25]: "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has defended allowing Qatar to transfer millions of dollars to Hamas-run Gaza despite criticism from within his own government over the move aimed at restoring calm after months of unrest." It then goes to quote exact remarks by Netanyahu. VR _talk 01:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No. While Israel allowed monetary support of the Hamas regime, it was neither secret nor intended for the organization's "growth". That this support could somehow be used to counter Palestinian aspirations was never state policy, and shouldn't be attributed to one. François Robere (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• To be clear, yes per the sources cited and no sources disputing. Editors are not allowed to disregard sources that disagree with their political views, they are not allowed to claim a dispute exists based on no sourcing and only their own views. All of those votes are at odds with WP policy and should be completely ignored by any closer. nableezy - 15:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No — WP:UNDUE. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undue in the lead* IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'll start by saying that I personally believe that this statement is true. However, my belief is irrelevant. The problem I have with this sentence is that is says "Israel secretly furthered the growth of Hamas, seeing it as...", all of this is an interpretation of intention of "Israel". And I think making such a claim with "wikivoice" requires strength of evidence which is beyond what I've seen in the sources cited so far. Now, to be clear, I think this was hinted by various Israeli politicians for years (saying Hamas is an asset etc.), but making this claim feels to me like doing self-research. If the best we can say is "reporter X thinks that ..." then it shouldn't be in the lead. If this was supported by (say) security agency or an official position of some country, then I'd say it could be stated as such. Otherwise, this type of statement should be discussed in the body of the article. Tal Galili (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not as written. This is important, I believe it should be mentioned in the lede in some way. My concern is with the current wording.
  • There is some disagreement about the goal. Or rather there were multiple goals that didn't necessarily contradict each other (preventing the establishment of the Palestinian state, Hamas being the lesser evil compared to other group or chaos, keeping Hamas weakened, per this CNN article).
  • The support wasn't that secret, the Qatari funds were transferred openly.
  • Different Israeli governments had different policies, e.g., Bennett stopped cash transfers.

I can't think of a concise wording which takes all these aspects into account, but would support an alternative option. Alaexis_¿question? 09:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have also recently come across many sources, including pro-Israeli ones, that Israel enabled Hamas (and before it, its Muslim Brotherhood precursors) in various ways to undermine the PLO.VR _talk 18:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be explored at first in the body. Not sure it should be in lead, especially with current content being centered on Netanyahu vs opponents.

What is clear and concise and I think should be in the lead is that Qatar has funded and supported Hamas. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think on that there is no controversy, and I think it is lead worthy since Hamas leadership sits in Qatar and Hamas has been funded by the Qataris which is well documented. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1:

The foundational charter of Hamas, published in 1988, articulated its ideology as a struggle against Jews, calling for the destruction of Israel to establish an Islamic Palestinian state in its place. In later years, specifically during agreements with Fatah between 2005 and 2007, Hamas began acquiescing to the 1967 borders as an interim solution, which has been interpreted according by some scholars as accepting two state solution. This shift was further solidified in 2017 when Hamas released a new charter supporting the concept of a transitional Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, without recognition of Israel.^[1][31] The new charter specified that Hamas's conflict was with the Zionists, not Jews as a whole, removing the previous antisemitic language. Despite these changes and Hamas's proposals for truces^[32] lasting between 10 to 100 years,^[24] many observers believe that Hamas's ultimate goal remains the establishment of a single state in the area of former Mandatory Palestine.^{[25][33][34][35][36]}

Option 2:

While initially seeking a state in all of Mandatory Palestine and calling for the destruction of Israel,^[37] Hamas began acquiescing to 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007.^[4][38][39] In 2017, Hamas released a new charter that supported a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders without recognizing Israel.^{[40][41][42][7][43]} Hamas's repeated offers of a truce (for a period of 10–100 years^[9]) based on the 1967 borders are seen by many as being consistent with a two-state solution,^{[44][11][45][46]} while others state that Hamas retains the long-term objective of establishing one state in former Mandatory Palestine.^[14][15] While the 1988 Hamas charter was widely described as antisemitic,^[47][48][49] Hamas's 2017 charter removed the antisemitic language and said Hamas's struggle was with Zionists, not Jews.^{[50][51][52][53]} Hamas has, from its beginning, promoted Palestinian nationalism in an Islamic context.^[54][55] In terms of foreign policy, Hamas has historically sought out relations with Egypt,^[56] Iran,^[56] Qatar,^[57] Saudi Arabia,^[58] Syria^[56] and Turkey^[59]; some of its relations have been impacted by the Arab Spring.^[60]

