Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hamas No Longer Anti-Communist? - Contd.[edit]

Continuing where we left off since this was promptly deleted under "Wikipedia:NOTAFORUM" when I am trying to discuss improving this article by putting "anti-communist" back under "ideologies" as well as the primary source that originally supported these links.

I am screenshotting this before I post it and putting the link here, so please refrain from moving this to a different Talk Page and claiming I posted it there.

I began the discussion by saying:

"When did this happen? Are they now promoting Lenin and saying they want to create a dictatorship of the proletariat in Gaza? Hamas is and always was explicitly anti-communist. Change it back."

"This is kind of reaching into discussion of the topic territory as opposed to discussing the article, but I think that given their cooperation with the PFLP in the current war, they arent exactly stringently devoted to anti-communism. (sorry if this is formatted wrong, i dont edit much)" -Emulsification92

that was the last comment before it was originally deleted from here.

Then I said:

  1. We are in fact discussing the article here and whether to put back "anti-communism" under ideologies.
  2. Is it possible that militants in Gaza being frequently bombed right now have a temporary alliance based on strength in numbers/public support alone and if not, why not? To me it doesn't seem like these are the circumstances for a genuine ideological unity Occam's razor would suggest they are not working together because of any ideological common ground.

Jester6482 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anti-communism should definitely be under "Ideologies". I support its re-addition - after further discussion, of course. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terrorist designation color-coding[edit]

