Talk:Hamas

Replacing a Wikipedia (Original Research) narrative with one from one expert source

[ P.S. The edit proposal of this talk section I have to withdraw now, because the article has been relevantly changed since starting this section on 17 April. Perhaps, part of the proposal will come back again later. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC) ]

[This posting is rather ‘long’ and ‘complicated’; I’m sorry for that. Reality sometimes is complicated, wars often are very complicated. Please, do not place reactions half-way this posting. ]

I think, it is relevant for our article to clearly show and tell our audience the real face, the real philosophy, of Hamas.

Current Wikipedia narrative about Hamas’s philosophy

Currently, the basic narrative of the top part (8 sentences) of section ‘Policies towards Israel and Palestine’, and also of the three sentences in the lead section starting with “While initially…”, (with these two passages in the article mutually reinforcing eachother,) is:
Though Hamas at early dates [‘historically’, ‘initially’, in past tense, as opposed to 2005 and later] has had the purpose to (re)establish a (“Palestinian”) state in all of former Mandatory Palestine, starting with an Agreement in 2005 Hamas settled for [“acquiesced to”] the ambition, aim, of realizing merely a state on West Bank and Gaza Strip (that is in ‘the 1967 borders’)
[with twice the side remark that “some” (“scholars”) seem to not endorse this narrative, saying that Hamas retains the long-term objective for a state in all Mand. Palestine].

This Wikipedia narrative was built step by step since April 2023 and later defended by editors (@Iskandar323:, @Vice regent:(=VR), @Smallangryplanet:, and others) who base(d) themselves on short, out-of-context or suggestive, quotes from scholars that stated that Hamas at some point “accepted the 1967 borders”, quotes they interpreted as Hamas abandoning the goal of conquering all mandatory Palestine (as defending editors have revealed in their edit summaries, like: “outdated 1988 stuff”; founding charter is “superseded” and is not telling the “present political position”); but this interpretation was never explicitly stated in the scholarly quotes they refer to.
Today, Wiki contributors may have grown accustomed to this narrative, and consider it a true story; and therefore can be annoyed by this talk posting. (Several editors have already warned me to stop discussing issues linked to this narrative—but that was before I had discovered the ‘Leila Seurat narrative’ that I present today. I’ve had contacts with a few colleagues on talk page, in recent months, who seemed either to not realize, or to prefer to ignore, that the way how Wikipedia presents and organizes (synthesizes) certain (correct) facts can result in a ‘narrative’ that tells more than the referenced sources tell.) Point is though: this current narrative of Hamas’s philosophy and aims is as yet purely a constructed Wikipedia narrative, not narrated as such by any Reliable Source that is referenced in the article.

This Wikipedia narrative in our text seems to me a subtle form of Synthesis. Deliberate or not, the article’s text ‘uses’ five ‘techniques’ (‘fine-tuned’ in two years of editing) to effectively ‘construct’ and support this narrative: [1]it composes a row of five (lead sect.) and four (§’Policies’) statements [repetition is an acknowledged technique in persuasion ] (about 2005, 2006, 2007, 2017, truce offers since 2006 and “tacit acceptance” since 2017) all alluding to a state ‘in 1967 borders’ (= West Bank and Gaza Strip), all clearly contrasting with the directly preceding mention of Hamas’s original (“historical” or “initial”) goal (a state in 100% of Mandatory Palestine), thus suggesting that Hamas’s original purpose has in 2005 been replaced with that 1967-state-purpose; [2]in the lead section the presumed replacing of the old Hamas purpose with the new one is expressed explicitly in the ‘While initially ...’ construction, purely used here to signal the (suggested) contradistinction between a situation ‘initially’ and a fundamentally changed situation in 2005 and later, but not corroborated by any source (although the Wikipedia lay-out suggests that it is): this ‘while’ construction is Synthesis of a Wikipedia contributor; [3]in section §‘Policies’, the change to that new purpose is implicitly emphasized with the starting statement (which otherwise would be a rather superfluous message) that the “Hamas’ policy …has evolved”; [4]the contrast between ‘old’ and ‘new’ Hamas position is further strengthened by the leaving out of this recount (at both passages in the article) the Hamas’s statements that would undermine or weaken the chosen Wikipedia narrative: Haniyeh in Nov.2008 + Dec.2010, Mashal Jan.2024, and Ghazi Hamad Oct.2023 (see Hamas#Evolution of positions); [5]meanwhile, many of the 6 suggestive statements (listed above by [1]) even seem to misrepresent or ‘spin’ the referenced source they pretend to paraphrase, to fit better into that chosen Wikipedia narrative:
”the desire to create a state on 1967 borders”[Baconi] is not ‘ending the Isr occupation and establishing a Pal state on the 1967 borders’;
“Hms will accept the 1967 borders as the basis for a Pal state, with (…) the return of refugees to their homes”[AlJaz] is not ‘Hms accepted the establishment of a P state on the basis of June 4 , 1967’;
“unite in seeking an independent state in Gaza, the W.B. and East J.”[BBC] is not ‘…quest for a Pal state on all territories occupied in 1967’;
“acceptance of the 1967 borders”[Seurat] is not ‘acquiescing to 1967 borders’ (etc.).