Which version do you support, and why ? Marokwitz (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCBEFORE requires you to discuss first. Have you ever proposed option 1 on talk? No. I started the section on Talk:Hamas#Second_new_proposal pointing out reasons why this text is misleading and not-neutral and none of those edit-warring have even bothered to respond. VR _talk 21:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 - It better shows the full scope of the issue and touches all points adequately enough and presents the range needed and thus better serves NPOV and also includes due information. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that option 2 is lacking in several aspects. First it does not follow chronology and seems to mix in 1988 charter and 2017 charter in several places making it unclear what is what and seems to jump from point to point. Overall the writing seems to be a bit less cohesive. Although there are similarities between both versions, it seems that Option 1 is more cohesive, clear and better organized and more fitting for an encyclopedic entry. Homerethegreat (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1, which reveals some key content within and differences between the two charters, as covered extensively in RS's. Zanahary (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 per both above commenters. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 - More fully discusses the issues. Also, option 2 is a mess that jumps from 1988 to 2005, then to 2017, back to 1988, and again to 2017, as mentioned below by François Robere. Dovidroth (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 - much more descriptive, factual and unbiased. The statement "The foundational charter of Hamas, published in 1988, articulated its ideology as a struggle against Jews, calling for the destruction of Israel to establish an Islamic Palestinian state in its place" is very significant in the lead, and omitting it there is misleading the readers. Agmonsnir (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is already in option 2. Did you want "calling for the destruction of Israel" added more explicitly in option 2? Is there a change in wording that would make you support option 2? VR _talk 15:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 is more accessible to the reader and easier to follow. My only suggestion would be trim the cites. Citations should generally appear in the body, leaving the lede clear and uncluttered. On this topic, though, that will remain a bone of contention. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer: "Option 1" might be violating WP:V and WP:SYNTH (in addition to having issues like WP:UNDUE weight) and thus can't be accepted no matter how many votes it gets here, because WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override wikipedia's core policies. Its likely that the above !voters haven't actually read the sourcing on the proposal. This is mainly refusing to discuss the proposal before the RfC (as required by WP:RFCBEFORE) where simple WP:V and SYNTH errors could be fixed. VR _talk 15:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vice regent - I agree with you. I think both options (1 and 2) should be improved to present the complexity of this situation. I also think that there is a strong dissagreement on what is the "true" intention of Hamas. Hence, presenting both narratives (as done in Option 1), seems like the right direction. But I also don't want sources mentioned in option 2 to not be omitted). Tal Galili (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Talgalili: What does option 2 not present that you think it should present?VR _talk 20:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1, per everyone above. Option 2 downplays the criticisms of Hamas and the fact that for half of its existence it explicitly called for the destruction of Israel, which results in a text that jumps from 1988 to 2005, then to 2017, back to 1988, and again to 2017. This is much less readable than option 1, which is a straightforward chronological account. François Robere (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @François Robere: have you read every source cited and can confidently say that the text is not mis-citing reliable sources - which would be gross violation of WP:V? VR _talk 17:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vice regent: How do you believe the text is mis-citing sources? François Robere (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Some (but not all) examples at Talk:Hamas#Second_new_proposal (linked at the very top of this RfC).VR _talk 17:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe "acquiescing" and "interim" are attempts to summarize pp. 392-394 of Bartal (2021), but I see no indication in the source that Hamas "began to acquiesce" to anything in 2005-2007 - quite the opposite. "Transitional" does seem to reflect the source, though (p. 397). The paragraph does need more work, but it still presents the clearer and more balanced narrative of the two. François Robere (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "but I see no indication in the source that Hamas "began to acquiesce" to anything in 2005-2007" And you don't see that as a serious WP:V issue? VR _talk 20:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem isn't that the references don't exist, it's that the edit warring (which the OP is trying to stop) messed up their placement. I expect this will be solved by the time the RfC is concluded. François Robere (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, by Bartal do you mean Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Shaul Bartal of the Israeli Defense Forces? If so that is not an WP:INDEPENDENT source. VR _talk 01:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Dr. Shaul Bartal is credited as a "military analyst and a lecturer on Palestinian Affairs at Bar-Ilan University", and a "research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies". He has written several books on Palestinian terrorism, including two for Routledge. That's clear WP:SCHOLARSHIP. François Robere (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even scholars can have conflicts of interest. To be sure, I'm ok with text sourced to him with attribution, but not in wikivoice (esp not when it seems inconsistent with most other scholars on this issue). VR _talk 13:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 seems more balanced to me, given the disagreement on the real intentions of Hamas, so I'd prefer it between the two options. But I also think that it should be improved further (as mentioned by @Vice regent). Tal Galili (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: this option summarizes four most commonly discussed aspects of Hamas's ideology: position towards Israel, antisemitism, role of Islam, and foreign relations; it presents them thematically first, and then chronologically second.