I proposed reversing the color-coding on the terrorist designation table in this article in an earlier post on this page and received no opposition before it was archived. Unless I hear opposition between now and when the {{in use}} template is removed from this article, I will be making that edit. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support this. Tal Galili (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine as is. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More pertinently, perhaps we should just do away with the table altogether, and delete all the information about countries that haven't ever actively made such a designation. At the moment, half the table affirms what is merely a default status (no). Why not simply summarise the few relevant countries with a non-default position in prose? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Iskandar323 I am personally completely against removing the "Nos" and leaving only the "Yes" because most countries in the "no" camp that are listed have have actively declined, after deliberation of some kind, either in their executive branch or parliament, calling Hamas terrorist (for example: Norway, Switzerland- still discussing with legislation in progress, New Zealand- only banned its military wing) which is and of itself evidence that "no" is not in all cases a "default" position but one borne out of consideration and debate, even if one may consider it ill-informed or wrong. In my opinion this is insightful information for the reader of the article because in some cases the information blurb part of the table on the right reveals the reasoning as to why a country declined to deem Hamas terrorist, which is more than just describing a "default position". Contrast this with potentially including Togo or Sri Lanka, where "No" is in fact, as you say, a default position because there is no reliable secondary source showing proof of any deliberation involving deeming Hamas terrorist among the authorities of those respective countries. Wickster12345 (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WE SHOULD FIND A NEW CONNOTATION-NEUTRAL color scheme. I agree the current color scheme is misleading because green can be considered to a positive insinuation, as in no terrorist designation is suggested to be good thing, when this is not NPOV at all. Maybe use blue and yellow because if we flip the color scheme, we are insinuating and taking a position, which we cannot to maintain NPOV, that a "YES" decision as to whether to deem Hamas terrorist is a "Good" thing by being green and not red. Wickster12345 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being deemed a terrorist group is objectively bad for a group from A) an international relations perspective, and B) a sanctions perspective, so the logic of the current colour scheme works fine. Traffic colours are also more intuitive than arbitrary colours. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What international relations perspective? Depends on which countries you ask. USA? Iran? Bahrain ? Norway? Turkey? I’m not going to discuss the merits of your point that being deemed terrorism is “objectively” bad for IR purposes in terms of relationships and sanctions. I happen to agree with it by the way, but this my personal POV which happens to align with yours. This line of debate, however, is not what talk pages are for, in my understanding. I think you’re A) falling into a POV trap and B) are imposing what you seem to think is an objective standard that has not been agreed here or in any Wikipedia policy or guidelines, namely that the specifications of a Wiki article diagram’s color scheme can be based on a determination of whether there is a preferable classification(in this case “Yes”-banned Hamas) among available options (which by the way, it’s not even binary question of yes/no, look at New Zealand’s policy as stated on the diagram.
The bigger problem I have with your statement has nothing to do with the question of whether being deemed terrorist is good or bad for IR:: it is not Wikipedia’s job to present information in a way that evaluates whether something A ) is “objectively bad” for any article subject and B) to use a determination of whether something is “objectively” bad to determine whether a given color scheme is appropriate. If you have other objections to yellow blue I’d love to hear them as well, thanks, I think this is an important discussion we’re having. Wickster12345 (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being "terrorist" is a negative pejorative, so yes, it's a bad thing. That some countries might think the destination is "right", in terms of the correct course of action, does not alter that. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But how about this: no colours ... Given the table is generally an eyesore. Instead we could have something more useful: three columns with tick marks - one for a full organisation designation, one for just Al-Qassam Brigades (though arguably that information should just appear on that page), and one for an officially declined destination. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with that. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The tick mark idea is as close to perfect as we can make it I think. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This shouldn't be in table form at all. I don't understand why we'd discuss the table's color scheme should be when we haven't reached a consensus about whether a table is appropriate at all. Regarding Wickster's comments in the discussion above - there may be discussion and deliberation, and certainly politics, underlying these decisions. Controversial information presented in a table distorts the balance that RS have given these determinations. Our terrorism policy requires us to follow RS. In cases where RS is overwhelming we can use the term terrorist. I think HAMAS is such an example - while acknowledging that Islamist governments may take a different view, the community of scholars operates in world of the secular. Hamas and Islamism are considered primarily religious and so do not fall into the gray area as other types of political violence. Most terrorism scholars agree with this, only to dispute that their mainstream support would fall away if the populations circumstances improved. When I asked ChatGPT to draw me an outline about this I was saddened to receive an outline emphasizing their charitable function in society. I think a lot of it came from us and the article about Hamas (and Muslim Brotherhood) need ongoing attention. But its not helped by these kinds of tables. If we must keep it, I certainly support toning it down, or maybe using very small font. Ben Azura (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I respectfully disagree with some of what you said. To me, and correct me if I’m wrong, you’re basically insinuating Wikipedia should have a moralizing and officially secular role, which is not a Wikipedia policy established by consensus. We are supposed to be neutral (not Islamist, not secular, but neutral) and present what all countries have stated about Hamas, whether we agree with them or not. This is what NPOV means in this case. If there is a scholarly consensus that Hamas is terrorist that should be included in a different section that discussing what different countries’ positions are, which is a question of fact not of debate.
Even if it were consistent with wiki policy that we should not prominently mention what Saudi Arabia, Iran etc, well it’s not just “Islamist” governments that have refused to label Hamas terrorist, Norway continues to do so, Switzerland has done so in the past, New Zealand doesn’t consider Hamas in its entirety to be terrorist. The reasons behind these states decisions are of importance and informative to readers understanding the discussion about Hamas being terrorist. Also, in my understanding we are not a community of “scholars” , we are a community of information assemblers; we’re not supposed to engage in our own research, that is in fact a Wikipedia policy, as you likely know.