Narrative of Leila Seurat, about Hamas’s philosophy

Not only is the above mentioned Wikipedia narrative not attributed to any reliable source; I recently discovered that one of our referred expert scholars — Leila Seurat — in her book displays an essentially different narrative. I’m not suggesting that Seurat owns the last and final wisdom about Hamas, but in a situation where we must choose between a published narrative of a renowned scholar in this field and a (perhaps soothing) narrative composed by Wikipedia contributors, I think we obviously should prefer that narrative of Seurat. As soon as other scholars are shown to adhere to a relevantly different narrative, Wikipedia must ofcourse display all such scholarly narratives in the article. Seurat’s narrative goes like this (see the tagged very long extract of her book, pages 8–18):
After for a short while having adhered to a strict and simple doctrine to the effect that all “Palestine” should be freed from foreign non-Islamic usurping states, Hamas in the early 1990s converted to a double strategy: on the one hand, their “historical” or long-term goal remained the re-establishment of Islamic rule over all of (former Mandatory) Palestine, while on the other hand their short-term or interim policy or solution became to create an Islamic authority on a smaller area through a truce/hudna treaty with Israel, abiding better times to expand this (small) area.
(The Hamas’ “acceptance of the 1967 borders”, in agreements in 2005 etc., as vaguely mentioned in Seurat’s book (p.17), must, in her narrative, logically and consistently, be understood as acceptance for the interim solution Seurat described in her preceding pages (p.8–17). Therefore, the (thoroughly paraphrased) reference, in our current lead section, to Seurat’s isolated, out-of-context, mention of “acceptance of 1967 borders … in 2005 [Cairo Agreement], … 2006, [etc.]”, must now be assessed as having been unjustly presented and constructed as part (and corroboration) of the current (unfounded) Wikipedia narrative (see above): ‘acceptance of the 1967 borders for a final settlement of the Palestinian conflict’.)

Rewriting the top part of § Policies towards…

If we stick closely to the wording that is currently used in that top part of that section §Policies towards Israel and Palestine, and retain as much as possible the ref sources currently mentioned there, but replace the (synthesized) Wikipedia narrative (see above in green) with the (sourced) Seurat narrative (see also above in green) and pursue conciseness, we would more or less get this new text:

Initially, in their 1988 Charter, Hamas envisioned an Islamic Palestinian state on all of the territory that belonged to the British Mandate for Palestine (that is, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea).<rf.88-Malley>

As of the early 1990s, Hamas switched to a double strategy: their long-term goal remained the re-establishment of Islamic rule over all of (former Mandatory) Palestine, while their short-term or interim goal became to create an Islamic authority on a smaller area through a truce or hudna treaty with Israel.<rf.44-Alsoos>

For this interim goal, Hamas has repeatedly indicated (2005 Palestinian Cairo Declaration,<rf.36-Baconi> 2006 Palestinian Prisoners' Document,<rfs.89,90,91> 2017 Document of General Principles and Policies,<rf.37-AlJaz> etc.) they would settle for accepting the ‘1967 borders’: West Bank including East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip.

Please note: remarks like <rf.88-Malley> refer to the reference indications in the version of 10 March 2025 (ref numbers often change, the refs themselves hardly).

Please understand, I’m not saying that the sentences I propose to remove from this section (top part) are necessarily all ‘false’, individually; my argument (see above) is, the sentences as ‘collective’ are chosen and organized in a way that results in a narrative (story, tale) that is to be regarded as Original Thought/Research. I therefore simply rewrote this section (top) starting from scratch, that is starting from the authoritative book of L.Seurat, aiming to be concise but also complete enough (my proposed text counts 124 words, the current version counts 194 words).

As you see, I propose to not include again the rather long and arbitrary (biased and unbalanced) descriptions of the Documents of 2005, 2006 and 2017, as now given in this top part. Those descriptions of Documents I believe are not necessary to understand the main line of Hamas’s doctrine, in force since the early 1990s, as described by Seurat(2019), as summarized in my proposed text. If we just retain the wikilinks to those three Documents, people can easily look up what those agreements are about, in a more balanced presentation (endorsed by the Wikipedia community).

Note also: I think the statement about “…tacit acceptance of another entity…” is much too vague to be retained in its current form. The term “acceptance of the 1967 borders” in that statement is not yet defined or mentioned earlier in that section: in such a case a Wikipedia text can not refer to a term, it would be pure suggestion. It is quite possible (and quite likely) that the referred three scholars in their books do define the term; but in that case, Wikipedia should cite or quote how they define it, otherwise referring to the term is either meaningless or suggestion/manipulation. If the scholars somehow refer to the 2017 document (as is suggested, now), Wikipedia should clearly say and corroborate that. Recently, when I asked (in a clarify tag) for a quote from those referenced scholars, Smp answered (23 March) that “full quotes” were given “in talk” discussion. I don’t understand that, for two reasons: in the talk section which he refers to, no such direct quotes are given; and if such quotes do exist, they should be in the article, not only somewhere in an archive of the talk page. But even if we’d have such quotes, we’d still have to consider whether they would add relevant information to the article or to the section.

Ofcourse, these points are open for discussion; but they should not impede us from quickly replacing the current synthesized narrative with the sourced Seurat narrative. (It is quite possible, that accepting my edit proposal of today would make it desirable to also adapt the subsections under ‘Policies towards…’.)

Rewriting three sentences in the lead section

My proposed text, to replace the three lead sentences that now begin with “While initially…”, thus replacing the (synthesized) Wikipedia narrative with the (sourced) Seurat narrative, is:

Initially, Hamas was just seeking a Palestinian Islamic state in all of former Mandatory Palestine. Since the early 1990s, Hamas is following a double strategy. Their long-term goal is still the restoring of Islamic sovereignty over all of Palestine; but their short-term goal is now to first create Islamic authority over part of Palestine (within 'the 1967 borders': West Bank and Gaza Strip <rfs.33,34,35>), through a truce (hudna) with Israel.