  • A. This version gives more weight to newer sources (per WP:AGE MATTERS). I presented 17 scholarly sources (#17scholarlysources) above that show Hamas's acceptance of the 1967 borders; including 4 sources that are entire books dedicated to Hamas. Yet above Francois Robere cites just a single source (Bartal) in support for arguing, in wikivoice, that Hamas only seeks a "transitional" state. The rest of the sources cited in option 1 are a combination of WP:RSEDITORIAL (which can't be used for facts) and/or non-scholarly sources and/or sources that don't consider Hamas's 2017 charter - none of these should be given much weight.
  • B. "Option 1" Completely ignores Islam and foreign relations as aspects of Hamas's ideology, betraying scholarly sources. It is also a violation of WP:LEAD, which requires we summarize the article and the article surely gives space to both.
  • C. This version is concise as it covers more aspects of Hamas's ideology in a similar amount of words.
  • D. This version organizes Hamas's ideology thematically first and chronologically second, which is exactly how Hamas's ideology is presented in the article. Imagine if we talked about the 1988 Charter, then talked about the 2011 Arab Spring (which had nothing to do with antisemitism) and then described the 2017 Charter. Ideology of Hezbollah likewise is also organized thematically first. Pretty much every article on ideology/political positions is always organized thematically first and chronologically second (eg Republican party).
    • The second benefit of thematically first and chronologically second is that we don't bury the most recent changes, which are given the most weight by scholarly sources (#17scholarlysources), towards the end of the paragraph. WP:DUE says positioning of text impacts weight.
  • E. This version (mainly) came about the result of a previous RfC that involved a lot of constructive back and forth discussion.VR _talk 00:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 7 October seems to have led to some "soul searching" among experts and media, questions on Sinwar's goals and their evolution over time, and suggestions of a rift between Hamas/Gaza and Hamas/Qatar. We could solve some of the disagreement between sources about Hamas's ideology by making more granular distinctions along these lines, instead of treating the organization as an "ideological monolith". François Robere (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Not 1 not 2. Invalid dichotomy. Per many comments on this page, the RfC presents two flawed alternatives and should not be closed as either one representing settled consensus. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This is invalid RfC. To be valid, it must include "status quo" option. I have seen this in a few other RfCs. Someone wants to change the text and suggest two almost equally bad versions to choose, both of which satisfy his POV, unlike the currently existing (consensus) version. I do not know if this is the case here, but the "status quo" option absolutely must be present. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would not say "invalid"; users are free to simply say none should be exerted. Moreover, if the pre-RFC step is passed and discussions are conducted by the engaged users, the "status quo" is intended to be changed. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2, at a certain point saying "While the 1988 Hamas charter...", makes a contrast between the 1988 and 2017 charters by "while". Is such a contrast supported by the used sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 03:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. For example, Seurat, the first reference, says "Finally, on 1 May 2017, Hamas published its Document of General Principles and Policies. As opposed to its 1988 Charter...Another noteworthy change: the anti-Semitic overtones of the [1988] Charter were entirely scrapped [in the 2017 document], replaced by a distinction made between the struggle against Zionism and enmity against the Jews." VR _talk 05:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I know this is no longer an RFC but if a change is going to be done, I prefer to go by option 2. It's factual accuracy, covering of significant POVs, usage of updated scholarly sources, and accuracy in insertion of in-line citation, whenever needed, makes this option more interesting to me. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, these questions are directly taken from this revert and are not original proposals. These, along with other variants, have been debated on the talk page and through editing for several weeks. I am trying to steer the discussion in a constructive direction by contrasting two specific versions. The RfC is also useful for attracting non-involved editors to provide new viewpoints. Marokwitz (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That exact version has never been discussed until today. If you disagree can you show me where has that exact version been discussed? I also pointed out grammatical and citation issues with that version and I'm surprised you wouldn't bother to correct them before proposing in RfC. VR _talk 22:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1 was already discussed above in the Lead Overhaul. Perhaps not amply but it does appear to be contentious and obviously it seems I think that this was done in order to avoid another spiral out of control. I also agree that the RFC can bring non-involved editors and present new view points. I think this is in sour need in this article and therefore I think that this RFC is a good way to deal with the issues and prevent further unresolved destabilizations. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1 was brought up for the first time at 19:51 and then the RfC started at 20:42. That's total of 51 minutes. VR _talk 23:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marokwitz: As an RfC statement, this is useless. It says absolutely nothing about the matter in hand, see WP:RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. How is this a valid RFC? nableezy - 03:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64 is it ok now ? This is my first RFC. Marokwitz (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marokwitz; Did you read WP:RFCBEFORE? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. Is there still a problem ? Marokwitz (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not discussed either question before bringing them to RfC. VR _talk 14:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Homerethegreat has responded and I agree with him/her. The lead's content, intensely debated here over recent weeks, remains unresolved, sparking stonewalled discussion followed by edit warring . I'm not here to blame anyone, just to do better.