It’s commendable that you’re sad about ChatGPT’s description of Hamas, but what bard or ChatGPT say is none of our concern, our job is to use reputable secondary sources to create a standalone online encyclopedia. Wickster12345 (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ps. What scholars think about Hamas and what individual states think are two separate questions that deserve separate sections. In light of that, what’s wrong with summarizing what countries say, unless you can show me a wiki guideline or policy that explicitly states country views should not be included and only scholarly views are acceptable, in tabular form? In almost every political science or IR article there are tables comparing policies across countries Wickster12345 (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoa, calm down. You seem to have misunderstood something. We use reliable sources on Wikipedia. It is a problem to present controversial and complex information in a table format because it effects the neutrality of the article by representing the positions of countries as though they are considered of equal validity by reliable sources. In this case, it creates a strong impression that a tally of countries not designating Hamas a terrorist organization is more significant than it is. No reliable sources used on Wikipedia will be written from a faith-based reasoning - even if they are considered reliable in other countries, such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey. It is a serious problem if you disagree with this. All reliable sources will use reasoning that is grounded in secular educational principles. If you do not understand this, it is a very well documented subject, and I encourage you to research it, until you convince yourself that we do not use faith-based sources here. Ben Azura (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Official country positions do not count as faith-based positions if they merely explain country policy, whether the country in question is Islamist or not. Just because a reliable secondary source says Saudi Arabia does not consider Hamas terrorist, that doesn’t make the source itself “Islamist” and therefore unreliable. In the table, the footnoted sources used to explain Saudi’s position are Times of Israel, Arab News and Al Jazeera, are they all Islamist for reporting on the Saudi relationship with Hamas?
Also, in my understanding, our job is not manufacture tables to look a certain way, either too pro-Hamas (as you’re suggesting it looks like right now) or anti-Hamas they are supposed to neutrally convey the positions of the different countries. The trends will organically show by being as objective as possible. I agree with @Iskandar323 that the best way to do this is with check marks and only include countries where reliable secondary sources show they have taken an actual position on Hamas, without colors which can be used to make associations of “good” and “bad”.
sorry, on an unrelated, note, I thought I was very calm and polite, but I am always trying to improve my communication, can you maybe tell me on my talk page what upset you in my previous response? I am always looking for constructive dialogue, I was trying to be as polite as possible. Wickster12345 (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“It is a problem to present controversial and complex information in a table format because it effects the neutrality of the article by representing the positions of countries as though they are considered of equal validity by reliable sources”
Sorry, you’re right I should reread the Wikipedia policies, I’ll try to find the section which says some countries’ official views are more valid than others and therefore worth reporting on, my bad, sorry about that Wickster12345 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeing a convincing argument to separate the scholarly consensus from the designation of countries. The policy you are looking for is WP:CHERRY. Ben Azura (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that policy doesn’t create a hierarchy among countries which is being used here to justify the complete removal, or at the very least a significant reduction of, the table. I think we should be focusing on the quality of the sources (times of Israel, Al Jazeera) reporting on the country’s position not the supposed religious leaning of the country’s government. Cherry-picking would be removing one or the other (aka removing the table). Would you agree we should include both scholarly views AND the stated positions of governments for informational purposes? Wickster12345 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it can be done in a neutral way, sure, I think it would be an improvement. Tables can be policy compliant, and "assign due weight to viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" as the policy requires. They can include a prose component with proper sourcing that explains the significance of the table and why it is included in the article. The text introducing the table is, for now, only a repeat of the facts in the table and a comment attributed to a notable journalist that "in the Arab and Muslim world it has lost its pariah status and its emissaries are welcomed in capitals of Islamic countries". Ben Azura (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this. Maybe a good first step would be to amend or remove the sentence starting with “According to Tobias Buck…” as it arguably has lost its relevance after October 7th. I don’t think it’s written very informatively and I don’t know why one FT journalists opinion should receive so much weight. Wickster12345 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ben Azura (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That assumes a globally consistent definition of terrorist that is universal enough to even be able to make a determination as to whether most people consider it a bad thing. Show me a secondary source that does so. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's off-topic, but I'm not sure anyone in the 21st century uses the term "terrorist" in a positive sense; they'll use resistance fighter or freedom fighter if they want to convey a positive narrative. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right. I just think words assume a different meaning depending on who is saying them. Even within "pejorative" there's probably a spectrum where some people attach more negative weight to "terrorism" as a word than others. This is more of a personal belief, shouldn't inform our editing here. I do think, however, that contextual, definitional and other variations in the extent to which the use of the words "terrorist group" is a pejorative suggests we should move away from color schemes as for some people recognizing a group as "terrorist"is dark green good vs just light green good, so to speak.Wickster12345 (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that different, connotation-free colors are the only way. The moment I saw that it was green/red, I knew I'd find a massive argument like this on the talk page. There's never going to be an agreement as to which should be red or green, ever, due to how polarized opinion is, so we have to make it neutral. LesbianTiamat (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree 100%, I think blue and yellow is pretty neutral, or we could do blue and light brown, in case yellow seems to suggest a negative connotation. Wickster12345 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replace jsor reference with open access one[edit]
with dindia (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already present as ref 392. Selfstudier (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decapitation claim debunked and not supported by srcs[edit]

Note 296-299 purported to be source for claim that Hamas decapitated children. One article specifically and at length repudiates this claim and the other three don't mention it. Plz remove the false claim. (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One-state solution[edit]

The one-state solution should be added to their ideology. Read the Hamas charter. Bakbik1234 (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's true that Hamas is not willing to accept a two-state solution. However, they mean they will not accept any Israeli or Jewish state. While Hamas is more complex than it's charter, they are a Muslim Brotherhood spinoff, so we can assume they reject equality among the religions. It is a fracture that occurred when Islamic reformers failed to convince the Brotherhood that Islam was no longer the world's dominant military power, and Muslims were no longer the "protector" of other religions. We assume that Hamas will not be satisfied with any other outcome. However, these are separate matters from what is discussed in the one-state solution article. That article is about a legitimate political proposal supported by some Jewish and Arab Israeli citizens that does not have anything to do with destroying the State of Israel or the Jewish state. Ben Azura (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]