Please note: the remark <rfs.33,34,35> refers to the three refs to Seurat+Baconi+Roy, currently mentioned in the lead paragraph, with the numbers they had on 2 April 2025.

My proposed replacing passage is (much) shorter than the existing lead passage but it clearly exposes the essence of Hamas’s purposes since the early 1990s, which is not the case in the current Wikipedia version. My proposed text refers shortly to the aspect of hudna. I see no reason to retain the current lead statement about ‘truce offers…seen by many as being consistent with a two-state solution’ because it is mysteriously vague and not stated by any ref source: what on earth means: “consistent with a two-state solution”? Which two-state sol.(tss) is meant, exactly? What would it mean that an offer is ‘consistent’ with a ‘solution’ which is yet nothing more than a hypothetical (Wikipedia-)idea? In the four sources linked, no one says “consistent” (no one is not “many”), and only two people (2 is not “many”) say that hudna is more or less the same as two-state solution – but defining tss as potentially a temporary arrangement, which contradicts the Wikipedia definition of tss.

As for the current message in the lead about “without recognizing Israel”: what does Wikipedia understand as ‘recognizing[rcg] Israel’? In our article’s section with that title, rcg is compared with ‘accepting [certain] borders’, but also with ‘accepting/acknowledging an entity’, and with ‘not aspiring to one state in Palestine’, and with ‘working with the existing system’, and with ‘respecting agreements’, etc., etc., etc.. This is multiply ambiguous. Any news source (including Wikipedia) is responsible for its own language, and if a source/website/institution (like Wikipedia) wants to be taken serious they should be consistent in their (own) definitions of the words they use; but as long as Wikipedia is unclear or (extremely) ambivalent about what their word ‘recognition (of Isr.)’ means, I see no point in confusing readers with that current message in the lead. Besides that: my proposed lead text seems to me rather clear (as opposed to the current lead text) about what future Hamas sees for the state of Israel.

If you still think, it is necessary to say more, in the lead, about that hudna and/or about that recognition, please give a clear motivation why you think that; such discussions or disagreements however should not hinder us from quickly replacing the current synthesized narrative about Hamas’ philosophy and policies with the sourced Seurat narrative.

History of edits, protests, and talk discussions

The first vague contours of this current Wikipedia narrative appeared in April 2023, but then only in section ‘Policy positions’. On 12 October 2023, the narrative was inserted also to the lead section, and quickly became much more articulate, and (thus) probably for many contributors disturbing, unbearable. This led to an intense editing struggle of at least two months and seven days, in which ten editors attempted to weaken or remove (part of) the narrative that today still is in the lead of the article (see top of this posting), while Vice regent (VR) kept restoring ‘his’ narrative and regularly making it sharper or clearer. The first 37 days of this struggle it was only VR defending ‘his’ (Wikipedia) narrative, against 5 opponents; as of 18November VR got help in defending his narrative from @Selfstudier:(18Nov), Iskandar323(23Nov), and Nableezy(16Dec).

Those ten protesters until 17Dec23 made 14 critical edits, weakening or removing the narrative I started this posting with, which all 14 were reverted; eight of those 14 indeed had a rather weak or no motivation. But of the six critical edits that had been motivated with reasonable arguments (from @Alaexis:, @Dovidroth:, @Yair rand:, @Eliezer1987:, @Homerethegreat:), two were reverted by VR without argument, one with a blatant lie(or ‘mistake’?18Dec2023,03:21), two with a nonsense ‘argument’(21Nov.00:57, 24Nov), and one was reverted by Selfstudier with a fantasy(18Nov). Presumably, those five serious critical editors were either hit-and-run(making a ‘good’ or at least serious edit but not visiting the page again to see if it had survived) or didn’t want to risk a fight with VR, otherwise they would have persisted or taken their criticism to the talk page. Those four defenders meanwhile appeared very convinced of their own narrative (the 1988 charter is “superseded”, “outdated stuff” , etc., they stated); nevertheless, VR’s constant (and deliberate) ignoring and misleading of serious opponents, through at least 55 days in a row, to me seems a grave violation of good Wikipedia manners.

On 13Oct2023, an RfC talk discussion was started over whether the (presumed) fact should be mentioned in the lead that “Hamas [is] accepting the 1967 borders”. Seven out of 14 participants voted that “Hamas is (…) accepting the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders, post 2017”, this led the administrator on 13Nov2023 to conclude to a “consensus that Hamas accepts the 1967 borders”. But there had been no consensus nor discussion about how that should be phrased in the article, and no discussion nor consensus about what it means that ‘Hamas accepts the 1967 borders’. The administrator stated that Hamas’s acceptance of 1967 borders had several times been “reflected” in edits prior to 13Nov, but I don’t presume this means or implies that the article could never be changed again after the version of 13Nov2023,00:18, nor that Hamas’s ‘acceptance of the 1967 borders’ can’t be interpretated or phrased differently than it was on 13Nov2023.