This RfC centers on a specific aspect of the dispute that led to repeated reverts and an impasse.

Opting to distance myself from what I felt was a contentious environment, I stepped back for a while, and now I'm back in an honest attempt to reach consensus rather than engaging in conflict. Our priority, in my opinion, is to seek a constructive compromise on the content issue, rather than dwelling on procedural details. The intention is not to 'win' but to end with some sort of reasonable compromise. I ask you to leave behind the hard feelings and participate in what could be a constructive discussion. Marokwitz (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about "hard feelings". Your option 1 contains some grammatical and sourcing errors. It is thinly sourced. Where it is sourced, the sources do not support the preceding text. While ample sources can be found for things like Hamas calling for Israel's destruction, other sentences are constructed in a way to imply a synthesis that I haven't come across any source supporting. All of that is meant to be hashed out in WP:RFCBEFORE.VR _talk 15:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please do me a favor and state your objections again one by one so we can come up with a better version. I don't think that sourcing or grammar is the heart of the dispute here. Marokwitz (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really change a version half way through the RfC as that would invalidate all the preceding !votes for that version. Would you be willing to end this RfC, commit to discussing and coming up with a couple of compromise versions and then re-starting the RfC with all these issues sorted out? VR _talk 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the RFC should be ended. Clearly quite a few editors have already contributed and discussions have already ensued regarding problems, I think it's rather ineffective at this stage to dismiss the RFC.

