Talk:Fatah–Hamas reconciliation process

Revert Background
, you made this revert with the sounding comment "unsourced biased political anti-Hamas manifest". You created this article on 12 October 2014‎ without further adding one iota. Please can you explaine your hollow cry that does not make any sense? I merely stated obvious facts, which are unchallenged and supported by links.

You make an absolute fool of yourself by calling the presentation of Hamas' position an "anti-Hamas manifest", so make a useful contribution or back off. --Qualitatis (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

International community
This phrase is used in the article but I question it's appropriateness. Does most of the world actually oppose the unification of Fatah-Hamas or is it just the usual anti-Palestine players who oppose a unified Palestinian government? Sepsis II (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As "most of the world" designate Hamas as a terrorist organization, this might be true but also not true. I"ll add a citation needed tag on "major parts of the international community" until I"ll find a proper source.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fatah–Hamas reconciliation process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/22/obama-lays-groundwork-peace-israel-palestinians
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304041427/http://blog.thejerusalemfund.org/2014/06/whos-who-in-new-pa-government.html to http://blog.thejerusalemfund.org/2014/06/whos-who-in-new-pa-government.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160413235627/http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/Israel%20Palestine/58_the_arab_israeli_conflict___to_reach_a_lasting_peace.pdf to http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/Israel%20Palestine/58_the_arab_israeli_conflict___to_reach_a_lasting_peace.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160127122237/http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-palestine/058-the-arab-israeli-conflict-to-reach-a-lasting-peace.aspx to http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-palestine/058-the-arab-israeli-conflict-to-reach-a-lasting-peace.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: 2017 talks Suggestion
Could an authorised editor (perhaps, or ) please add, or consider adding, the following edit under a new sub-section? 2017 talks In 2017 reconciliation talks led to an agreement whereby Hamas will cede control of Gaza’s civilian ministries and add 3,000 Palestinian Authority police officers in the enclave. The deal was organised under pressure from Qatar, the UAE and, especially, Egypt; however, according to The Economist, it “is likely to fail for the same sorts of reasons” as agreements of the past.


 * Yes sir! Ethanbas (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

2022 Agreement
Can an authorized user please add info about the 2022 Palestinian reconciliation agreement? Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

EI is not acceptable here
It is not written by subject matter experts (as far as I can tell), and the source is not to be used in this area, where it is particularly unreliable. FortunateSons (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Both authors are with Inter Press Service (https://www.ipsnews.net/author/khaled-moussa-al-omrani/ and https://www.ipsnews.net/author/adam-morrow/) and the article is a repost from that newsorg per statement at bottom of article "All rights reserved, IPS - Inter Press Service (2009). Total or partial publication, retransmission or sale forbidden" so I think that is OK. the source is not to be used in this area, where it is particularly unreliable ? Says who? What area? Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The unreliability of the source has been discussed at length in the RfC, with a significant amount of the Issues related to I/P. As contentious topics generally require a higher standard of sourcing, EI generally is not appropriate IMO.
 * I saw that, but couldn’t find the original article (that may be geographical or my search engine, but who knows). IPS does appear to be reliable and older EI is sometimes less bad, so if you find it from them and it wasn’t removed/retracted, I am happy for you to include the IPS version? FortunateSons (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to leave it the way it is, I guess you didn't get that part? Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I got that part. However, as an actual IPS source would address both of our issues, I think a second pair of eyes to look for it would be beneficial, don’t you? I can look for a different source for the same content and then replace based on source quality, but IPS has decent ratings, so if we find that, it would be optimal? FortunateSons (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my previous comment. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And I you to mine, I’ll look for a non-gunrel source unless you believe that this citation provides a unique benefit? FortunateSons (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The content EI is cited for is Fatah clings to adherence to the Quartet conditions, including recognition of Israel and focus on negotiations with Israel, while Hamas wants a majority in a new government and refuses to recognize Israel. Are you suggesting that they are not accurately representing what happened? Or is it that you think that any usage in anything related to Palestine is unreliable? Beyond that, it is a Convenience link for the IPS article. Anyway, you dont get to decide that a source may not be used in a topic area, that isnt how any of this works.  nableezy  - 18:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on the articles I’ve read in the last months, I wouldn’t trust them on their own for anything not verified by a third party unless written by an expert. If this is just a convenience link, it can stay, but someone needs to actually make sure they are identical, per “However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original, or not linked at all if such verification is not possible.” (From the essay). If you have access and can do it, it can stay (obviously not verifiable, but I’m going to trust your word if you give it). FortunateSons (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your level of trust isnt my concern. Nor is your belief that you are the arbiter of what can stay and what cannot. This is entirely non-objectionable content and I see no reason why EI isnt reliable in this context, even if it werent an IPS news article.  nableezy  - 18:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You cited the essay, I think it isn’t a unreasonable expectation that you actually make an effort to follow it. FortunateSons (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that EI is perfectly reliable to believe them that this is an IPS reprint and even if were EI staff writers that this instance, internal Palestinian politics, is an area where they are well-suited to be cited.  nableezy  - 19:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I believe to have found our issue: I consider this to be at the very least external-adjacent enough to be considered partially external with Israel, an area where their reliability has been disputed in the RfC. As I said above, if you have access and can verify that they are identical, I would consider the issue to be resolved. FortunateSons (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I dont think EI is unreliable for this material, or for saying that this is an IPS news report. As such I do not see any reason to go beyond including the EI link. That appears to be the majority view here, and if you dispute that view you can raise that at some noticeboard if you like.  nableezy  - 19:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)