Two further talk discussions were started, one by defender Selfstudier(23Nov23), one by critic Marokwitz(17Dec2023). Neither of them resulted in a constructive discussion, because neither posed a clear editing issue or dilemma. In that vague discussion of 23Nov, VR (in an undated and unsigned talk posting on 24Nov2023,04:00) posted “17 scholarly sources that say Hamas accepted the 1967 borders”. No one in that discussion section, nor in any edit summary, had ever denied that, so apparently VR in late November23 still didn’t understand that not this ‘acceptance’ was the contentious issue but the way how it was being interpreted and presented, ‘narrated’, in the article (as part of narrating the evolution of the Hamas ideology). (By the way, all those 17 scholarly quotes of VR seem compatible with the summary of Seurat’s narrative that I today propose to replace in the article.)

On 15Dec2023, VR reverted an edit of critic Marokwitz, not by refuting M’s arguments but by (incorrectly) stating that his(VR’s) version had received “consensus” in November. No, the declared consensus of 13Nov2023 I believe was ‘that Hamas accepts the 1967 borders’ but was not about how that should be (interpreted and) phrased in the article.

My own earlier attempts, rebuffed with remarkable (dubious) arguments

Personally, I’ve previously made three attempts to remove the, today still current, (VR-)narrative in the lead, that I describe in the top of this posting: 11Sep2024, 25Sep, 12Oct. A big difference with today is, that back in 2024 I had not yet read the book of L. Seurat which today enables me to present a clear, sourced (consistent, convincing) narrative instead of the current Wikipedia (Original Research) narrative. Nevertheless, it seemed to me not civil or correct that those three attempts all were quickly reverted with nonsensical, arrogant, vague, irrelevant and/or incorrect ‘arguments’. Like: you can’t remove material when removing it is “unjustified”(???); your edit is “controversial”(??by what standard?what is against the edit??); you have “no consensus” for your edit(??you deprive me of my editing rights??);

‘long-standing consensus’(12Oct2024): I don’t know what you mean by that. Some editors tend to think, that if some text is since a long time, say a year, in Wikipedia, there must be a ‘consensus’ that that text is correct. No: it means only, that at some moment one editor apparently has presumed the text to be correct. Ofcourse the psychological effect can be that readers, but especially some editors, think: well, if a serious medium as Wikipedia displays this text for over a year, it will probably be true, ‘otherwise someone would already have changed it’ (Wikipedians tend to have great trust in Wikipedia – in the outside world though I regularly notice a lot more scepticism towards our reliability). But no, we have no policy or rule that says that after a certain time, texts automatically become sacred, untouchable, ‘consensus’. In this case, this narrative is in the article since two years, produced not by some consensus-agreement but by two independent individuals. Since 12Oct2023 it has been attacked by eleven or more editors in at least nineteen edits, and defended in reverts (often with dubious ‘arguments’, see above) by seven or more individual editors, who until now simply have appeared more tenacious than those eleven (or more) critics.
The only formal consensus(13Nov2023) reached or declared on this issue, among 7 or 8 participants, is that ‘Hamas accepts the 1967 borders’; but, as I argued above, I don’t think my proposed text contradicts the declared consensus of 13Nov2023. Giving in though to the reasoning that a text that exists since over a year in Wikipedia for that reason alone must be ‘consensus’ and can never be altered anymore, regardless which arguments someone gives for altering it—because several Wikipedians propagate that reasoning and most of the others don’t want to hurt their feelings—would probably do no good to the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia in the outside world.

Therefore: colleagues cannot forbid someone to edit (as one colleague recently did to me); but they also cannot revert someone’s edit only on the ground that it did not have a consensus beforehand (as recently was done on page Hamas). This posting here is merely meant to inform the colleagues about my plan, and to hear if people perhaps can give advice for improving my proposal.

For people wishing to react, even though this is not yet a formal RfC I’d like them to start their reply with one of these codes:

1-- Agreed with the purpose to replace current (OR) narrative with mentioned and sourced Seurat-narrative.

2-- Agreed with the general idea, but suggestions in advance to improve my proposed edit.

3-- Not agreed (preferably with reasons, arguments).

4-- Other reaction. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know why I’ve forgotten this yesterday, but this discussion should also be alerted to all other persons who either have made an edit against the VR-narrative (explained above, yesterday) or an edit to protect that narrative: @Marokwitz:, @Nableezy:, @Agmonsnir:, @KlayCax:, @Wafflefrites:, @Orgullomoore:, @Skitash:, @Raskolnikov.Rev:, @Lf8u2:. I’ll wait for another day or so before I react on the reactions already given here in this talk. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I think your version is much better than the current one. This is quite a comprehensive review of what has been happening with this article, but the essence of the matter is very simple: the current narrative (as a whole) is not supported by RS. Do read the excerpt from Seurat (the author of the most recent and comprehensive work on the foreign policy of Hamas). Alaexis_¿question? 14:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

All of this is incomprehensible, and you are misrepresenting the sources. Seurat and the other cited RS all explicitly say that Hamas accepted the 1967 borders, and they have done so in official signed documents that are cited in the body. Other RS and Hamas leaders are cited as saying that this means they accepted the existence of another entity, meaning Israel, on the other side of the border, and that this is in line with the two-state solution. Then there are some other sources that say Hamas retains its long-term objective of establishing control over all of mandatory Palestine. However, we also have RS that say that this along with the refusal to formally recognize Israel is merely a bargaining chip for negotiations given the experience with the PLO, and that major Israeli political parties like Likud are worse in this respect of not extending recognition to a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and asserting Israeli control over the entirety of the area.