Also I saw there were issues regarding grammar or other minor things. I really think this is no cause for ending RFC. The minor changes are all fine, all that is needed and considering thus, I think is to just notify the editors who've contributed, perhaps just ping them of the change and ask them to check if they wish to reconsider. The RFC actually seems to be like an attempt to come for a diplomatic solution. The parley pirate image is actually a really great addition. I think the effort is deserving of commendation and is an effort to resolve this issue which clearly has plagued the article and has caused various disputes etc. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issues are not "minor", but rather potentially violating wikipedia's WP:CORE policies. VR _talk 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please mention the specific issues that you think are at WP:CORE? (I assume it's not apl the issues you've mentioned) Tal Galili (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the suggested text by the OP suffers from WP:SYNTH issue. It is an original research usually occurring when sources are not consulted correctly. Multiple sources should not be used to reach a conclusion not supported by the sources. Aside form this, this change does not seem to be discussed elsewhere on the talk page and whether other editors have contributed to this RFC does not mean things are fine. Such an awkward employment of RFC can lead to WP:FILIBUSTERing which impedes reaching consensus. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

couldn't this be said about both options? Tal Galili (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just note that these are two versions that were massively edit-warred back and forth by numerous editors, which I posted without modification. I didn't endorse one over the other. The RfC is about choosing the better of the two; it is easy to see that neither is perfect. Marokwitz (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no WP:NOR or WP:V issues with option 2, if they are please point them out. VR _talk 12:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Redrose64, Vice regent, Homerethegreat, François Robere, Talgalili, Nableezy, Oleg Yunakov, and Dovidroth: In the complaint I made to AN/I, I was told that I should have opened this RfC after having an initial pre-RfC discussion. Therefore, the misconduct I complained about is at least partially my fault.

Would the participants object to converting this RfC back into a regular discussion, with an RfC coming later? Marokwitz (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but was not the comment at ANI clear enough to move on with a pre-RFC discussion? If there had to be a pre-RFC and you already acknowledged your fault, then why editors should object keeping a wrongly created RFC? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's my decision to make, there are many people already involved in this discussion. Marokwitz (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are no immediate objections - converted RfC to a regular discussion. Marokwitz (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I"m fine moving it to a discussion. And suggest splitting this to a thread for each of the questions.

Also, I donysee a way we can make broad decision, and suggest we keep splitting the questions to smaller chinks, since moving forward here seems very hard.

I think a good example of where we will end up is an article like that of Donald Trump, that has a talk page filled with tens of tiny decisions. Tal Galili (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note as I'm pass through, but this article is getting difficult to load. It probably needs condensing or splitting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: are you saying we should reduce the readable prose size, or the entire article byte size? If you're having trouble loading, that refers to the latter, right? And are images a bigger issue when it comes loading than text? VR _talk 18:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a technical issue rather than one with word count. I couldn't say whether it's a image or text issue. I note the article is three times (the somewhat poor) recommendations of WP:SIZERULE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @AirshipJungleman29: I agree the article is long and I agree that the sections "History" and "Violence" are the two biggest sections. Since most of the "Violence" section also reads like a timeline, I think large amounts of content from both can be moved to History of Hamas. What do you think? VR _talk

  I agree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be broadly supportive for on efforts to deal with the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The statement "This policy was part of a strategy to sabotage a two-state solution by confining the Palestinian Authority to the West Bank and weakening it, and to demonstrate to the Israeli public and western governments that Israel has no partner for peace."

in the section on "Israeli policy towards Hamas"

should be changed to "Critics have suggested that this policy may have been part of a strategy to sabotage a two-state solution by confining the Palestinian Authority to the West Bank and weakening it, and to demonstrate to the Israeli public and western governments that Israel has no partner for peace."

The citation ^[1] also references a piece which is very clearly titled "opinion piece" ^[2] and also very clearly states that the argument in question is an accusation coming from critics. L V Stefanescu (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.  Spintendo  23:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve seen this reason given a lot now for declining edit requests, but given Edit requests are the only things non ECs can post here, how are they meant to establish consensus prior? Yr Enw (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revocation of : Algeria and Kuwait. For Algeria, the France 24 article does not show how Algeria is an ally of Hamas (supporter and ally are two very different terms). For Kuwait, the NBC article refers to a private donor, not a state donor. Tarek lb (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]