All of this is currently accurately reflected on the page. The fact that Seurat also refers to the two-phase aspect does not at all contradict the fact that she plainly states, explicitly and we quote her to that effect, that Hamas recognized the 1967 borders, and she does not only do it on the page quoted, but throughout the book, as do the other RS we cite.

Clearly there is no contradiction for Seurat here, and the reason there is not is because of the background I explained and you left out. We do not impose our own interpretations of texts onto sources, we go by what the sources directly and explicitly say.

You removed all this directly cited consensus-obtained material in one fell swoop with your edit just now, without having obtained any consensus for it.

You have repeatedly attempted to remove RS from the page based on claims of the RS being biased, wrong and promoting Hamas propaganda. You have said this in reference to Seurat and failed to obtain consensus to have it removed on that basis, so now you are trying again by imposing a non-existent "contradiction" to it. In fact, you have had this exact same discussion on this very same issue before with among others Aquillion, and they rightly pointed out that you were plainly wrong about what you said regarding Seurat and the sources.

You have not presented any credible evidence for this aside from your own personal feelings about the sources in question. And now you are trying to relitigate it yet again after having failed to obtain consensus. I believe you should WP:DROPTHESTICK, especially considering you have been focused on this particular page for years now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.Rev: You reverted my edit of 22April, but your edit summary of 22Apr2025,18:48 gives no (just) reason for reverting. (a) “you do not have consensus” for that edit is no reason, because every edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted and edits don’t need explicit prior consent from others. (b) “you are misrepresenting the sources” is only a pretext, making it seem that you had an adequate reason for reverting, because neither in the edit summary, nor here on talk page(22Apr,18:56) do you tell us which source(s) I’ve misrepresented in my edit of 22April. You ostensibly reverted to force me to ‘first discuss our disagreements on talk page’, but while you don’t state any dispute over the content of my edit, we can’t Discuss the (non-existent) dispute here, to try and find ”a compromise that addresses [Raskolnikov’s] concerns”. So, it appears you are “playing games with policies and guidelines to avoid the spirit of consensus” (which is strictly forbidden). Nevertheless, I do again turn to this talk page now, to call on Raskolnikov.Rev, to as yet make clear which sources I’m misrepresenting, and in what way, in my edit of 22April2025. I give him 24 hours to do so; if he doesn’t give clarity about that alleged “misrepresenting the sources”, I’ll have to figure what to do next; perhaps WP:BRR, considering Rsk’s revert a Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling.

In the rest of Raskolnikov’s talk posting here, he seems worried and/or cross that I seem to hold different opinions on 17 and 22Apr2025 than I did in the past. But people can sometimes change their minds. On 30Jan2025(talk page), I presumed a statement of L.Seurat possibly incorrect. But after reading the context of it in her book, as I’ve explained here on 17April, there appears to be a logical explanation for that statement, in line with her recount of the two strategies of Hamas (short-term and long-term).

Raskolnikov seemed also vaguely worried(22Apr) about sentences or ref sources that I chose to not retain, in my (necessary) rewriting of two passages in the article. But I said already in my edit summary and on talk: such details can be negotiated; such minor disputes over content should not be ‘resolved’ through a 100% revert (all-or-nothing approach), but through minor changes (seeking compromise).

Raskolnikov, you are reasoning a lot here, but vaguely, about: ‘sources say this’, ‘other sources say that’, suggesting that contradicting visions are balancedly represented. But the central discussion in this talk section is (as I argued 17April), how the main narrative of Wikipedia runs, in lead section and the beginning of section ‘Policies’. I have argued, that that narrative says: Hamas dropped their goal for all Palestine (in 2005), which is an invention of Wikipedia (‘Original Research’), which should be removed from the article (which requires substantial rewriting); you don’t react at all on that central issue. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.Rev: And this is very typical, for Wikipedia talk page discussions: Raskolnikov – and many more editors that I meet on talk page seem to exert this behaviour: I pointed this out in Talk:Hamas/Archive 31#Working ethics on article Hamas in Feb 2025 – drops his point of view on something; but as soon as you counter or challenge them with difficult questions abou their stances, they just vanish from the ‘discussion’ and never give you an answer. (Rask answered in that Feb2025 discussion: ‘just take such conduct issues to AE or ANI’; but I strongly doubt whether AE/ANI is the place to go when people only flee from a discussion as soon as they are contradicted.) --Corriebertus (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Any argument that we should base the "narrative" of such a complex issue on any single source is dead on arrival. I would also note that this is not a RfC so not really sure what RfC like options are doing there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I don’t fully understand your message, here. My argument here and in edit summary(17+22April), stated perhaps in too many words, is, that the current narrative in the article, about the Hamas ideology+policy, is for 99% invented by one Wikipedia editor (WP:OR), by bending (spinning) and/or synthesizing etc.—well, just read my posting and edit summary about it (be it conceded that also before 12Oct2023 our article since several years, much more vaguely, tended to the narrative that Hamas or its leader Kh.Mashaal accepted a “two-state” division of Palestine as permanent solution, also then already by ‘bending’ real quotes of serious authors so as to fit into this Wiki narrative). In such an unbearable, disqualifying situation for Wikipedia, a story based on one of the (most respected) experts on this topic must undoubtedly be appreciated a thousand times more than this Wikipedia fantasy/synthesis. I presume, there are more experts who tell the story the way Seurat does; but I’m just a volunteer and have not yet bought dozens of those books (as presumably Vice regent has). Anyway: one first-rate scholar (Seurat) is a 1000 times better than a Wikipedia fantasy. Don’t you agree? By the way, your choice of vocabulary, language register (“dead on arrival”), strikes me as disrespectful and insulting. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Seurat is a little too junior a scholar to be the end all and be all... And I say that as someone who owns her major work. I would suggest using multiple scholars, lest you fall victim to the same perils you claim have already befallen the page. I have respected your frankly rather eccentric choices when it comes to vocabulary and register. You will respect the way I write and the language I use, dead on arrival is perfectly normal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Sir/Madam: as for your and my language on talk pages: calling a presumed idea “dead on arrival”, between people who are strangers and just only starting to have a conversation about ideas and arguments, seems to me (and that is a subjective perception) a needlessly aggressive, hostile, intimidating choice or words. You compare it with my language being “eccentric” (according to you), I don’t mind much about my language being seen as “eccentric” because eccentric does not directly imply needlessly insulting or aggressive etc.

Meanwhile, you seem to not react(28 and 29 April) on my edit proposal of 17April but on a caricature of it — as if my edit proposal here of 17April bases the description of the complex issue of the Hamas philosophy on just one source: no, my proposed rewritten lead paragraph still mentions 13 sources for it and my rewritten top part of section ‘Policies’ eight. A few refs indeed are deleted in my proposal, for various reasons, those deletions are negotiable, as I said already. But more importantly: this discussion here is not (only) about that one edit proposal(17Apr), its main issue is: do we have an Original Research problem in the article or do we not? If we do, there are perhaps better solutions conceivable than my proposal here of 17April. But what’s wrong, all of the sudden, with revered expert Leila Seurat? Did you ever before disqualify her in relation to article Hamas? She has been abundantly and prominently cited in this article since October 2023, and been highly praised by (among others) Vice regent, Aquillion and Alaexis, with no one except myself once doubting her veracity (which doubt vanished as soon as I had her physical book in its completeness in my house, Feb2025). She is not “the end all and be all...” as to Hamas expertise, I said that myself on 17April; I would welcome citings from scholars who contradict her story, as I said 17April. --Corriebertus (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

You do not need to attack me because you do not like the way I responded to your comment, IMO it invalidates everything you've said and suggests that you are here to push POV not improve the encyclopedia. When you stop attacking your fellow editors (including ones who appear to in general be on your "side") perhaps you will make some progress. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Sir/Madam, I’m surprised and disappointed by your latest reply. Disappointed because, by only reacting on my comment on your (in my opinion) unpleasant style, wording, of discussing/talking to me, you ‘avoid’ to say anything about the issue of this talk section.

I’ve indeed made negative, but polite, remarks about your style of talking, here. You call those remarks “attack[s]”. No; it is perfectly civil behaviour, if you feel offended or hurt by someone’s actions or words – in Wikipedia as well as in the real world – to politely tell this to that person. It is not clear where the line lies between ‘incivil’ behaviour and just unpleasant, or insulting, or intimidating (etc.) behaviour, but even in the case of (perceived) ‘incivil’ behaviour, Wikipedia prescribes us, to: “Explain, clearly but kindly, exactly what you felt was uncivil. Sometimes it helps to let the other editor know how their edit made you feel(…)”. If that is the advice for possible incivility, I see no reason to presume this advice would not be valid in the case of (perceived) intimidation, aggression, insult, etc. etc..

But just in case you might want to return to the actual issue in this section: I’ve posed you a lot of questions about your stances. How come we can’t use Seurat as expert anymore? If you don’t agree with Seurat’s analysis of Hamas’ development, who are the experts that you know that tell a relevantly different story about that development? (This question was even posed already in my posting of 17April.) And please, be very, very precise here, with exact quotes of your experts. --Corriebertus (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC) I'm wondering: my tag "reply to" Horse Eye's Back, of 06:30 o'clock, contained one too much blank space--would it have worked, that way?? @Horse Eye's Back:...--Corriebertus (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I never said that we can't use Seurat as expert or that I don't agree with Seurat’s analysis of Hamas’ development... You write these long comments but apparently you can't even be bothered to read the short responses. How incredibly disrespectful of your fellow editor's time and intellect, you will get no more of mine. Have a nice day and my opposition to your proposed changes stands. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:, I’m reading your postings well, but if I misjudge them, I’m sorry; but that’s all in the game, isn’t it? [ the rest of this reply I’ve rewritten below, 6/5 ] --Corriebertus (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I started this talk section, hoping for serious discussion about (Reliable) Sources, how we read and interpret them, and what that should implicate for the article. My central argument on 17April, was: part of the lead section, the narrative about Hamas’s objectives in the present, is not based on any source (although it does ostensibly ‘refer’ to books of Baconi,Roy,Seurat), but invented by a Wiki editor; at least one RS (Seurat) tells a relevantly different story on that issue; therefore we should rewrite that part of that story, but now based on that source (Seurat) who tells it differently (and naturally allowing for other scholars, who have a different view, to have that added to the article—as I stated already 17April). Your objection is: “the "narrative" of such a complex issue [should not be based] on any single source”. This is still unclear to me. What exactly is: “[the] complex issue”? If ‘the issue’ is: the current Hamas goal(s), in my proposal that issue’s presentation is based on 3 or 4 sources: the same old 3 refs to Baconi,Roy,Seurat but also the longer quote from that same Seurat book. If ‘the issue’ is: the fact that Hamas currently pursues two (not just one) goals: this seems currently to be not stated in the lead, except perhaps in a (side) remark attributing that analysis to ‘just a few [scholars]’ who apparently dissent from the consensus stated two sentences earlier; so, it seems to be new information to be added to the article; and I don’t see, nor hear from you, a reason why new information coming from a reliable source cannot directly be added to the article.

However, you also did make a, for me strange, disqualifying remark about Seurat(29April), as if she can perhaps be quoted on some issues but not on all (Hamas-related) issues or information. After for seven days not getting an explanation from you for that clause, with one day(1May) you fully refraining from reacting on ‘issue Hamas’ generally, I took the liberty(4May) to slightly simplify your comment on Seurat—though only in a reminder of what I had said clearer on 1May. Nevertheless, I can understand that that simplification irritates you, so I apologize for it, and take it back. Anyway: as I say above, your objection to my edit proposal is very unclear. I call on you, to enlighten your own (too vague) ‘objection’. I’m not here to get anyone’s permission-in-advance to make any edit, but to fairly and openly and constructively discuss matters, to perhaps improve my ideas or proposal(s) and thus prevent needless, annoying, Wikipedia-discrediting ‘harassing’ and messing with edits and reverts back and forth. You feel offended; I have now apologized to you two times; I suggest you just come back to the discussion, and explain your stance – that’s what these talk pages are for. Ofcourse I am willing to discuss to reach a compromise or an agreement (WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS), but if you refuse to clarify your “opposition” I can’t be expected to refrain from editing just because you ‘just don’t like it’; if you would nevertheless (after refusing to clarify your ‘opposition’, ‘objection’) revert me afterwards then, that would have to be seen as disruptively ’stonewalling’ an existing version. And I too wish you a good day. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• As I said the last time you brought this up, the current version accurately describes the stances Hamas has taken and the reaction scholars have had to them; it doesn't take sides. It seems to me that your version is the one that is trying to impose a particular "narrative" on it, and one that the sources don't really support. In particular, the quote you're trying to use from Seurat is much more narrow than you're trying to use it as (referring to one specific dynamic the 1990s, which was obviously before the 2005, 2006 and 2007 agreements you're trying to use it to characterize; indeed, Seurat goes on to specifically describe how things later changed, saying that Indeed, since 2006, Hamas has unceasingly highlighted its acceptance of the 1967 borders, as well as accords signed by the PLO and Israel. This position has been an integral part of reconciliation agreements between Hamas and Fatah since 2005: the Cairo Agreement in 2005, the Prisoners’ Document in 2006, the Mecca Agreement in 2007 and finally the Cairo and Doha Agreements in 2011 and 2012. Yet these compromises linked to the strict framework of reconciliation agreements between Palestinians had never been displayed as an integral part of Hamas strategy. From 2017 on, Hamas would endorse them as its own political stands and not as simple concessions to Fatah.) The fact that Seurat repeatedly refers to the broader goals as "historical" also underlines the fact that they don't really reflect the narrative you're trying to establish here. At the end of the day there simply isn't an agreement between scholars here - our statement that Hamas's repeated offers of a truce based on the 1967 borders are seen by many as consistent with a two-state solution, while others state that Hamas retains the long-term objective of establishing one state in former Mandatory Palestine. You're trying to basically delete the first half of this sentence and state the second half as uncontested fact, which isn't reasonable given the sources we have on-hand. --Aquillion (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that "there simply isn't an agreement between scholars here." However, I don't think that when she writes about the distinction between the short-term and long-term solution (p.15), she considers it a 1990s phenomenon. Note that she uses the present tense This dialectics between tactics (short term) and strategy (long term) is present in an informal manner in many documents and articles written by figures affiliated to Hamas. The aim is to create on a specific territory (buqʿa) an authority (Ṣulṭa) .... Alaexis_¿question? 21:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Aquillion: [ Rewriting and condensing my posting here of 1May2025 ] –– You hardly react on my motivations and arguments of 17April2025 here. But you do contend, that I misread author Seurat on two points: (1) “The fact that mrs. Seurat refers to the broader goals as "historical" underlines the fact that they don't really reflect” the narrative that I establish on 17April – that is: Hamas having still the long-term goal for all Palestine. This is quite shoddy reading of you: on pg.15 Seurat explictly says(see the long excerpt in my proposal), the long-term goal is “decribed as 'historical'” by Hamas. (You are misled here, by W. editor VR, using that word in a different sense, in our current article.); (2) You say: Hamas having a double strategy was their “dynamic in the 1990s” which has been “changed later” in Documents of 2005 etc.. But that is purely your invention (exactly how it is VR’s invention currently in the article): Seurat nowhere says that the double strategy(exposed on her pages 14-15) was ever ‘changed’ or abolished (colleague Alaexis here on 30April emphasizes that Seurat keeps talking in present tense about that double strategy); she says that “the current strategy”(p.17) is laid down in the 2017 Document, and there’s no reason why that can’t be the strategy that she just earlier decribed as “Since the 1990s …The aim is…on a specific territory an [Isl.]authority …”(p.14-15), and also no reason why further down(p.17-18) “acceptance of the 1967 borders” can’t simply be meant as specifying that earlier mentioned “specific territory”.

Meanwhile, contradicted by two colleagues here you refuse since seven days to react and continue a serious discussion. This conduct of yours is not what Wikipedia understands as pursuing consensus via discussion on talk page. Just dropping some (opportunist) stance and refusing to negotiate or discuss it looks too much like you ‘just don’t like’ our edit proposal, which can’t be considered a reasonable ground for us to refrain from making a well-motivated edit; so I certainly intend to execute the edit I proposed here on 17April, unless very very soon some serious debate about it is started here, by anyone. If you’d quickly revert that forthcoming edit with no better motivation than you’ve given here on 29April, such revert should be considered as disruptively ’stonewalling’ an existing version. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Corriebertus, sorry, I've been a bit busy lately and haven't followed this thread closely.

In general, if a source is ambiguous then the best course of action is often to find more sources that confirm your reading. Alaexis_¿question? 21:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2025

I take issue with the rise of propaganda articles such as the Hamas article, which is 100% one sided and does not conform to Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia used to have a policy where articles are reviewed as featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria. How is it that now, this article omits the fact that Hamas was designated a terrorist organization in 1997 by the US State Department, as well as Australia, Canada, Paraguay, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The article also disputes the genocide committed against Israel on October 7, 2023 and the atrocities they livestreamed online for the whole world to witness. I urge you all to uphold the Wikipedia mission to maintain fairness and neutrality especially when it is about genocide, hostages and the realities of war. The current "Hamas" article is nothing but a propaganda page, and why on earth it has received Extended-Protection when it is so one sided?? Milliot68 Milliot68 (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done because this is not an edit request, it's just a complaint that cites no sources. If you want to propose a change, then do so in the form "change X to Y", citing reliable sources. Propose your change as if you were actually editing the article.

@Milliot68: You are also incorrect in your assertion about omitting the terrorist designation. It says right there in the lead section "Australia, Canada, Paraguay, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as the European Union, have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization." And the word "terrorist" appears many times. I suggest you actually read the article before responding again, and then respond with specific proposals for improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Also it isn't a featured article, was only a candidate for such in the very earliest days of Wikipedia, and I suspect is too controversial a topic to be stable enough to get featured status. ϢereSpielChequers 11:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to share the media or social media source or sources that led you to post this comment. I would like to know which misinformation sources are so effective that they can manipulate people into posting comments like this without it even occurring to them that they should verify the claims by reading the article. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2025

Change the current leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip from Yahya to Mohammed Sinwar, with the approriate new hyperlink. 73.147.244.177 (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

'Warning'(?) at the start of section 'Recognition of Israel', depriving us from editing rights

Hamas#Recognition of Israel starts with:

“-- We have agreed after much discussion on the proposed version of this section here: https://w.wiki/DACk, please seek consensus on the talk page before making significant or controversial modifications here. Thanks. --”

Who exactly are those “We ”? If I go to the mentioned internet address (DACk), I’m plumping into a subsection (“2”) of a talk section (Talk:Hamas/Archive 30#RfC: Semantics and Contents of Recognition of Israel Section) that was closed on 4Feb2025 WITHOUT any CONSENSUS. In that subsection ‘Proposals – 2’, VR,Alae,Smp,Rask, have been talking (brainstorming) about what looks like a draft version for Hamas#Recognition of Israel; they did not explicitly agree on any version. Whatever their plans with that draft, back in November 2024: that draft version is currently not the existing version in Wikipedia (any longer). But even if it were: how can one editor alone (Smallangryplanet, 22Feb2025) decree that, for all eternity, section Hamas#Recognition of Israel can’t be edited unless a discussion is started on talk page in advance ? Our basic editing policy says: Edits don’t need to be discussed in advance; and nobody “owns articles” (not even Smp, not even together with VR+Alae+Rask). I’ve already removed that starting comment on 23Feb2025, but Abo Yemen directly put it back, because: “…That specific discussion had a consensus on the wording…”. That is fantasy - of both Abo Yemen and Smp: I see 4 people having a rather long and detailed conversation (brain storm), I don't see them explicitly agreeing on a Wikipedia text version. Possibly, a proposed draft of VR was inserted in the article, with the other 3 discussants not directly protesting against it. But that is no justification to appropriate the editing rights on a whole section for eternity. So, this hidden message in that section has to be swiftly deleted, I think. --Corriebertus (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Btw the link in the warning doesn't work now. I'd also re-word it "the latest discussion can be found here, please review them before making substantial changes." Alaexis_¿question? 08:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Point is: this “warning” note goes against our basic editing philosophy. The ‘warning’ is also incorrect and misleading: there was no explicit “agree”ment, only a brain storm. But even if you (Alaexis or Smp) see or feel that as an ‘agreement’: that is fairly irrelevant. Editors on dayly basis implicitly ‘agree’ on things; that is insufficient ground to compel or urge the colleagues to start a discussion before editing. That so-called ‘agreed’ version of Feb2025 in any case does not exist any longer. Alaexis, please feel free to put up a sign overthere that is less offensive. If you don’t, I’m planning to remove the existing ‘warning’ because (see above) Smp has no right to compel people to start talk discussions before editing. (P.S.: I've reworded my posting here of 22May, after Alaexis had already answered on it. That was a dumb mistake, sorry.) --Corriebertus (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2025

In April 2025, Yahya Fathi Abd al-Qader Abu Shaar, the head of Hamas' weapons smuggling network, was killed by Israeli army.[95] On 13 May 2025, Mohammed Sinwar, Hamas leader in Gaza and the brother of Yahya Sinwar, was killed by Israeli airstrike in the southern Gaza Strip. Mohammed Shabana, commander of the Rafah Brigade, was also killed in the same strike.[96] These two claims are unverified. Ballisticus32 (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done - I had a go at addressing this here. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)